Talk:Starchild skull/Archive 3

Copyright violations
Recently portions of text have been added that are obvious copyright violations from the Starchild site. I've protected the article from new users and IPs for a week. I've also started an SPI as the two editors today are obviously the same. I've included the recent IP editor. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims Vs. Anaylsis
I think there is some confusion about which information should be included in the sections of Claims and Analysis. Most of the information under Claims is actually a physical analysis of the skull, done by outside sources. This information should to be moved to Analysis because it is an analysis. The Starchild Project website should be the primary source for the Claims sections because it is they who are making the Claims. I believe that the chronology of the sections is correct, as one should be informed first about what the Project CLAIMS to be true, followed by the Anaylsis section which serves to support or refute the Claims by empirical evidence published in scientific papers. It is easy to include a disclaimer stating that none of the claims have been proven true, and it a necessity in order not to mislead anyone. Thus, any new research done by the Starchild Project should be included in the Claims sections, whether it has been written in a scientific paper or not. They have done extensive research, but due to the nature of the subject, they are probably going to refrain from publishing anything until they are absolutely certain. The information in the Claims section does not accurately reflect the entirety of the claims that the Starchild Project is making, except for the first sentence, and NOWHERE does it say that the combination of deformations would not allow a human to survive, which is a VITAL claim made by the Project. Nowhere does it included DNA test done by geneticist and compared the National Institute of Health's genetic database for comparison. Because these finding have not been published, then simply write a note at the beginning of the section: Note: None of the information provided in this section has been proven true. This way, everyone knows that this could be fake, but yet the claimed information is still being provided. Then, the Analysis can serve to support or refute claims made in the previous section. I hope the "big" editors will at least consider this objective alternative to intentionally leaving out important information on the Starchild Skull. Genius1442 (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the purpose of this article really to discuss a single website's view? I'd say only those bit s which have migrated elsewhere are notable enough to discuss. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Analysis: DNA Testing leaves out vital information on 2003 study.
In this section, both the 1999 DNA test and the 2003 Trace Genetics testing are present in the article, so this leads me to believe that they are both properly referenced. I am led to believe this because most of the arguments of the article include whether or not non-peer-reviewed data should be included. I highly suggest that the 2003 DNA testing be elaborated upon, as it has a large effect on the validity of the 1999 DNA test. In the 2003, they not only tried to recover mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), but they also attempted to extract nuclear DNA (nuDNA) from both the starchild skull and the female human skull. Recovering mtDNA showed that DNA recovery was possible and that the DNA was not degraded past the point of recovery. When they tested the human female skull for nuclear DNA, the first attempt gave them successful results. However, after six attempted to extract nuDNA from the Starchild Skull, they were unsuccessful. Why is that is nuDNA extraction from the female human skull was so easily recovered, yet the starchild skull was unsuccessful after six attempts? If this it true, the 1999 testing must have been a lie, as they should not have been able to extract nuDNA from the skull either. Both tests used primers, which are human generated strands that act as a lock-and-key, to bind to specific points in the DNA in order to recover strings of base pairs. For some reason, the primers used were unable to bind to the Starchild's nuDNA in order to recover it for study. This information needs to be included because as the article stands now, the 1999 test is considered completely valid. I don't see how nuDNA recovery was possible in the 1999 test if the 2003 was unable to recover nuDNA. If both of these test have proper sources, then this information MUST be included to ensure objectivity. Will someone please find the proper sourced information and add this to the article? Genius1442 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

LEAD
The lead needs to represent in proportion to what reliable sources have to say about the subject. As such, yes, it may seem one sided, but that is how WP:FRINGE theories wind up looking. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no reason why it needs to be prejudicial, though. If there is controversy over whether it is human, then why state that it is human, for example? The statement reads just fine without being prejudicial without making that assertion. And if such a claim has been proven, cite the proof. If the citation for the DNA evidence is what is described on the starchildproject.com website, then you cannot exclude additional DNA evidence from the same sources indicating it is NOT human. That is where the prejudice comes in. Additionally, researchers are not just "paranormal" researchers. I can't think of a good reason not to exclude that prejudicial qualifier. I will also note that the starchildproject.com website does not claim that the skull has extraterrestrial origins. It is simply open to that possibility. It is also open to an entirely terristrial origin. So stating that the researchers claim an extraterrestrial origin is yet again unnecessarily prejudicial. I'm actually inclined to believe it's entirely human in origin, but I haven't seen evidence to back that up yet. If you have such evidence, let's see it. Otherwise, don't make the assertion. Victor Engel (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there isnt "controversy" there are a few guys with some wacky claims that have been disproven by actual science. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the "actual science"? You keep saying that, but have yet to point it out. Victor Engel (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources cited in the article. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Very illuminating (not) -- you're further illustrating your bias. Very convenient, too, because, not citing your sources they can't be argued. What I'd like to see is a point by point list of items and evidence for each side. Victor Engel (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A "point by point list of items and evidence for each side" isn't appropriate since we don't give minority views equal validity with mainstream ones. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead seems to appropriately summarize the validated scientific claims made in the sources used in the article. I am not exactly sure what you are looking for. Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have stated several times something like "the validated scientific claims" but have never stated what they are. I believe you are referring to validations that have since been proven to be problematic, but I can't argue that unless I know what you are referring to. Why is it so hard for you to specify what validation you are referring to? I think you're afraid that you will lose traction on your biased agenda. 147.80.184.22 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I have stated: "the scientific claims stated in the sources used in the article." In reviewing ALL OF THEM the lead seems an accurate summary. If the content in the article has been later shown to be inaccurate, please provide the reliable sources that show that. Active Banana    (bananaphone  16:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please itemize them. Victor Engel (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One additional comment about starchildproject.com. It's not an appropriate source for scientific claims. The plethora of self-promotion, seeking donations, movie deals, etc. contained in it may however qualify it as a spam site. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Benjaminps, 17 May 2011
Please cite the DNA claims of the Starchild web site. It is so basic to understanding what this whole issue is all about. The URL is: http://www.starchildproject.com/dna2011march.htm

Benjaminps (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What specifically do you want the article to state, and where do you want to include it? Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Starchildproject.com doesn't meet our criteria for a reliable or independent source. Is there a WP:RS secondary source that discusses Starchildproject.com's claims? In other words, have these claims received any notice in academia or reputable media? If so, we can include those claims that are most notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Then shouldn't all the other references to that website be removed? It doesn't seem appropriate to pick and choose which items are referenced on starchildproject.com. Victor Engel (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't blame people for trying to source material directly to the primary source (Pye's website) as there are few WP:RS secondary sources that cover Pye's claims in detail. However it's probably best to begin trimming the article to reflect only what is covered in reliable secondary sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a biology student and I am able to identify, that if some discoveries like this are fake (which they are in 99%) within a few glances - but with this skull, it's a bit different, because its really hard to find an explanation for its' appearence - maybe this discovery belongs to the interesting 1% left. It still can turn out, that it is some kind of mutation - but then it remains really hard to explain, why this skull had been found in a deep mine hole. I would recommend the authors that they may integrate the evidences of the newest genetical researches on the skull's DNA. --138.232.251.21 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This here is new evidence that sceptic watchdogs on this page would tediously call 'independent and reliable'. This link is just as worthy of being on the page as all the other disparaging DNA tests from the early noughties that have been quoted.The DNA test in this link is far more modern and if it isnt included by the people who have the decision then they are abusing their position (if it can even be called that), and double standards are clearly at work, as they are selecting information that best supports their own views and ignoring other contradictory information. http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2010/03/lloyd-pye-update-we-finally-have-a-recovery-of-nuclear-dna-from-the-starchild-skull-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.151.195 (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That source is a blog, and as such, unacceptable as a reliable source here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read it, you would see that while a blog is hosting the information, the information itself is from an independent labratory.So we have information from a reliable source, why is it being selectively chosen to be omitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.142.107 (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS, which probably differs from what you mean by a reliable source. As an aside, I see no mention of an independent laboratory, just some anonymous "geneticist working on the Starchild's DNA".. When it's published in a scientific journal we can report that. Until then, we can't. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Concern Over Reverting of Valid Edits
I've been editing on Wikipedia for close to seven years now. I've no personal stake in this topic, but never before have I seen so many disputes over valid edits on a paranormal topic. We are interested in verifiable sources, not personal opinions, pro or con. In an attempt to create a more coherent lead and remain consistent with the evidence available I utilized terminology that would hopefully be acceptable to both sides. One editor who has a somewhat contentious history outlined on this talk page has reverted each of my edits, and in one case reverted an entire paragraph even though s/he disagreed with merely one word. This is disturbing. No single individual should ever have unquestioning control over an article. No individual owns any Wikipedia article. Information and knowledge belongs to humanity. Looking at the data objectively one study has established that the skull contained human DNA, but other research has called into question this conclusion. At this point it seems they are equally weighted, but there is what appears to be an effort to remove information, sources, and citations that call into question the conclusions of the study. It is my hope that there are a sufficient number of objective individuals involved in editing this article who will stand by proper protocol. StickyWikis &#124;  talk  &mdash;  04:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your effort to write that in an objective style, seemingly somewhat removed from the controversy and not naming anyone, makes it hard to tell what your concern actually is. Exactly what is the source you claim needs to be given equal weight? (There was no source associated with your most recent edit.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with HiLo48. The recent rollbacks of your edits were appropriate. The edit back to "human" corresponds to reliable-source evidence. That and the rest of your edit give undue weight to a fringe belief, one not supported by any sources listed. -Porlob (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The very essence of "Starchild Skull" is a "fringe" topic to start with. The very nature of this item is its identification with that fringe belief.  The "Starchild Skull" has no relevance outside of its context. The only part of the edit that could in any way be seen as giving undue weight is the statement "although this conclusion has been disputed by other researchers", but it remains a valid point for it is indeed disputed. Edits to data is acceptable, removing edits wholesale is not usually good practice.  If there is a dispute with a statement you reform it, change/edit a word(s), etc...  StickyWikis  &#124;  talk  &mdash;  05:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot give some sort of equal weighting to both proper scientific work, and some totally non-scientific, crackpot material. If you want to simply describe the phenomenon of some people seeing the skull as a fantasy alien, unsupported by real science, then feel free to do so with whatever sources you like, but then you would leave real science out of it entirely. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is correct. But perhaps you are unaware of the controversy over the DNA testing, how the DNA was acquired, etc...  For the record, I have no vested interest in this topic.  Personally, I think the whole thing is ridiculous and is merely a deformed human skull add to that the details surrounding its discovery are suspect.  But this article is poorly written, does not contain sufficient citations, too many editors acting like they own the article, and a virtual edit war between those who are trying hard to maintain "it's human stupid" and those who say "the evidence is shaky idiot" ... you get the idea.  This article needs a LOT of work, and infighting isn't going to make it so.  Editors need to work together to find consensus rather than force their views upon other editors or to pretend to somehow represent Wikipedia in some official capacity.  StickyWikis  &#124;  talk  &mdash;  03:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pye's recent website rebuttals regarding the DNA testing are not considered 'controversy' until they are reported in reliable secondary sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as McGeddon ably points out below, saying "X believes A, but Y says B, but X disputes this" (as in this edit) has a totally redundant final clause and this part of your edit at least was correctly reverted. GDallimore (Talk) 22:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article already has "claimed by some paranormal researchers to be the product of extraterrestrial-human breeding or genetic manipulation" right there in the lead sentence; it seems redundant to phrase the lead as "skull is claimed to be alien by paranormal researchers, but DNA testing show it's just human, but paranormal researchers dispute this".
 * Your rewording from "is human" to "shows human lineage" seems inaccurate - the cited source says "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well". And I'm not sure where "genetic manipulation" comes in, as this does not appear to be mentioned in the article body. I don't see that any part of your edit adds to the accuracy of the article, so a wholesale revert seems fair enough in this case. --McGeddon (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While you're right that the "Starchild skull" is primarily notable due to the fringe claims made about it, it is important that Wikipedia deal in information from reliable sources. To date, no such source has been provided that indicates the skull is anything but human. Only that it has been claimed to be so. When we start talking about what "researchers" have found, it's important we hold ourselves to a different standard of evidence than when we talk about claims, and this article does that well at the moment. If you have found other Wikipedia articles that haven't held up this standard, then those articles need attention as well. -Porlob (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, to quote someone wise on issues like this, "There is absolutely zero evidence for this or any related interpretation. The only sources that exist for this interpretation come from conspiracy websites... and each of them in turn reference each other rather than reliable third parties or respected researchers. The evidence for these interpretations however is completely lacking and highly dubious. To make matters worse, those who believe these unproven theories often become defensive when you tell them it is an invention and unproven and will then accuse you of being part of the larger conspiracy. The fact is these fanciful interpretations should not be mentioned at all (unless it became widespread and notable) because anyone can make a claim on a webpage but that doesn't make it valid. The web is filled with rumors masquerading as fact, some more popular than others, but most not notable enough to mention on Wikipedia." ;) -Porlob (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't help that Pye is openly encouraging supporters to use sock puppets to edit Wikipedia articles in his favor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look to me like he's encouraging it. Rather he's throwing his arms up in frustration that those efforts would be futile. Victor Engel (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He's clearly frustrated, but it's unambiguous encouragement ("I also recommend that you use a dummy account, what Wikipedia calls "sock puppeting" to avoid having your primary account suspended should "they" take offense at your edits and block you.") - it's also very bad advice, as sockpuppetry is a "serious breach of community trust" and will get any primary account banned along with it. Wikipedia doesn't blocks people it "takes offense" at, it blocks people who repeatedly make edits against policy. Any visitor from Pye's site who wishes to improve the article using reliable sources is entirely welcome to. --McGeddon (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow I missed that part. I'll take your word for it that it's there, since I have no interest in confirming it.Victor Engel (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking over Pye's essay, it's clear to me he needs to read WP:OR and WP:FRINGE a bit more closely. If he did he might realize that it's not "biased editors" that are blocking his efforts - it's Wikipedia's core policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that I stumbled on this article at the worst possible time. For the record, I am not connected to, know, or have ever heard of Pye, his website or anyone connected to him, pro or con.  I stumbled on this article while doing some light reading on the UFO phenomenon and the Disclosure Project after having watched a video on YouTube.  It was a bit of a convoluted path admittedly.  StickyWikis  &#124;  talk  &mdash;  05:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Timing probably has little to do with it. This article is a victim of a combination of things that wikipedia doesn't handle well -- the topic is not mainstream and there is no consensus. Unfortunately, since it's not mainstream, there is unlikely ever to be a consensus. Peer reviewed articles discussing the skull, something sorely needed for wikipedia articles, are unlikely to ever exist because of the nature of the topic. Victor Engel (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not a member or familiar with the format so please forgive me if this text is not formatted properly. Through a blog post I recently became aware that a group of conspiracy nuts has been repeatedly trying to vandalize this page with pseudoscience and enlisting others to do the same. I thank whoever has been watching it for their diligent reversions and respectfully request that this page be protected.


 * you might want to read Protection policy. There is no need for protection since there is no persistent vandalism or significant content dispute. GDallimore (Talk) 12:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the Starchild Skull's DNA established as Human-only?

 * Im new to editing in Wikipedia, and I'm learning the protocol as I go along. I apologize if some of my edits seemed irksome. This was not my intent. I'm fully aware of the odd nature of the skull and understand that this is an article about claims of real life "ALIENS". I know that these types of topics can get quite heated on the internet. I simply ask that everyone please leave all biases and assumptions at the door.


 * As I mentioned in the revision history, human DNA recovery is the only conclusive find in both DNA tests mentioned in the article. The second test mentioned was indeed unable to recover nuclear DNA, which makes it impossible to conclude human-only origin. Naturally it would be incorrect to state that DNA test established it as human (assuming this means human-only origin), when one of the DNA tests mentioned in the article wasn't even able to recover nuclear DNA from the "starchild" skull. It would be more correct to simply state human DNA was recovered from the skull, since this is indeed what occurred in both DNA tests mentioned in the article. With respect to the odd nature of the skull and it's claimed properties, the only way to undeniably claim human-only origin in the article is with a Full genome sequencing analysis. Anything else leaves doubt of possible "ALIEN"(or something) DNA sequences which older DNA profiling methods can not account for. With rapidly lowering cost of full genome sequencing services, it shouldn't take long before there is a proper analysis of the starchild skull which this article can reference. TongueD (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What sources are you using for your information? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer: Yes. GDallimore (Talk) 00:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't jump to conclusions. The evidence simply isn't there. We can only go by information provided by Steven Novella and Lloyd Pye in regards to the DNA lab tests. Unfortunately this article has no primary sources for either DNA test mentioned. Steven Novella mentions the first DNA test was conducted by a forensic lab (Bureau of Legal Dentistry) but does not mention what year. Pye says it was conducted in 1999, which is ancient history in the fast moving field of DNA testing. Forensic labs of this time only employed DNA profiling methods. Please read to understand how this method can not conclusively state if there is "alien" or other non-human DNA located in any of the chromosomes. Only newer and much more expensive Full genome sequencing can say with authority the make-up of the entire genome. This really isn't a controversial point. Please read both entries to understand why. The only source of information for the second 2003 DNA test (by Trace Genetics) can only be found in Pye's starchild website..unless I missed something. It looks like he simply copy/pasted the actual report done by Trace Genetics, or it could be that Pye made up the whole thing. Either way, it clearly states the nuclear DNA could not be recovered.TongueD (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm accepting the evidence and opinion of experienced scientists at face value, while you are ignoring the evidence in an attempt to justify your totally baseless pre-conceptions. A finding of "human male" does not go out of date even if better techniques are identified subsequently.
 * This is a boring conversation anyway surrounding one of the most ridiculous fringe topics I've ever come across. Thanks to those people who voted to keep this article in the past so I could have this laugh now. GDallimore (Talk) 12:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it seems like you're the one pushing a pre-conception...and Im sorry, but what evidence? Where are the actual lab reports? . There are none available by the actual labs, nor published in any peer reviewed journal. All we have are opinions of two men from 3rd party websites. We shouldn't be willing to take anyone's word at face value without some proof. These DNA tests are no better than claims at this point.98.200.188.62 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're not familiar with the encyclopedia's policies. There are a lot of them, so be prepared to do some reading. They require reliable secondary sources and discourage primary sources and original research based on such sources, especially in the case of extraordinary claims such as a skull purported to be of an alien/human baby. Also WP:FRINGE compels us not to give undue weight to claims that have gotten little or no notice by mainstream academia. In the case of this article, we cite a reliable academic that represents the scientific orthodoxy's position on the matter, stating that the skull is from a human male. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The "extraordinary claims" line sprang to my mind, too. But then I realised that the claims for the starchild skull aren't remotely extraordinary, they're something else altogether. To misquote Sagan: "ludicrous claims require SOME evidence". GDallimore (Talk) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware on WP stance on primary resources. Either way, for the DNA lab reports, this article still doesn't have any reliable secondary sources from scientific peer reviewed journals. Without them, the lab results are still no better than claims unfortunately, yet they are being treated as legitimate scientific analysis in this article.TongueD (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation requests
I've removed them as we don't need a link to the primary sources, the sources given pass our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Templates shouldn't be removed without a consensus. The article lacks sufficient citations and inline citations.  You seem to be acting as though you are a representative of Wikipedia, and that is also not a good thing to do my friend.   StickyWikis  &#124;  talk  &mdash;  03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll add my voice to the sentiment that the article, as it stand at this time, is well-sourced. The citation requests are an artifact of a when this article was full of conjecture that was unsourced, poorly-supported by sources, or supported by poor sources. Sticky, what areas do you feel need improved citation? -Porlob (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article sorely lacks any credible sources from peer reviewed journals for DNA lab results or analysis of the actual skull. Yet information in the analysis section is being treated as established facts. Honestly, all information I've found on the Starchild skull is poorly supported.TongueD (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a reliable source. GDallimore (Talk) 23:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Victor Engel (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why this isn't reliable? GDallimore (Talk) 22:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The most obvious reason is its obvious bias. One need go no further than the book's title to find its bias. If it refers to research, it seems to me references to that very research would be better references. Victor Engel (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is by a mainstream archaeologist and published by a reliable firm that publishes many reference books, ABC-CLIO. There can be no doubt that it is the type of source we should be looking for and that is required by WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. You can ask at WP:RSN but the fact that by an expert on this subject who is critical of dubious archaeology is not a reason to reject it. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And he dismisses the claims with no supporting evidence or argument. He doesn't address Pye's points explaining why it can't be hydrocephaly, for example. There is also no mention of the odd features like low density and odd inclusions in the bone. It's nothing more than an editorial. Victor Engel (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother entering the discussion of whether there is bias in the source or not. It's totally irrelevant to the issue of whether it's reliable. And there's nothing to suggest it isn't reliable. The original research can be referenced if it was reliably published, if not, this WP:SECONDARY source is the best option. GDallimore (Talk) 22:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the entry? It reads like it's simply the author's first impression of the skull. It doesn't look like he's actually spent any time studying it. If this is the best source, I would suggest that a good source does not exist. Victor Engel (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous
This article has become heavily biased through technicalities and ignorance. It's built around the results of only one DNA test conducted on the skull over 10 years ago, not taking into account that fact that DNA testing technology has advanced leaps and bounds over the past decade, and that there have been several subsequent studies. Why are the 2003, 2010, and (most importantly) 2011 tests not cited? Because the only information regarding the research appeared in sources that WP (and skeptics) consider "unreliable" i.e. full of 'wack-job' nonsense. WP is supposed to be of neutral bias, but since paranormal research publications, websites, and other media - regardless of the content, popularity, and credibility - are largely dismissed, it seems impossible that this or any other article regarding alleged paranormal subject matter will ever truly be unbiased. I'm astounded that The Fortean Times is considered a reliable (and singularly citable) source in regards to the 1999 results, with all of the 'wack-jobs' that contribute to it's content. Zargabaath (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Fortean times is used ONLY in the section about claims about the skull and it's disovery, not scientific findings. The source you linked to was a self-published summary and link to Pye's self-published research, therefore totally unreliable - even more so than Fortean times. GDallimore (Talk) 17:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The perspective of the last two posters was precisely the reason for my reversion. The source was simply a very poor front for a hopelessly biased primary source. HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also note from the starchild article that their researchers are not ready to publish yet. If they don't think they have enough evidence, who are we to argue? GDallimore (Talk) 21:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. The case of the Starchild skull is fundamentally disadvantaged here because all of the research and findings pertaining to the subject are published in media and on websites that you all consider "unreliable." What is so unreliable about Pye disclosing the findings of legitimate geneticists? Pye is the driving force behind the continued research into the skull, not because he is bent on finding an alien artifact, but rather because (despite what haphazzard and out-dated tests concluded) it is a genuine anomoly. Furthermore, how are the opinions of a NESS representative considered "reliable" enough to be cited on this article? It's all too easy for skeptics cry "pseudoscience" without taking into account that the studies are completely legitimate and that there are credible scientists working on the case. In regards to the researchers "not being ready to publish," that's true in regards to the complete 2011 results. However, that doesn't change the fact that there were still 2 studies completed in 2003 and 2010 that are not referenced in the article. The entire article is just a fallacy. Zargabaath (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a problem with guideline on identifying reliable resources, which everyone here is applying. It would probably more productive for you to try to discuss changing the guideline if you see a fundamental flaw there, rather than asking everyone else to ignore what the guideline says because you don't like the result here on this talk page. Yobol (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Zargabaath - Your last sentence up there is significant. You say "The entire article is just a fallacy." On the balance of probabilities, the whole "starchild" story is a fallacy. No mainstream area of science has picked it up. It's almost certainly either a con, or very bad science. I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but for a claim from so far out in left field we need multiple excellent mainstream sources. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a good point here. Is the New England Skeptic Society reliable? We're getting dangerously close to this not meeting the general notability guidelines if it isn't since the Time blog is definitely not reliable since it's a circular reference to this very article. I'm going to remove that one. GDallimore (Talk) 22:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Skeptical Society and Novella are, I believe, reliable sources for this article. Dougweller (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the TIME blog. I broached the subject at WP:RSN a while ago, and got an ambiguous reaction. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, the problem as I see it is that it's a post which only quotes other people. It quotes the starchild website and it quotes wikipedia, with essentially no editorial content at all. So it's worthless as a source, even if it is reliable, since if you're going to include the info from starchild, you might as well go direct to the source since Time directly quoting it doesn't make it any more reliable! GDallimore (Talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a problem in that Starchild Skull barely meets WP:N guidelines to merit its own article. As far as I can see, other than NESS, Feder's book is the only one that gives it in-depth attention. Other WP:RS such as the Chicago Tribune only give it passing mention among other oddities. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yobol - Apparently you have a problem with the guideline as well. It stipulates that "material based purely on primary sources should be avoided," not that primary sources should be avoided altogether. Recent findings about the skull have been published on several reputable paranormal websites (which are "unreliable" solely because they deal with the paranormal), as well as discussed on the nationally syndicated radio program Coast to Coast AM (also "unreliable"); however, the foremost source for the findings remains (and will as long as mainstream media openly denounces paranormal research) The Starchild Project website, which is not cited whatsoever. HiLo48 - Your comments speak volumes as well. The scientists currently working the case are credible and unbiased, and their findings are explained at length via the Starchild Project site. Believe it or not, I too am skeptical about the case, but at least I am open to all of the information rather than just the skeptical stuff. I also find it ironic that you call up the possibility of "bad science," when by merit of the developments made in DNA processing over the past decade, the oldest and most unreliable of the tests on the skull is the highest regarded in this article. Regardless, I believe that all of the testing in the case should be disclosed in order for the article to be accurate. As it is, the article is misinformation. Zargabaath (talk) 11:12, 04 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When the reputable scientists associated with starchild are ready to publish their results in a reliable source, then those results can be reported here. Simple as. Until very recently, Starchild was used as a source for some of the claims made about the skull, this being one of the situations where primary soures can be used. However, because there are secondary sources repeating the key claims, it's of no loss to the article at all that starchild is no longer used as a source directly. It is not used, and should not be used in my view, as a source of any "corroborative" data to support those claims because that would be a situation where primary sources are cearly not appropriate. GDallimore (Talk) 17:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. When they are confident enough to publish in peer-reviewed journals, then we can use that. I hadn't realised until I looked just now that the project is seeking funds and hoping to make at least $7 million profit on investment. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

frontal sinuses
In the claims section it is stated that "[t]here are no frontal sinuses". However, it is perfectly normal that frontal sinuses are not discernable in human four-year-olds. Why mentioning it? 92.224.11.141 (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think when it was first mentioned, it was unknown how old the child was at the time of death. In that case, it would be possibly relevant. Victor Engel (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Fortean Times mentioned it. If you have a reliable source backing your position up, then I think it's worth removing as not worthy of mention - just another in a long list of silly reasons why this skull might not be human. GDallimore (Talk) 13:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Take any Otolaryngology textbook - there is a reason why sinusitis of the frontal sinus is very unusual in children younger than six (e.g., http://www.schattauer.de/fileadmin/assets/buecher/Musterseiten/9783794522644_kap14_4.pdf): there is not much there for a proper inflammation 92.224.29.238 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, that "[t]he back of the skull is flattened" is not very special either. Even in our western society people have that, as not long ago it was thought that Sudden infant death syndrome was connected to infants sleeping face down. So, caretakers always turned their infants on the back. 92.224.29.238 (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

news sources
http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2011/10/21/ufo-science-and-consciousness-conference-in-jozi

http://techland.time.com/2010/04/21/cryptids-the-starchild-skull/ According to Pye, the skull features the following anomalous characteristics:


 * The skull's bone is about half as thick as normal human bone.


 * The bone weighs about half as much as normal human bone.


 * The bone is substantially stronger than any known bone on planet Earth, with a mineral profile more like dental enamel than bone.


 * The skull is morphologically unique, and does not match the physical profile of any known human deformity.


 * The bone of the skull contains an as yet unidentified reddish residue that had never been seen before in bone (this is not desiccated bone marrow).


 * The bone of the skull contains microscopic fibers that have never been seen before in the bone of any animal.

This is what Pye says of course, the data isn't public and I'm not aware of any other proponent. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * After recent edit saying "go read the daily mail", I went and read the daily mail (shudder). My personal view is that this trash rag can never be considered a reliable source, but it does add some things I haven't seen before to the story including another possible interpretation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2063486/Alien-skull-Peru-Mystery-giant-headed-mummy-city-Andahuaylillas.html . Can/should any of this be added?
 * By the way, whatever you might think of the daily mail, it doesn't support the recently reverted edit the anon made when they mentioned it. GDallimore (Talk) 12:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a completely different skull, yes? (It was found in Peru, and looks nothing like the Starchild skull image in this article.) We'd have to wait for someone to draw parallels or write about the wider subject of anomalous skeletal remains, before mentioning it in this article or rewriting it as a more general "anomalous skulls in history" article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could find no articles specifically referencing the Starchild skull at the Daily Mail. But as indicated, it's likely uncontroversial to say we should treat anything from the Daily Mail with extreme skepticism anyway. -Porlob (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops. I got confused by the reader comments. Yes, it has nothing to do with the starchild... GDallimore (Talk) 17:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

New addition
A new editor had added information cited to this website, which does not qualify as a reliable source for a statement of fact. I would encourage the new editor to read WP:FRINGE as well. Yobol (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There's some problem with the LEAD, we can't state this skull as human, as we can't state this skull as not human, so the article should say on it's LEAD something like: "The Starchild skull is an abnormal skull". If you say it's an human skull you are biasing it to some point we don't have any reliable sources to verify.

Can this DNA from 2012 be placed in the "DNA testing" section? There's two DNA tests there that don't have peer review or anything else you claim is needed, so what the problem to place this test there? ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subkelvin (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We can certainly say it is human as the sources in the article say it is human. We use independent sources here, which that skeptic link qualifies for, and the starchildskull website does not. WP:PARITY would be something to read as well. I know this is a lot of policy to read through but it is necessary to adequately and appropriately treat WP:FRINGE topics well. Yobol (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, responding to a comment made in the edit summary, both sides of the story ARE put across in the lead and in the article: A small group of "researchers" say it's paranormal, the reliable evidence says otherwise. Don't say both sides aren't put across (when they clearly are) just because the side you happen to support isn't given precedence. GDallimore (Talk) 19:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

DNA tests from 2012
There was some new tests made in 2012 that showed some evidence about a mutation in the FOXP2 gene reinforcing the hybrid theory on this skull and showing some problems with a "human-only" statement, can this information be added to the article? --Subkelvin (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A mutation in that specific gene (FOXP2) would not make the person a mutant or a hybrid or possible alien interloper any more than a small random gene flip would in any other gene. Find an iron clad peer reviewed mainstream source stating any of the more outlandish hypothesis are even likely before even attempting to add it to the article.  He  iro 18:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go as far as Hieronymous, but a source which comes vageuely close to WP:Reliable is still my minimum entry requirement. GDallimore (Talk) 19:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of Date & Incorrect Information
I've recently read summaries of the DNA test results published by Mr Pye which have been obtained during the past 13 years. The results are described as; verifiable and, reproducible. I have also communicated with Mr Pye on this subject to some extent. It is apparent that the information on the Wiki page is out of date, exceedingly inaccurate and, needs to be updated to accurately reflect current knowledge on the subject matter.

Anyone wishing to avail themselves of more accurate and up to date information would do better to read the comprehensive information published by Mr Pye on his website.

Additionally, when I read Mr Pyes documentation, it is obvious he is not claiming anything as alluded to in the Wiki article, he is merely reiterating the results of more up to date genetic testing which seem to indicate that; The Skull, according to the current DNA analysis, cannot be classified as human. Especially interesting is the sequencing of the FoxP2 Gene which has been partially completed. See following excerpt of Mr Pyes findings:

Quote from Mr Pyes Publication ''Recall that in the 16,569 base pairs found in the mtDNA genome of normal humans, as many as 120 variations can be found in the first of us, southern Africans. That percentage of difference is quite small, only 0.7%. Compare that with the FOXP2 gene, which in normal humans is 2,594 base pairs long, and contains no variations. 0%! None! Nada! Every normal human has the exact same array of FOXP2 base pairs as every other normal human.

This is not to say mutations never occur in FOXP2. They can and do, and a number of them have been found. However, every mutation is debilitating in some way, and because FOXP2 is vitally important to so many bodily functions, most mutations in it will cause termination of life. When termination does not occur, the mutation’s impact on its host is usually severe.

In one well-studied mutation in the section of the gene that influences speech development mechanisms in humans, those who inherit it will never be able to speak. This has led some to suggest FOXP2 is a language gene, or a speech gene, but that is not the case. Speech is much too complex an arrangement of working parts to be so simply controlled, although a properly functioning FOXP2 gene is an essential part of the speech-development equation.

The key point to understand is that while a tiny amount of survivable mutations are possible in FOXP2, every one that occurs presents debilitating or life-threatening consequences, so to this point in time none have been passed on to the general population of humans. Therefore, in the vast, vast majority of humans, the FOXP2 master gene is absolutely identical. With that said, let’s examine the fragment of Starchild Skull FOXP2 sequenced by our geneticist. Of the entire 2,594 base pairs of the normal FOXP2 gene, our fragment is 211 base pairs that come from a segment near the center of the gene. If the same 211 base pair section were isolated from any normal human, every base pair would be exactly the same as what is found in any other human. There would be no difference in any of them.

Okay, ready….brace yourselves. The Starchild’s 211 base pair FOXP2 fragment has a grand total of 56 variations! Now, while extrapolating this 211 base pair fragment is a bit more of a stretch than extrapolating the four combined fragments of mtDNA we discussed earlier, doing so does provide something to think about. Divide 2,954 by 211, and you get 12.3. Multiply 12.3 by 56, and the range of total variations in the Starchild’s FOXP2 base pairs would be 600 to 700! So let’s be crazy conservative and say it’s only 200 or 300. It is still astounding in a super highly conserved gene that in normal humans has no variations at all!

If we compare the same section from a rhesus monkey’s FOXP2, only 2 of its 211 base pairs would vary from any human. If it were a mouse, it would be 20. If a dog, 27. An elephant, 21. An opossum, 21. A Xenopus (a kind of frog), 26. So dogs and frogs are the most different, at 27 and 26 base pairs respectively.'' End Quote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsquix58 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia depends on information from reliable, independent sources. Mr Pye's own website is not regarded as a reliable, independent source for Mr Pye's discoveries. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm not totally clear on how these articles are managed but, as the maintainer of this Wiki Page is it not your responsibility to obtain up to date and verifiable information? I'm merely commenting on the information which I can find which conflicts with what is published in the Wiki article. Mr Pye might provide certified copies of actual test result documents if he was approached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsquix58 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right that we should use modern and verifiable information, but Wikipedia does not use self-published sources. If Pye has published his findings in a journal, had them written about by mainstream press, or if we can show that he has been published in sufficiently reliable third-party publications to be considered an "expert" in genome sequencing, then Wikipedia can quote his findings, but self-published non-expert research is not considered to be a reliable source. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct the article!!!
Please, correct this article on the basis of this: The Starchild Project - Mistakes in the Wikipedia. Yes, they offend Wikipedia, but if you correct this article, they stop offending Wikipedia.

176.101.83.10 (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry for my bad English, but I'm Polish.
 * Based on that link? No. See WP:NOR, for starters.  He  iro 17:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As in the thread above, Wikipedia does not use self-published sources by writers who have not previously been published by reliable third-party publications. --McGeddon (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather small article
For a topic with so much debate around it, it's a rather small article. Obviously if people have so many debates over it, there is a lot of information available on the topic, why is it so small then? For a website about "human knowledge" it sure is lacking. At least allow a section explaining the huge controversy surrounding the topic. Judicier (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have at it man. If you have information which is not your opinion, or the opinion of crackpots, and which is referenced to reliable sources, then add it to the article. Moriori (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not go into throwing around "crackpot" insinuations about anything. We don't need to belittle anyone to explain why this article is at it is. Self-published stuff isn't acceptable source material whether it's crackpot or not. The alleged controversial debates going on are on blogs, interweb forums, places like that. Nothing is being debated in any peer-reviewed journal or even a website or news source with good editorial overview. That's the criteria for inclusion, not personal views over whether something is a big deal, or controversial, or a crackpot idea, or anything else. GDallimore (Talk) 10:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have taken four lines to say basically what I said in one line -- "......information which is not your opinion, or the opinion of crackpots, and which is referenced to reliable sources....." No insinuation at all -- there are crackpots. "Reliable sources" -- do not include self published.  Moriori (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 December 2012
This article is indicating that the researchers have been discredited, however there is ongoing research with regards to this and it should be indicated by the wiki article - along with all the research done.

Mishaddia (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it passes WP:RELIABLE and WP:FRINGE, point the way. If it doesn't, well..... We are an encyclopedia, not a place to promote or publish fringe nonsense not vetted by mainstream science.  He  iro 01:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are there no references to the visible physical characteristics of the skull? The most obvious being the abscence of a brow ridge, which hydrocephaly and progeria does not cause, the shallow eye sockets, the absence of sinuses and the absence of an inion??? I dont beleive sources are required to inform of obvious visible characteristics72.38.126.138 (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious to whom? Read the policies on WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:FRINGE, end of story, period.  He  iro 16:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Obvious to anyone who has seen the skull. THAT is the end of story. Funny how your policies are conveniently tailored to your benefit of obstructing the truth. Yes that`s right. The truth is out there for anyone wishing to know it. You will definitely not find it on this one-sided site72.38.126.138 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Truth" is not valid grounds for adding material, dont like it, dont come here.  He  iro 16:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Boy you sure know how to dig yourself a hole. I always thought this site was a great source for finding truth, oh how I was wrong. As a fact, I dont like it, I cannot see anyone who would. Also as a fact, I wont come anymore72.38.126.138 (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I lied. I am back. I am going to petition that this article is changed. I will get as many people as I can to come on here to insist this. We know we are right. We will make "The Truth" valid72.38.126.138 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Off wiki canvassing for such nonsense is a sure way to get your IP and that of any one else who shows up blocked and the article locked. So go right ahead, knock yourself out, lol.  He  iro 18:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

DNA Tests
I have seen more recent DNA test results. Why is this article only making reference to the one done in 1999? It seems to me that the author is being very selective and is not sharing all available DNA test. It looks like some vital information is being withheld. Billions of dollars are being spent looking for signs of life throughout the Universe when the answer could be right here on Earth. 70.161.87.223 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are those DNA tests from peer reviewed scientific sources or some self published fringe website? If peer reviewd by reliable scientific sources, provide a link and let other editors here evaluate them, remember all material included in the article must pass WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:FRINGE.  He  iro 05:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It wont matter what the source is. Mr. Pye has revealed sources more credible than the 1999 student DNA results which were contaminated, however this site will insist until its blue in the face that recent findings are not credible, when they are undeniably more credible if you take the time to ACTUALLY SEE where they come from. Because it is Mr. Pye who is directing these findings, that is enough of a basis for this site to call them not credible. It is an absolute and undeniable VENDETTA against one individual. History has seen this attitude many times. They shunned the theory that the earth was not flat, they shunned Darwin, Einstein, etc. The list is endless. I am surprised our evolution has gotten this far when there are attitudes like the one's expressed in this site72.38.126.138 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Every educated person knew that the earth was a sphere for over 2000 years, the Church taught it in universities. Pye isn't doing these tests himself I believe, so if it's being done by reputable labs they should be able to publish. There's no way we are going to accept Pye's word on DNA anymore than we would accept any other amateur's word. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just like every person fully educated on the Starchild Skull is sure of ITS origin. My comparison is to those who shunned this idea of the world being round. Also, take notice to the fact you had no argument against the comparison to Darwin and Einstein. Pye`s word doesnt have to be taken, but because he is associated to this subject, you wont take the word of the reputable Labs & Geneticists and their findings. And don`t forget the fact that this site refuses to mention in any detail, all of the visible physical characteristics of the skull. You wont even mention that this further testing has taken place or the massive controversy surrounding this subject, which is undeniable TRUTH. Oh yes, I forgot. This site is not interested in the Truth, as I have been directly told by an editor.72.38.126.138 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Read this short essay "The Truth™". Then read our policies on WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. We are not here to publish "The Truth" as you believe it, but verifiable information. You find sources that can pass those policies and we can include the information. These policies do not just apply to this one article, but to the entire encyclopedia, every damn article. We don't make exceptions for non peer reviewed pseudoscientific nonsense just because you believe it is THE TRUTH.  He  iro 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Darwin's theories were first disseminated by the most highly respected scientific societies and publishers of the time…Einstein's by the world's most prestigious physics journal. I don't think you can compare them to Lloyd Pye's self-published books and PayPal donation-soliciting web sites. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

More recent testing has been done on the skull, that fact HAS been VERIFIED, whether the findings have or not. As Ive mentioned before, your policies are geared to your own benefit and agenda, and believe me, I KNOW that it applies to all articles, which is why this article is NOT the ONLY one scrutinized by your "policies". As also Ive mentioned, this is the same sort of primitive thinking that has slowed the pace of the evolution of thinking and science. I thought everyone now-a-days knows to learn from history as to not keep repeating those mistakes. I guess I was wrong. I agree that not all of Pye's claims have been verified, but nobody here has given me an answer as to why all of the characteristics, visible to anyone, have not been mentioned on this page. These characteristics totally debunk any claim that the skull was that of a human who suffered from progeria and/or hydrosephaly. Look it up, those diseases cause the skull peices to split at the seams, yet the Starchild has no such features. A 3 year old can see this.72.38.126.138 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:What Wikipedia is not, we are not here to counter "the same sort of primitive thinking that has slowed the pace of the evolution of thinking and science." We are here to create a encyclopedia, a compendium of reliably sourced and verified information. We are not here to promote the pseudoscientific musings of Pye or give our amateur evaluations of an artifact. Find reliable sources, or drop it.  He  iro 18:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinions are not valid, correct? Well your opinions on Pye being an amateur (which calling someone who has studied every aspect and characteristic of the skull for well over a decade seems like a pretty pathetic opinion) and other rediculous names you have given him, and your opinion on this being pseudoscience seem to be quite valid to you. Also, who asked you to counter the primitive thinking. I`m just saying you should think outside the box and look at all the evidence with an objective view. That is the basis of REAL science, not pseudoscience. Bottom line: Anyone wishing to know ALL and COMPLETE details, characteristics, views, information, studies, etc., need to look elsewhere than this site. The funny thing is, this site wont disagree. They need to change their policies and get rid of Editors and Administrators who have obvious agendas against Pye, his evidence, visual characteristics (which I continue to get no response as to why they avoid discussing these) and the true origin of the Starchild Skull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.126.138 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to LuckyLouie, it doesnt matter who "you" are or who "they" are, its the mistake of shunning one`s ideas and disregarding what proof they have come up with. In any case, in this day and age it should be considering a way beyond primitive attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.126.138 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and write in another weak response, I wont be returning to read it. Frankly this site and its editors make me sick. You can consider this as me "Dropping it" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.126.138 (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way, but you shouldn't blame the editors. We really are bound by the encyclopedia's policies, one of which is WP:EXCEPTIONAL that dictates that we require extremely reliable sources for unusual or surprising claims (e.g. proof of alien/human hybrids). You might try Conservapedia, Citizendium, Parapedia, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hooray! GDallimore (Talk) 23:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2013
it has been proven by more than one independent DNA lab the original DNA test was falsified to avoid controversy. recent DNA tests prove only the mitochondrial DNA is human and is unknown species. the lack of Wikipedia to include this fact has led myself to make this request. I am part of an online group of scientists (I hold dual PhD and work with wvu, Maryland u, and fort Derrick) to challenge the status quo only when overwhelming scientific evidence exists, is open to scrutiny, and has been reproduced. we have aprox 175,000 members as of our beginning in 2012.

Chappy808 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are making an Edit request. It's hard to see from your post what your request actually is. Precisely what change do you want to see (in other words, what text should change to what?) and what reliable sources can you provide to support that change? HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. WikiPuppies  bark dig 17:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

DNA test results need citations
In the introductory paragraph there is no source cited for the mentioned test results:

"Tests conducted utilizing mtDNA recovered from the skull have established it as human."

This is an old article and this should have been cited by now. 97.122.214.131 (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That information is properly cited in the detailed area of the article. This is the correct approach. The lead ideally should contain only a summary of referenced material that appears later, and not be cluttered with citations. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The detail section does not properly cite it's assertions. Both of the references cited in the detail section (Feder and Novella) are only to other general articles.  The entire contrary argument relies on DNA evidence.  But, no evidence of DNA test results is cited anywhere in the article.  At a minimum a [citation needed] indicator is warranted. 97.122.212.37 (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confused about how secondary sources are used on Wikipedia. It's enough to report that reliable sources write that DNA test results establish the skull as human. We don't require the actual text of the DNA test results. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. So, one must follow the citations to get to the actual evidence.  However, the secondary source's (Novella) citation for the DNA evidence is a broken link to their own server.  So, is the Novella source considered reliable since it itself is not adequately supported?  Add to this that it comes from a skeptics (read: biased) website as opposed to a purely objective site such as from the testing lab itself or other independent curator.97.122.208.193 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The link works fine for me. In any case, dead link does not equal unsupported; a source need not be online to meet the requirement for verifiability. Citing a skeptic source is fine; see WP:PARITY. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A dead link may be fine in isolation. And a reference to a skeptics site may be fine too, in isolation.  But, a source with both of those qualities reduces the source to dubious or unreliable and puts the objectivity of the article into question.  I think Wikipedia strides for a higher standard than that.97.122.208.193 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A source document happening to have a dead link among its references, six years on, does not affect the strength of that source. --McGeddon (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just checked, and the references the article cites are, in fact, online right now, this instant, and perfectly accessible. Nothing more to do here Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the reference in question is NOT accessible [5]http://www.starchildproject.com/SCSreport.PDF and therefore the use of the hat template is premature and has been reverted. Please pay attention to the particulars of this complaint before rushing to dismiss and hide this discussion from public viewing using the Hat template.  WP policies call for the Novella reference to be removed.  The controversial nature of this topic demands skepticism.65.102.200.227 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarity: this article uses http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/ as a reference and that page lists http://www.starchildproject.com/SCSreport.PDF among its references. The starchildproject.com domain expired some time ago and the page is now dead. But as I said above, an innocently dead link in a source's footnotes doesn't affect the reliability of the source. It wouldn't even be a problem if this article was citing starchildproject.com directly - the page is freely available on archive.org. No policies are being broken here. --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * INCORRECT, the archive link you gave is NOT a link to the pdf which the dead link refers. It is a default page since the PDF file evidently was not archived.  I find it very hard to believe that McGeddon cannot tell the difference between a PDF file and an regular web page.  Furthermore, there are no "innocently" dead links.  The determination of third-party source's reliability is based on the authority of it's author(s) and whether or not they source their claims properly.  This requires discretion and the ability to judge the source as a whole.  As stated above, the Novella source is 1.) biased and 2.) not properly sourced itself.  So, the critical DNA evidence that this topic relies on is flimsy at best.  If the Novella source is the only authority of DNA evidence, then this topic becomes controversial again.  However, insisting on keeping this source in order to create an allusion of no controversy is not proper in my opinion.  The citation to Novella should be removed or annotated as doubtful or dubious.  Surely there has got to be a better source proving the DNA claim.  But, it will not be found if the Novella source is zealously protected as it currently is.65.102.200.227 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "zealous protection" of the article, please see WP:AGF. Can you please cite the policy that says a source must be available online to be used, let alone that every link an online source cites must be available online? VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. The actual source cited is up. One of that source's citations is a deadlink. So what? A reliable source is a reliable source for reporting on otherwise unavailable material. Just like we don't insist that someone rediscover the score of lost operas before we can talk about what contemporary sources said about the music of them, we don't insist that a reliable source has to keep every one of its sources online.
 * This is a non-issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The AGF principle only applies in as far as no evidence to doubt the edits is presented. @Adam, the missing citation is the key citation that backs-up the wiki citation for DNA evidence.  The topic cites Novella for the DNA evidence and the Novella article cites another PDF for the DNA evidence.  That last citation has been a dead link for a while.  If an article is going to be locked-down, it better better be locked it down as a version with minimal controversy.  Right now, it's frozen in a controversial state and should be corrected or at least annotated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.200.227 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 1 August 2013‎
 * No, that is not what the policy on good faith says. But in any case, as noted below as as you have been told several times, a source does not need to be available online to be cited, and another link in a secondary source having gone dark does not automatically make a source less reliable. VQuakr (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like Pye's starchildproject.com site originally hosted the PDF that Novella cites, but the file was deleted some time after 2007, it and all other 404 pages being redirected to site's front page. The entire site was recently blanked by accident or design some time between the 20th and 31st of July 2013.
 * The Novella source would meet WP:PARITY even if we couldn't personally confirm a particular statement in it, but we can: here's an earlier archive.org copy of the actual PDF file. --McGeddon (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you McGeddon. Is there a way for it to be cited in the article?  It would make the article more complete, imo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.200.227 (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pye's website (which seems to have started working again since my last comment) is already listed as an external link. We should only use independent secondary sources to decide which aspects of Pye's work to cover in the article, so it is unlikely to be useful as a source. --McGeddon (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's correct, independent source Kenneth Feder cites and discusses the Novella doc. We do not require the Novella doc be footnoted in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Auto archival
A couple of days ago, the delay on archival was changed from 7 to 30 days by User:Wwoods. As noted at WP:ARCHIVE, auto-archival should only be set up with consensus on the talk page; I interpret this to also apply to shortening the archival time line. I also think 30 days is more reasonable; does anyone other than the person repeatedly reverting think it should be 7 rather than 30? VQuakr (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seven days is very short. In some cases it's necessary, but this doesn't seem like a high-traffic page.
 * —WWoods (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only objection to a longer archival period appears to be that that this is an article which attracts trolls and/or people with no knowledge of Wikipedia policies who repeatedly make the same arguments demanding this article be changed to their preferred version. Quick archiving of the "discussions" resulting from such behaviour in no way assists with bringing such discussions to a close. Rather, it just takes the strength of will to be quiet and ignore them once the relevant policies have been clearly explained and the consensus clearly established. GDallimore (Talk) 22:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We have lots of pages on pseudoscience, etc that have longer archival periods. For example, Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories archives after 60 days. As you say, the purpose of auto-archival is not to close discussions hastily. How about creating a FAQ section to address some of the common concerns raised here? VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any point. The people arguing here are generally SPAs, which appear and disappear. I'm not even sure it's worth attracting people with such fundamental disagreements to Wikipedia's values to Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a FAQ section would be to address the questions in advance, not to attract or dissuade anyone from coming here. VQuakr (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Given this, it's obvious the problem is ongoing. I think 7 day archiving is a good idea, and an FAQ too. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How does maintaining a deliberately blank talk page solve that problem? It just gives the impression to new, casual users that Wikipedia hasn't ever stopped to discuss whether the skull might not be human, and that they should maybe start a new thread. I can't see how that helps anyone. --McGeddon (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Better than encouraging them to resurrect all the old arguments. There's threads in the archive that got resurrected months later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true, the Talk page traffic is 99% SPA's likely driven by Pye's off-wiki provocation. Nobody wants to squash legitimate discussion concerning article improvement, but the typical SPA pattern tends to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and fills up Talk with needless circular squabbling. How about trying 14 day archiving? And the FAQ would certainly help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, the purpose of any archival is to keep talk page sizes manageable, not to squelch discussion. VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you can't quote a single policy that says unproductive discussions must remain open a month. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I imagine you can't quote one that says all resolved discussions must be archived after one or two weeks - WP:ARCHIVE offers no guidelines and only vague advice.
 * But it does say that "There may be circumstances where it would be useful to keep older discussion present on a talk page, to avoid the same issues being repeatedly raised." For a talk page where the same questions recur, a visible talk page thread that already answers a common question will deter some new readers from bothering to raise it again. If a determined reader does ask it again, there's less pressure for anyone to politely WP:AGF and actually respond, because we can assume that they read the section they were adding it to. If we blank the talk page every week, it encourages new users to comment, and requires other editors to answer their questions again. For a protected article such as this one, it also encourages innocently repetitious edit requests. --McGeddon (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So we put up a FAQ of the rare useful discussions. I honestly don't get why people come onto a page, change the archive schedule which had been stable at 7 days for months, then complain that there's pushback against their drive-by changes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For context, 30-days-1-thread-remaining archiving was initially added by VQuakr in December 2012 (with the rationale that "archiving by [less is] likely to be perceived as censorship"), and you yourself lowered it to 7-days-0-threads-remaining in June 2013. Neither of these edits appear to have sought consensus first. --McGeddon (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, I had completely forgotten that I was the first one to add auto-archival to this page last year. VQuakr (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. So I was misremembering things, and thus apologise. Still, I remember why I lowered the time: a lot of discussions were lasting endlessly, with the occasional new person sounding off, but without any productive discussion happening. It was the sort of "I think X!" "That's against policy", then weeks later: "I agree with the first guy! Policy is wrong!" sort of arguments, that were just not helping anyone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you maybe thinking of a different article, here? This talk page was completely silent between the addition of VQuakr's 30-day template in December 2012, and you changing it to seven days in June 2013. I can only find one weeks-later "I agree with the first guy!" examples in the talk archive, where someone chipped into a conversation after two weeks, in late 2011. --McGeddon (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am. Strange. I have rather vivid memories of this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

FAQ Template
Draft template: User:LuckyLouie/sandbox. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would be more effective to word this as an actual question-and-answer FAQ, I think, and to phrase it less formally - still linking to the policies, but explaining how they're relevant. Talk:The_Mousetrap/FAQ might be a useful model. --McGeddon (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * V.2 is up, sans answers, links, etc. (Feel free to edit the sandbox directly)- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not merge please
Lloyd Pye was an independent researcher with the majority of his career having been focused on anthropology and the connection (or lack of) between modern man and the various pre-human species, the existance of modern day specimens of pre humans (yeti, bigfoot, etc). It was his expertise in remains that caused the owners of the skull to seek him out. He sacrificed a great deal of his time, resources and credibility in taking the facts he uncovered public, and it is a shame that just as the DNA evidence finally vindicated him, he found out that his tumor returned and now has passed away. Given his recent death, you should at least allow his legacy to be recognized in whole, as more then just the starchild skull struggle.

Also, there is a great deal of omission in the starchild skull page about the work that has been done in verifying the origin of the skull, specifically the finding in 2012 about the speciments FOXP2 gene having a total of 17 base pairs different then the FOXp2 in a human (1 change in FOXp2 causes humans to lose speech, 2 changes cause a non viable embryo)which, as smoking guns go, is smoking up a storm

My opinion is that we should honor the man's struggle, and at least give the public an opportunity to judge his work for themselves
 * Where does "DNA evidence finally vindicated him" come from? Moriori (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The merge discussion is actually over at Talk:Lloyd_Pye, it looks like this page was using a malformed template. --McGeddon (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a case of Hydrocephaly
"Dr. Bachynsky noted that there is no evidence of erosion of the inner table of the skull. Such erosion would be consistent with a diagnosis of hydrocephaly, so this condition can safely be ruled out as a cause of the abnormalities expressed. Hydrocephaly also causes a widening of the sutures, again not expressed here. There was consensus agreement to both of these observations by other experts conversant with these features." - http://www.starchildproject.com/the-research/deformity-and-features-study

Steven Novella, as far as I am aware, has not studied the skull himself, but relies upon photographic material to make his deductions. Scientists that have studied the skull have noticed a number of differences between this skull and that of a child who has died of congenital hydrocephalus:

If it is a deformation, then it was not caused by internal pressure (water pressure is therefore ruled out); The eye sockets are shallow, but there is no fusion of the sutures; The bone has not been weakened, but, though thin, is strong (again, no internal pressure); The facial features are much smaller than normal (hydrocephaly causes normally sized features to appear smaller to the eye); The occipital bone is flattened, rather than rounded; There is neither a frontal sinus nor an inion.

Perhaps this information ought be included? For the moment, the article makes it sound as if the consensus is that this is a case of congenital hydrocephalus, when, in fact, this cannot be the case, largely on the grounds of the lack of any sign of internal pressure that would be caused by the accruement of fluids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.127.78 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Starchild Project's website is hardly an impartial, independent source. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I anticipated that it wouldn't be considered an appropriate source, but that hardly discredits the information they're relaying. Can anyone find the studies that have been done published in peer-reviewed journals?  If not, perhaps a sentence along the lines of "the current owners of the skull maintain that investigation of its properties rules out genetic deformation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.127.78 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 26 February 2014‎
 * If Bachynsky's study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, then fine, link us, and it can go in. But we cannot add information from a highly dubious source that hasn't been mentioned in anything even approaching reliability, not even to be challenged. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the article already says what the owners think the skull represents. That implies that they have already ruled out other explanations at least in their own mind. The suggested addition doesn't change anything. As well as repeating the owners' claim, the article also gives other people's opinions on the skull. I would suggest that's a pretty fair treatment of the subject overall. GDallimore (Talk) 09:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia used informally published responses, we'd just have an endless chain of "but the first group disputed this saying X, to which the second group responded by pointing out Y, which the first group rebutted with reference to Z, causing someone else to tweet that...". It needs a published source. --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As an objective user reading this article and the site linked, this page feels biased and at the very least should make mention of claims or contrary points in response to some of the earlier findings. It should also be allowed to make mention of the techniques and procedures used to come to this conclusion. There exists in this article the bare minimum on information and what appears to be a clear bias. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with either view point, but I was disappointed to find this article when researching something a colleague suggested to me. I think that the treatment of this article and lack of acknowledgement of contrary views really defeats the idea of a collective knowledge and what Wiki is for. Leaveit2beaver (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[Leaveit2beaver: 12:48 07 March 2014]
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote extreme fringe views of alien-human hybrids. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Paranormalist
I think paranormalist is a perfectly good way to describe Mr. Pye. Can somebody with OED access look it up and make sure that's the right word? Can we also see what the best sources say about Mr. Pye? How do they describe him? Jehochman Talk 13:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Lloyd Pye article has one local paper calling him a "paranormal researcher" and another paper calling him a "hominid researcher". I don't see that it'd be giving him any great authority to call him a "researcher" here, but "paranormal expert" or "paranormal investigator" could also work - Wikipedia should minimise WP:JARGON. --McGeddon (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I favor "paranormalist" because one word is fewer than two. The word "expert" is loaded, and should be avoided in many cases.  "Investigator" has a connotation of legal activity, which is not relevant here. Jehochman Talk 14:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the word "paranormalist" doesn't mean "paranormal expert", "-investigator" or "-researcher" when you use it, what does it mean? --McGeddon (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In looking for ideas on how to address this, I compared with the biographies of the two hosts of Ghost Hunters, Grant Wilson and Jason Hawes. I note that both articles do a good job of describing what they do as opposed to putting labels on them. I think this is probably an overall better approach, if we can deliver figure a way to describe Pye neutrally and concisely. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

starchildproject.com as an external link
I'd say it fails WP:NOT and WP:EL on multiple counts. It's highly promotional and grossly misleading to start. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are off wiki canvassing for meatpuppets from their FB page - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what part of NOT or EL it fails. I know almost nothing about the subject of this article, so there may be more to the story I'm not aware of, but if there's an organization founded by the owner of the subject of the article, which is the best known organization who studies (or writes about, or whatever we want to call it) the subject, it seems like an obvious EL inclusion sans "official." --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  17:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the major promoter of the Starchild Skull's alien hypothesis, and hence, indirectly, the source of its notability. Framed appropriately, I say we should include it, as basically being the skull's website. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is about the skull, not Pye's "project", so I don't see how it meets WP:ELOFFICIAL.
 * The website exists to promote and it often does so by misleading the reader, so it fails WP:SOAP and WP:ELNO #1, #2, #19. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Not official. Just directly relevant to the subject. I'm going to assume the reason you're arguing this is because it presents only one perspective on the subject? What if it were included with an accurate description of the project's nature? For example:
 * Starchild Project - an organization founded by skull owner Lloyd Pye to research the skull and promote [or advocate for] its scientific significance
 * --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  23:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "I'm going to assume..." No. As I said, the site is promotional and misleading. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * How about including it in a form such as - The website of those promoting the view that the skull has non-human origins ? HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELNO criterion #2 is pretty clear to me, and indicates that this website should not be in the "external links" section. This article is about the skull, not the fringe theory. VQuakr (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Wait, "no?" I'm incorrect in assuming you feel it's promotional because it only presents one side of the story?? You're WP:VAGUEWAVEing, repeating those two policies without further explanation as to why it's "promotional and misleading". Hence, I had to assume. Something tells me this has come up before and I didn't see, otherwise why so terse? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  00:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - I agree ELNO #2 is clear: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. A simple link is certainly "limited extent," so are you saying this is not an article "about the viewpoints that the site is presenting"? This does not seem like it should be controversial. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  00:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, I'd suggest much more careful wording of the link - "the main site promoting the Starchild-as-alien hypothesis" frames it far better than saying it's meant to "research and promote the skull's scientific signifricance", which has an implied favourable judgement in the way it's worded. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was trying for that with "promote" in the sense of it not being evident that it has scientific significance and therefore had to be promoted, but I agree that might not be the clearest way to do so. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * this is an article about an object, not a viewpoint. If this were Starchild skull fringe theories, then the "articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting" part of ELNO#2 would potentially apply. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The notability of the object, as the subject of the article, is inseparable from fringe theories about the object. We cover the different perspectives just as we would as if it were called starchild skull fringe theories. To say an article about some pseudoarchaeological object is not necessarily about fringe theories about that object doesn't make sense. I see no reason why a properly qualified/described link ought not exist. ...And, I didn't notice before but further inspection of the site does show there is also a case for ELOFFICIAL. The site claims to be (i.e. "is") the official site for the skull as well as the project. As a piece of private property it seems that's within his/their right to retain a kind of official status. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  04:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously I am not pro-fringe, but I see no problem with including this link. While I'm here, can people take a look at Talk:LLoyd Pye where someone wants to include the name of a woman who may or may not have been his wife and who is supposedly CEO of this site (which I can't verify, and Pye doesn't seem to talk about her). Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I was going to argue that the link is acceptable, but then realised the most important thing - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Having this link here does not improve the encyclopedic nature of this article in any way shape or form. The article makes clear that some groups/people think it's an alien (to paraphrase their varied/changeable beliefs). Linking to an unreliable site that contains no useful content except to provide an example of what is already made clear in the article does not improve the article. Therefore, whether or not the link is allowed doesn't matter; the fact it's pointless and useless is sufficient reason not to include it. GDallimore (Talk) 14:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Has starchildproject.com gotten any notice by secondary reliable sources? If so, then it should probably be included as an EL. However if it is totally ignored by the mainstream and not notable, I don't think WP should help it get visibility. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant? If the site is WP:NOTEWORTHY, it should be discussed in a separate section in this article (or, if it's sufficiently notable, have a separate article), not added as an EL. If it isn't noteworthy, it shouldn't be discussed, nor should it be linked to by your own argument. Either way, it doesn't improve the EL section. GDallimore (Talk) 16:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion of whether or not there is a case for ELOFFICIAL looked to be somewhat subjective, so I thought I'd bring up relative notability as factor. Sorry if this wasn't helpful. Sure, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but reviewing the ELs at fringe subjects like Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Jersey Devil, Reverse speech etc. to see how it's handled might be useful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like discussion has tapered off. From my perspective, I'm still not seeing any compelling argument for keeping it out, but opinions do seem to be split. Should we request closure or launch an RfC? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  17:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * this was a pretty well-attended discussion; do you think we would get any better participation from an RfC? I generally agree that I do not see anything slam-dunk for either opinion, and I would expect "no consensus" leads to the default position of excluding the link. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You all do know about WP:ELN? Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. External links/Noticeboard. I feel like I've summarized the positions in a fairly neutral way, but pinged everyone involved in case I misrepresented something. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  13:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @Rhododendrites: I can't imagine a more relevant reason to exclude the link than the fact that, as GDallimore pointed out, it does not improve the encyclopedic nature of the article. The article, as it stands, explains the fact that some people, including Pye, believe the skull is alien in origin, and appropriately references third-party sources. I'm not seeing any compelling argument for adding the link. If readers want to know more about Pye and his claims, his article is right there. And, as is appropriate on an article about an individual, there is a link to his personal website there. That's how Wikipedia should work.Porlob (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't find the first part of this argument (GDallimore's) productive. Every single person in this discussion believes the same thing: that what they are arguing for is what is best for the encyclopedic nature of the article. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. (If the discussion were populated entirely by single-purpose accounts or people with an apparent conflict of interest that would be one thing, but that's not the case -- in fact at least a few of us arguing for inclusion of the link are pretty hard core skeptic/pro-science types). The whole point of talking about these other policies is to guide us to the right decision. Subverting specificity by staking sole claim to "better encyclopedia" doesn't really further our understanding of the question at hand.
 * For me, I think it's a disservice to the encyclopedia article's reader to omit a link to the official site -- to the site that is the primary source of the skull's notability in the first place and the organization so often mentioned in the same breath as the skull, just because it (as with the subject overall) has a POV or pushes flawed science. The subject is flawed science. That's what it is. Leaving it out hurts the encyclopedia. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The site DOES NOT contribute to the skull's notability. An unreliable source is an unreliable source. It not merely fails to improve the encyclopedia to link to it, it CANNOT improve the encyclopedia by linking to it. GDallimore (Talk) 22:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2014
wikipedia states that the starchild dna was found to be human. The starchild DNA analysis showed the opposite.

source: http://starchildproject.com/dna-testing/2011-scientific-dna-analysis-report#

12.232.14.2 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Meant for end of article
Some of the unusual characteristics the skull contains may point to an unknown hominid species like that of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis. And it is true that many genuine finds have at first been claimed to be the result of a congenital disorder. But due to the preposterous story surrounding the discovery its authenticity will always be questioned. The skull stands as a cautionary tale teaching that finds such as this should be left in the ground where proper archeology can be performed.

Smartelik (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Something that should be included?
"Ancient Aliens" and other pap of its ilk like to mention the "fact" that the skull includes some sort of carboniferous fibers "woven throughout," a feature that one evidently does not find in normal vertebrate skulls. I can't say whether this is true, only that it is typically proffered. 73.49.1.133 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

this does not contain all of the information covered by lloyd pye
if anyone else out there has done any kind of research on this, this page is laughable. there is more than just the mtdna covered in the later analysis made of the skull. the later result even discredited the earlier result published by the canadian lab... so yea.

instead of ridiculing and suppressing information, why don't we try using science as a tool for research instead of a tool for control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.111.252 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

further reference
for the above statement. this information is up to date and traceable from the source site i am referencing here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.111.252 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And when it's published in a peer-reviewed source we can take a look at it for the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I Want To Know Everything About It
Wow, first off I'd like to say that I love using Wikipedia, and have done so for many years. In fact I almost always turn to this site whenever I want to learn about something new. As with anything, this site isn't perfect, but it is great that it has the ability to take in external view points to better its articles. When I look something up using this site or ANY other web source, I want to know EVERYTHING about the subject. Sometimes you cant find everything here, hence a reason (I'm guessing) for the "Talk" page to improve articles. Apparently this site has a lot of rules and regulations, for which some I totally understand. But some I do not. Maybe they are legitimate, maybe not. But reading these Talk pages sure does seem like some are totally misused or at the least not taken for their original purpose. Basically what I am trying to say is that I may not completely understand what this sites' guidelines are (and you can refer to them until you are blue in the face because its nothing short of deflection), but my hope is that when I go to use my favorite source of information online, as I previously mentioned, I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. It doesn't matter that there is sources out there that some may or may not view as credible. I want to know that these exist. I want an article to tell me about EVERY claim and claimed sources out there, extreme opinions, ALL of the websites concerning the subject, so that I can make my own opinion and not have the editors of this site make it for me. As far as missing information, the BIG one for me, concerning the subject of this skull, is that at this current time, there has been DNA testing done which is awaiting funding to completely sequence the genome and a website that is requesting an investment in completing this process. Why isn't this mentioned? (And that is a rhetorical question because I know the type of answer I will get) There are other points of information I wish were included in this article as well, which I will not detail but will just reassert once more that I am saddened that my favorite source of information online refuses to include ALL information on this subject and will likely continue to make excuse after excuse citing website regulations that so many view as non applicable (I myself haven't bothered to waste my time). If something still is not done to improve this article, then I believe we should take one thing from all of this: DO NOT rely on a single website, favorite or not, as a complete source of information. (Note: It is understandable that relatively new articles be incomplete or articles missing information that is very recent as the people who make these articles are only human..... hey maybe that is the second point to take from this). Truly Sadened. NON MVTATA (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "at this current time, there has been DNA testing done which is awaiting funding to completely sequence the genome and a website that is requesting an investment in completing this process" and ask why it isn't mentioned in the article. It's probably because we haven't heard of it, it's not madly important unless it some day comes up with results, and we don't want to give a free ad for someone's website asking for money anyway. Your claim is hazy, but if you like you could write the details below, and provide adequate references. Please, no hearsay. We have that in the article already in the form of "According to Pye, a dentist who examined the upper right maxilla found with the skull determined that the skull was that of a child aged 4.5 to 5 years." (1) No references. (2) We can't examine the dentist's claim which another person (Pye) attributes to him. (3) We don't  know who the dentist is. (4) We have no references where we can read that Pye even talked to a dentist. Moriori (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @NON MVTATA. Hi and welcome. I posted some handy links to your personal Talk page that might help you in gaining a working understanding of the encyclopedia's policies. Yes, they can seem very complex, but in a nutshell, if someone claims on their website that they have scientific proof of an alien-human hybrid, the encyclopedia considers that an extraordinary claim, and we look to high quality sources like major newspapers or mainstream scientific journals for coverage of that claim. Lacking such coverage, it's considered not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Moriori. So does this mean that the fact that there is DNA testing that has been done to completely map the genome of the skull and is awaiting for this information to be processed, will THAT POINT be considered to be added to this article? (again, more of a rhetorical question) This website obviously feels and recognizes that this skull is important enough to mention as an article and this is because it is of interest to a certain number of people, correct? Well then is it not also of interest that subsequent testing has been done that has cast doubt to the point that it has initiated the process of completely mapping its genome? I thought that the essence of this website was to provide information to interested parties. Its obvious there are interested people just by viewing past Talk posts. I want to know just for the simple fact that there is this continuing work being done that appears that once it is complete, it will either prove something completely new and extraordinary or it will finally close the book that the skull is simply a human. I'm not geneticist, but "mapping the genome" sure sounds like it will provide undeniable proof either way. There are obviously people who want this proof, and although it cannot be expected that this website do the work to find such proof, it should mention ANY attempts being made. And you do not have to mention that the website is looking for funding, even though there are numerous articles mentioning groups who request donations, Jehovahs Witnesses, Greenpeace, WWF just to name a few. And ranking or comparing its importance depends on the individual.

@LuckyLouie. The Huffington Post, Discovery Channel, National Geographic, The History Channel, TLC, Fox, CBS. These all seem to think its notable enough.NON MVTATA (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One more time NON MVTATA. "...write the details below, and provide adequate references...". Moriori (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

SKULL ANALYSIS
Physical evidence that is not human. See Lloyd Pyle's youtube videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by BajaWizard (talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 April 2015‎
 * We would need a better source than youtube. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015
Lloyd pye was not a dentist. He had no formal training in dentistry. He has a BS in psychology. Needs to be stated in better terms as the wording is confusing. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/nwfdailynews/obituary.aspx?n=lloyd-a-pye&pid=168609601&fhid=24307

128.227.142.138 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say he is a dentist. The sentence in the "Claims" section says that Pye took the skull to a dentist to examine it. Stickee (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Autoarchive timeout
Any objections if I change the autoarchive timeout from the current "archive all threads after 14 days, don't leave any on the talk page" to "archive all threads after 31 days, but leave at least five on the talk page"? This was discussed a couple of years ago, but the discussion (where User:Adam Cuerden's argument in favour of a short archive was based on "vivid memories" of endless, unproductive "I agree with the first guy!" discussions, which did not seem to exist in the archive) timed out and was archived with no conclusion. --McGeddon (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to keep five discussions up on a contentious page. That's just asking for trouble. I could see a longer archive time, but not a minimum number of threads. Can you seriously point to, say, five genuinely productive threads in the last two years? Hell, for that matter, leaving five threads open would take us back to last year. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd count any "but the DNA is alien!" "no, these sources say X, you can't use that source because Y, the most we can say is Z" discussion as productive - it doesn't matter how it ends, or even whether it ends at all, just that future editors might read it and see what kind of response "but the DNA is alien!" gets.
 * It's hard to know for sure, but I would guess that at least a few of the direct edits this article gets are made after a visiting editor has checked the talk page and concluded (if they don't spot the obscure "Archives:" link) that nobody has ever discussed the skull here, and nobody is watching. --McGeddon (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea, more in line with WP:ARCHIVE which speaks of length concerns but not hiding previous discussions as quickly as possible. The first talk page I could think of as a crosscheck, Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, uses 60 days and 5 threads. VQuakr (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama is hardly a good comparison. five threads for his page goes back less than a month, and - what is perhaps more important - few, if any threads consist solely of, say, birthers.
 * Looking at Archive 3, there are 35 threads. At least 23 of them, at a quick glance over, boil down to "Let's treat Pye's claims as fact and cite the Starchild Project website as evidence!" "That's not a reliable source". That's a very, very high proportion of unproductive threads, and the remainder appear to be a mixture of housekeeping ("I have removed copyright violations") and slight variations on the Pye theme. Such a high proportion is unusual. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So? You haven't presented any reasoning that supports a short archive period - which would be driven by page length. VQuakr (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting five threads left up. I'm arguing against that to start. You haven't provided any evidence that that would be at all productive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell what would be productive, particularly on an article whose subject is in decline after its main proponent died several years ago. I assume the Barack Obama conspiracy article isn't seeing many new threads appear because the "Bias" one has been solidly at the top for a full year, absorbing or deterring new commenters.
 * WP:ARCHIVE explicitly says "The purpose of archival on article talk pages should be to remove stale discussions, not to stifle discussion. Article talk page threads should not typically be archived in less than 30 days except for very busy talk pages.", though - we're not seeing stale discussions (you actually seem more worried about the theoretical opposite, of new users restarting old ones, which hasn't been happening either) and this is clearly not a "very busy" talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine. Fuck it. Do what you want. I'll leave messages on your talk page if there's any problems here, and you can personally fix it. Since you know best, I'm sure you can handle it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we might have different ideas of what counts as a talk page "problem", but okay, let's at least see what happens. --McGeddon (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 31 days is fine, leaving 5 threads not so much since it left stuff from November 2014 which is of no conceivable use to anybody. It is never a bad idea to archive stale threads, so don't restore them again please. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From the discussion above it seemed worth having a "but what about my favourite fringe source?" thread in there so that future editors would (hopefully) read that instead of starting a new thread. I just brought the most recent four back since autoarchive had been changed to "keep most recent 5 threads". --McGeddon (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but the better way might be to have a FAQ or hatnote. We do that on several fringe topics. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence
Not intending to be fringey here, but doesn't the WP:LEDESENTENCE flow better to describe the subject as "that skull that a guy thought was an alien, but which was just a genetic deformity" rather than "that skull that was a genetic deformity, but a guy thought it was an alien". The second way around makes it sound like the skull was already famous for being deformed, before Pye came along and had a theory about it. --McGeddon (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a genetic deformity before it was a not-an-alien thobut. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first sentence has two main functions: place the article in context, and briefly explain why it is important. It is true that the article would not exist if not for the fringe claims, but it is more important to establish context (what is this thing) before explaining the pseudoscience. That doesn't mean, though, that the status quo lede sentence is perfect. VQuakr (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Looks like it could used the word "deformed" in there, as that's really the main point - I'll add it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Starchild Project reliability
The starchild project is no more unreliable than any other source. Steven Novella's source could be as unreliable, maybe even more, as it was written in a biased viewpoint. The article edit saying it was an abnormal human skull was also written in a biased viewpoint; The original article was ambiguous, failed to explain the logic behind the article, and negligent in other details about the skull. I do take offense in calling the Lloyd pye article a "theme", as that makes it sound like he was a failure, or a villain. Also, there is no relevance between a Barack Obama conspiracy, and a debate or a skull. Both the "Fringe" and the mainstream will always have bias (especially in editing this article). It can't be eliminated completely. I do have a solution, though; write two articles about the starchild skull (one skeptical, the other more imaginative), post links to connect the two articles, and let the people visiting choose which article is more "appealing" or whatever other aspect is suitable. Oh, and the starchild project is more specific about the skull, and it counteracts the bias of the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBenderednebE (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pye is pushing a fringe theory. Novella is a noted skeptical investigator and also a neurologist, so has relevant professional expertise. Aside from anything else the likelihood of hydrocephaly is vastly greater than the likelihood of an alien visiting earth (something for which no credible evidence has ever existed) and - even more improbably - successfully cross-breeding with a human. That is simply preposterous. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Pye was open to ideas. Novella never laid a finger on the skull, never examined it in person, and probably never even saw it. the brain enlarged the skull, not the CSF. they found vein and artery impressions in the skull when they took X-Rays of it. I'm not lying, go find a profile picture of the X ray, and if it is a good quality copy, you might see the veins and arteries where they where. Also just because it could have been a human-alien hybrid, that doesn't mean it was bred. bacteria can be given human genes in the form of recombinant DNA. Therefore, a human-alien hybrid is most likely an example of genetic engineering. Novella should have studied the brain of the starchild, not the bone; he studies nerve cells, not bones. No wonder Lloyd pye called him a crank; he went outside of his expertise to say something as equally preposterous as the human-alien hybrid hypothesis. No the starchild is not a human-alien hybrid, but probably a Grey Alien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBenderednebE (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 August 2015‎


 * "Always keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out". -- Carl Sagan. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Pye has produced no evidence at all. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The Starchild Project website is a WP:PRIMARY source, so couldn't be used directly to source any extra theories about the skull - we would have to use a reliable secondary source that wrote about the Starchild Project instead. The Novella source could be stronger, but some leeway for critical commentary is given under WP:PARITY.
 * Making two articles with different viewpoints would be a WP:POVFORK, and is discouraged. If the sources are there, all viewpoints can easily be combined in a single article. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Writing an article based on the Novella Source probably violates Wikipedia's neutrality, as The source is biased. No matter what source is chosen, no matter what is written there will always be bias. it is inevitable. Both Novella and pye speculated on the skull; not enough reliable evidence has been gathered to reach a logical and sound conclusion. Until a great deal of reliable data or information is obtained, the article about the starchild skull should not be considered absolute or complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.33.18 (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Writing an article without Novella would be an NPOV violation.
 * The Starchild Project is a very poor primary source, and needs to be used with caution with a eye to WP:FRINGE problems, especially any misrepresentation or worse. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:GEVAL: "we merely omit this [fringe] information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." We should only include as much as necessary of Pye's notion to frame it as the bollox it is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike the internet where anyone can say anything, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia with numerous checks and balances (such as WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG, etc) to ensure that fringe ideas do not receive undue weight or equal credibility with orthodox, reality-based views. In this case, the claim that a skull from a grey alien exists or that an alien mated with a human is rightly marginalized (see WP:NOTNEUTRAL). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does everyone insist upon displaying gross stupidity by not studying the starchild skull? Furthermore, why does the mainstream insist upon gross stupidity? Lloyd pye was dealing with the starchild like a true scientist: Problem: a strange skull. Hypothesis: it is an exotic deformity. (Pye then tests his hypothesis, like a true scientist), and finds his hypothesis is... Incorrect! he tests it further, and finds it is the worst hypothesis in history. he tests it even more, and based on new evidence, and observations, he deduced the skull belonged to a human-alien hybrid (He gave up on this hypothesis later on). Later on, he found more evidence, and tested this hypothesis, and found that it was flawed, so he revised it. Besides, the number of deformities needed to produce a skull that is identical to the starchild is ridiculous. to quote the starchild project

"Skeptics might argue that these oral histories are fairy tales, the whole idea of aliens is bunk, and that the extremely unusual DNA, missing frontal sinus, and other “never seen on Earth before” features of the Skull simply mean it is a bizarre deformity. But to do so would go against one of the most respected scientific principles: Occam’s Razor.

Occam’s razor says you should always assume the simplest answer is the correct one. Some skeptics choose to argue that it is simpler and more plausible that the Starchild Skull:

Was a human with massive genetic abnormalities, but:

It somehow managed to survive them despite the fact that they would kill any other human before they were born, and Also had physical deformities including hydrocephaly, (which expands the skull at the suture lines, the weakest points), But it was a special kind of hydrocephaly that only expanded the solid bone plates of the skull, and left the weak suture lines untouched, And also had other deformities that totally removed the frontal sinus, and somehow made the bone thin and light, and somehow made the bone extremely hard, and put strange fibers inside the bone, and made the inion (the bump at the back of the skull found in all humans) disappear, and made the inner ears larger, and made the face smaller, and reduced the size of the chewing muscles, and made the neck smaller, and somehow managed to cause more than a dozen other major differences from a human skull, and that it Managed to survive these deformities long enough to wear down its teeth!

When you look at all of the leaps of faith that need to be made to shoehorn the Starchild Skull into being a human deformity, suddenly the idea that it is not a human at all seems far more rational:

This is a non-human species and it looks the way it does because its genes made it grow that way.

"

Now do you see the stupidity and immaturity of the skeptics and mainstream science? I just used a tool the skeptics use to defeat anything they don't like... and I just used it against them! Mainstream science is acting A LOT like a pseudoscience right now; the logic in the starchild project's argument is relatively undeniable. Another mention; Mainstream science wants proof of aliens, and the starchild skull might be that proof... they are hypocrites. two last things: stop reverting the article to the B***S*** about humans and hydrocephalus: the starchild skull is NOT human, whether you like it or not; END of STORY. Before anyone criticizes me for writing this, I am exercising my rights to free speech and free press, as stated by the American constitution; this is not libel, but your articles about Lloyd Pye and the starchild skull can be perceived as libel. EBenderednebE (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBenderednebE (talk • contribs)


 * Here's a clue: if you feel the need to end your TL;DR post with shouting, you probably lack the competence to edit here. Please give WP:FRINGE a read; your are sourcing to a website that is not reliable for anything at all. VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand; the starchild is not fringe, but it adheres to existing scientific principles. how does that make it "fringey"? If mainstream science had lived up to its obligation, this would not be an issue. Also looked into WP:FRINGE, and then Fringe science, and found this unusual piece:

"Some theories that were once rejected as fringe science, but were eventually accepted as mainstream science, are:

continental drift[7][8] the existence of Troy[9][10] heliocentrism[11] Norse colonization of the Americas the Big Bang theory[12]

" the same group (mainstream science) who says the starchild is human once said:

"   The earth is flat    the universe is geocentric    the continents were fixed    time was not relative    the universe is static and unchanging    ( Focal infection theory (FIT) as the primary cause of systemic disease rapidly became accepted by mainstream dentistry and medicine after World War I. This acceptance was largely based upon what later turned out to be fundamentally flawed studies. As a result, millions of people were subjected to needless dental extractions and surgeries.[26] The original studies supporting FIT began falling out of favor in the 1930s. By the late 1950s, it was regarded as a fringe theory.

The Clovis First theory held that the Clovis culture was the first culture in North America. It was long regarded as a mainstream theory until mounting evidence of a pre-Clovis culture discredited it).

"

these were all refuted. It's like mainstream science can't get anything right, and someday, the starchild skull will be accepted by the mainstream for what it obviously is; not human. EBenderednebE (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your argument is neither logical nor undeniable. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * not shouting, but emphasizing; since my comment was misinterpreted, I shall adjust it appropriately by eliminating the last sentence. Can you give an example, so I can fix my logic? EBenderednebE (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so, per WP:FRINGE we give primary weight to concepts currently accepted by mainstream science. If you wish to argue against the encyclopedia's policies and get them changed so that fringe crap is written as if it's plausible, try WP:PROPOSAL. Posting extended rants on the Talk page isn't the way to go about it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * please stop copy/pasting large blocks of text. You're not even taking the time to format it. Just link to the page and anybody who's going to actually take the time to read it will also be willing to click the link to read it. Also, even though you have quotation marks and provide attribution, very long quotes are still a copyright concern. See WP:COPYQUOTE. People familiar with this page are also familiar with the arguments as well as where to find information. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "It's like mainstream science can't get anything right, and someday, the starchild skull will be accepted by the mainstream" - And when that day comes, people will be more receptive here and you'll have a fine "I told you so". Until then, however, it's WP:FRINGE and subject to the rules Wikipedia has in place for fringe topics. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will consistently oppose any attempt to treat the Starchild Project as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. It is an advocacy website run by volunteer true believers. The only reliable sources for a claim that a skull is alien, or half alien, would be a highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journal. And not one of those "publish anything" journals that have cropped up online. I consider such distinctions essential to the integrity of this encyclopedia. The Starchild enthusiasts should publicize their notions elsewhere. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd add that we'd be able to quote the theories of the Starchild Project (and present them as such) if a reliable secondary source had covered them - if, say, a national newspaper had interviewed the group and written about the project in context - but we don't seem to have that. --McGeddon (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ted Robinson
There was an attempt to mention him in the article a little while ago. The project page on him says he's not part of the project, but Pye wrote in 2000 that he took over from him. He's touted as famous, but if he is so famous, why so few mentions of him? Except of course - which uses the name Nutrinova but isn't the same company. In fact, I can find hardly any mention of his company. I'm obviously not saying that the other medical experts quoted are of the same calibre, but it might be worth checking. Doug Weller (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016
I request that you get the facts correct about THE STAR CHILD SKULL! I just watched a documentary on Discovery channel named Weird or What with William Shatner and the show goes on to say that the first D.N.A. test showed that only the mother was human and the father was NOT human. and in later more advanced tests they found that the mother was in fact NOT human as well. So in fact this is not a deformed human head, it is the head of a 900 year old ALIEN!

Please repair the facts of this article. when I read information from wikipedia, I consider it to be the final best sorce for information, but this article reads like a Government Cover up. Thank you for your time. Snake Pliscon. Snake Pliscon (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

❌ The Discovery Channel is not a reliable source for such an extraordinary claim, since they regularly broadcast hogwash just to get ratings. We would need a peer reviewed article in a respected scientific journal to make such a claim. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  11:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article already mentions the "half-non-human" claim, as well as later tests that show that the first test was a mistake. Either the shockumentary you saw was intentionally unclear that later tests showed that the mother and father were the same species (human), or you've demonstrated that it was intentionally lying to audiences.  Either way, that show is useless for this article.
 * As for supposed government coverups: Occam's razor would dictate that it's more plausible that a single scientist could make a mistake than for the US government (which can't even get it's act together on gun control, public education, drugs, or anything else that matters) could somehow convince the rest of academia (including academics outside of the US!) to lie about what would be the easiest way ever for a scientist to become world famous. Like, if someone from another country told you to do your job wrong so that you don't go down in history as one of the greatest discoverers of all time, would you listen?  Then how can you reasonably expect almost all scientists in the world to behave likewise?  Ian.thomson (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

not a single accepted source in this article
Please include this one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gaiam-tv/starchild-skull_b_2551425.html

172.98.155.91 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source for anything non-trivial. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Starchild is not the result of hydrocephalus
and this is pretty clear

45.58.81.36 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We require reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Any medical doctor will tell you, without a doubt, that is not hydrocephaly. Hydrocephaly has no marks because of the pressure of the brain against the skull. That skull has marks. Hence, not hydrocephaly. Hydrocephaly bulges the skull in all directions. That skull is flattened at the back. Hence, not hydrocephaly.

172.98.155.91 (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Steve Novella (reliable) says otherwise, so Wikipedia follows that. This alien stuff is fringe silliness. Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How exactly is alien life fringe? You think Earth is the only planet that has intelligent life? You have any idea how big the universe is? Not a single drop of water on this planet has no life. There is nothing fringe about alien life. Those who think so are silly.

172.98.155.91 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody is claiming that extraterrestial life don't exist in the Universe. But jumping from "extraterrestial life can exist elsewhere in the Universe" to "the Starchild skull was of alien origin" is an enormous and unjustified leap. WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. -- intgr [talk] 13:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There are two possibilities. One. Starchild is an alien or human alien hybrid. Two. Starchild is a human with a disease or condition never seen before, not hydrocephaly or progeria as already proven by examination of skull features. Of these two possibilities, both are fascinating regardless of which turned out to be the correct one. Only a complete DNA test will reveal which possibility is correct once that is completed in the coming years. In the mean time, wiki should not claim Starchild is hydrocephalic since that is already ruled out after examination.

2620:101:F000:700:F54F:110F:5FC2:A100 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is conclusive, as if it wasn't obvious anyway. We have a reliable source; we use it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing conclusive has been proven about Starchild. No Y chromosome haplogroup has ever been determined. So there. 2620:101:F000:700:F54F:110F:5FC2:A100 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

three possibilities exist
1. Starchild is an alien or alien / human hybrid.

2. Starchild is a human with a disease or condition never seen before.

3. Starchild is a human who was from the Atlantis civilization.

2. and 3. would be likely if it is determined that Starchild has 46 chromosomes including a Y chromosome. In this case, the Y chromosome haplogroup must be determined.

1. is likely based on anatomical examination because of unerupted multiple teeth and strange fibers as seen from X ray analysis and electron microscopes, bone chemical composition markedly different from normal human bone composition, inability to dissolve in solution which easily dissolves human bone, wear of the teeth suggesting Starchild was not a child but a grown person, lack of anatomical features such as frontal sinuses.

2620:101:F000:700:F54F:110F:5FC2:A100 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing a change to the article here? If so, please provide the specific change you request and include the reliable sources you have to backup that change. Thanks -- McSly (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing an edit to the article? If so, where are the sources to back this up? If not, please note that this is NOTAFORUM.- MrX 17:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is, Starchild is not a closed case. Nothing conclusive has been proven about it. Investigation is ongoing. This article claims Starchild is a human with hydrocephaly. That is not proven and in fact evidence points otherwise. Hydrocephaly does not alter the chemical composition of bones. Starchild's bone chemical composition is markedly different from that of a normal human with any known disease / disorder / condition. Rather than saying Starchild is a human with hydrocephaly, wiki should say it is possible that Starchild is a human with hydrocephaly. Since investigation is ongoing, wiki should not use a conclusive tone. No reliable source has ever claimed Starchild is a human nor Starchild having had hydrocephaly. If you can provide a reliable source which claims either of these, please point me to that source.

172.98.155.91 (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, we agree that it is not a closed case, but the overwhelming evidence is that it is a human skull. I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever of it being of extraterrestrial or Atlantean provenance.- MrX 18:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is getting seriously weird. Atlantis? And not just Atlantis, an Atlantis that Plato never envisioned where Atlanteans weren't like normal humans. Atlantis never existed. Doug Weller  talk 18:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite so. This is not even case closed; there never was a "case" really, except in the fervid imaginations of the lunatic fringe. If anything our current article is not forthright enough about this BS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the problem is. Our article summarizes what our reliable sources say: Starchild is a malformed human skull, likely to have been a child with hydrocephalus. This is according to multiple reliable sources. If you have reliable sources that contradict this, please submit them for evalution here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No hydrocephaly can cause a drastic change in bone chemical composition, unknown fibers, missing various anatomical features like sinuses and inions, straight rather than normal L shaped eye socket nerve openings. Hydrocephaly produces a bulged out skull that is otherwise normal, chemically and anatomically. Starchild is far from normal not counting certain bulging. Any qualified MD will tell you Starchild was not caused by hydrocephaly. Might be some unknown medical condition, but no hydrocephaly can produce the features seen in Starchild.

Even if Starchild has an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, that does not prove Starchild is human. If aliens can travel to Earth, surely they can do genetic engineering and arrange their genes into the 46 chromosomes that humans have. Chromosomes are carriers of genes. It is genes rather than chromosomes that is important to determine what Starchild is. 172.98.155.91 (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OP, just to cut through the back-and-forth and save you and the others replying some time: with a fringe (or even if we say "contentious" rather than "fringe") subject like this, you can't expect the article to change unless you propose specific changes and at the same time substantiate those changes with citations of reliable sources. Straight argument and what "any qualified MD can tell you," while they may work in a verbal discussion, constitute original research until substantiated with a good reliable source. It may be frustrating or tedious to find sources for things you know are right, but this is part of how Wikipedia works and why so many articles don't just fall into chaos and edit warring. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing fringe about alien life. Mathematically, one can be almost entirely sure that intelligent alien life exists within a few billion light years of Earth. Just the sheer number of Earth like planets near Earth practically rules out the idea that there is no intelligent alien life near Earth. In fact, it is those who object to such common sense who are fringe. It is only a matter of time until such alien life are discovered one way or another. 172.98.155.91 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

not hydrocephaly or progeria
The solution test in 2003 dissolved the bones of the woman who was found with Starchild. Starchild's bones were not altered by the solution. Hence, Starchild did not have hydrocephaly or progeria, which retain normal bone characteristics.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=nWRNCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT26&lpg=PT26&dq=starchild+dna+test&source=bl&ots=VyQ8yvVxN6&sig=KIfe4ryhkQOO5qLSfjfqavRI6nM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7zf-kitLLAhXKuIMKHdxpDCY4FBDoAQhUMAk#v=onepage&q=starchild%20dna%20test&f=false 2620:101:F000:700:F54F:110F:5FC2:A100 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source for anything non-trivial. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source even for anything trivial, lulu.com is a self-publisher, anyone can use it via the web. Doug Weller  talk 15:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a source we've used in other articles. Doug Weller  talk 16:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * badarchaeology.com is not a reliable source. It is a biased source. Find me one medical doctor who has conclusively said Starchild had hydrocephaly, what hydrocephaly does and what hydrocephaly does not do. 2620:101:F000:700:8925:186D:F7CD:6256 (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, this isn't the article on hydrocephaly so we don't need sources for explanations of what it does and does not do. What we do need are sources which say the Starchild skull is likely that of someone with hydrocephaly. And we had that with Steven Novella. Just for good measure, however, I've added two more citations. One, the Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology (published by ABC-CLIO), uses Novella's explanation and cites him directly. The other is a book by Alice Roberts which provides a similar explanation without citing Novella. The problem, of course, is that nobody takes this subject seriously enough to publish about it in real scientific journals, so these sources are about as good as we're going to get. Self-published, primary, and fringe sources are insufficient to counter them. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Steven Novella is a credible MD. I will take his word for it, despite his own wiki stating he is active in the skeptic movement. How about the words of Ted Robinson who is also an MD who said Starchild did not have hydrocephaly. Many diagnosis have been incorrect. Only one MD is not enough to be conclusive. Also, I assume Steven Novella has not examined the chemical compositions and other anatomical features of Starchild. Not all MDs have the same level of expertise regarding hydrocephaly. Provided below is Ted Robinson's assessment of Starchild.

Furthermore, I object to wiki's description of Starchild as a human. That claim is not proven pending DNA analysis. I request the first sentence of this article be changed to the sentence below.

The Starchild skull is possibly a malformed human skull, possibly that of a child who died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, which paranormalist Lloyd Pye has claimed is of full or partial extraterrestrial origin.

2620:101:F000:700:8925:186D:F7CD:6256 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many more ways this can be presented to you: that video is not a reliable secondary source. Nothing about this article will change in the way you want it to until you provide reliable sources. You responded to my comment to this effect in the now-hatted section with the absurd argument that anybody at all has taken a position that the existence of alien life is fringe. Nobody has taken that position here. What is fringe is the starchild skull as a subject. People are going to just stop responding to you if you don't propose specific changes which are supported by reliable sources (not just sources that you know about, but sources that you link to here). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You and non believers like you will be proven wrong just as flat Earth believers have been proven wrong by Galileo and Columbus. Your days of ignorance is numbered.

2620:101:F000:700:8925:186D:F7CD:6256 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE apply here (the fringe theory being that extraterrestrials had something to do with the skull) and the way this encyclopedia works is that we give the most weight to sources that represent the scientific or mainstream view on the subject, which in this case is that it was most likely hydrocephalus and not aliens. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no one who can claim Ted Robinson is not a credible MD. I provide a reliable source below.

No source has been listed for the first sentence of this article, which I quote below.

The Starchild skull is a malformed human skull, likely to have been that of a child who died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, which paranormalist Lloyd Pye has claimed is of extraterrestrial origin.

2620:101:F000:700:8925:186D:F7CD:6256 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD we don't require citations in the lead that summarize material that's already cited in the body of the article. There are many citations, you need to read them. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

the first sentence of this article needs change
The first sentence is: The Starchild skull is a malformed human skull, likely to have been that of a child who died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, which paranormalist Lloyd Pye has claimed is of extraterrestrial origin.

First, it is not conclusive Starchild was human. A better term is humanoid, which is generic and include humans and ET humanoids alike.

Second, malformed is not the appropriate term, because no known disease or medical condition has ever been diagnosed on Starchild.

Taking these two points into consideration, I propose the first sentence be modified into the following one.

The Starchild skull is an abnormal humanoid skull, possibly that of a child who died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, which paranormalist Lloyd Pye has claimed is of extraterrestrial origin.

Since Starchild is an ongoing investigation pending DNA analysis, the first sentence should not have a conclusive tone which may mislead readers into thinking Starchild is a closed case which seems to imply Starchild is human and male.

2620:101:F000:700:8925:186D:F7CD:6256 (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What reliable independent sources do you propose to support these changes? Guy (Help!) 16:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a reliable source.

What is your reliable source?

2620:101:F000:700:8925:186D:F7CD:6256 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the original BOLD lab report.

http://www.rense.com/ufo5/skull.htm

I accept Starchild is male. But it is not conclusive Starchild is human. That requires an analysis from an ancient DNA lab, not a forensic lab. Furthermore, no known disease or medical condition has been diagnosed on Starchild.

2620:101:F000:700:8925:186D:F7CD:6256 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's what I wrote about Robinson last year: "The project page on him says he's not part of the project, but Pye wrote in 2000 that he took over from him. He's touted as famous, but if he is so famous, why so few mentions of him? Except of course - which uses the name Nutrinova but isn't the same company. In fact, I can find hardly any mention of his company. Doug Weller (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)"
 * As for the Rense source, Pye has said that the work by BOLD was a complete disaster, for which he blames himself. Doug Weller  talk 17:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1999 test proved some useful facts, such as Starchild was male because he had a Y chromosome. The 2003 test proved additional useful facts. The 2003 test proved that, upon examination of mitochondrial DNA, Starchild's mother was not the woman who was found with him. The 1999 test was the starting point.


 * Again, the fact that Starchild has an X chromosome and a Y Chromosome does not prove it was human. All male mammals have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. Certainly, not all of them are male humans. Chromosomes are carriers of genes. Chromosomes by themselves do not prove what species an animal is. To date, there is no proof whether Starchild was or was not human.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:700:8925:186D:F7CD:6256 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

2620:101:F000:700:8925:186D:F7CD:6256 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rense.com and YouTube videos are not reliable independent sources for the material you wish to add. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think Rense is a reliable source then your competence to edit Wikipedia is in serious doubt. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Dating section
This edit removed a section on the age of the skull, claiming failing RS. The section cites "Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia: A Critical Encyclopedia", which already cited in the article. So, I'm confused. Comments, please? --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia: A Critical Encyclopedia only gives us the brief sentence that "Critics argue the strangely inflated skull is of a four- or -five-year-old child who lived about 900 years ago." - the other claims in this section (that the skull has been radiocarbon dated twice, and that the year plus claimed location puts it in the Mogollon culture) are only sourced to starchildproject.com, so should be handled more carefully. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can't see where the Pseudoscience Encyclopedia source backs the text: "Radiocarbon dating gave an age of the skull of 900 ± 40 years Before Present when tested, which calibrates to 1030 to 1230 AD with 95% probability. This test was carried out in 2004 by Beta Analytic of Miami, Florida, and matches the results of an earlier test on the adult skull. Doug Weller  talk 15:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Serious dispute
This article is completely inaccurate.

It has been proven beyond doubt through exhaustive scientific analysis that the starchild is a human-alien hybrid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.79.242 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Has it now. Maybe you could provide a link to that research? clpo13(talk) 21:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture Needs to be replaced
The picture of the diseased infant on this page is misleading. It may be true that the head of a diseased infant may become bulged to look like what the starchild bone might be, however, the star child is supposed to be a child of 4 or 5 years old per the scientists who debunk the idea that the child was an alien species. So to be truthful, the picture would need to be of a diseased 4 or 5 year old, because it is common knowledge that the bones of an infant are not formed and therefore are structurally different than that of a child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C002:D83A:24C6:D21B:8B4E:89BF (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Starchild 2010 DNA Test
2010, Starchild skull underwent DNA testing using state of the art technology. These advances were able to provide answers that the previous DNA testing wasn't able to conclude. The testing that was done earlier had been proven to be incorrect. The DNA testing done in 2010 proved that 232 types were not that of HUMAN origin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXVUnsvGsKU — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTonerII (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We need something that has been discussed in reliably published sources, not Pye's YouTube video That's the way we work since we are an encyclopedia, not simply some website. I've reverted you. Doug Weller  talk 16:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com
Regarding the content added here: it's a WordPress blog recently created by a couple of ufologists from MUFON, who appear skeptical about some things, but other things, not so much, e.g. "...but seriously, let’s work together to help push “fringe science” into an acceptable field of study, before the masses push it into the abyss of fakery and hoaxes". They also host and publicize ghost hunts. Not a WP:RS. We would require a WP:FRIND source for this content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the content from the article in light of the comments. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)