Talk:Giant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Titans

In the "examples of giants" section, have added "(some of)" to the Titan reference. If you follow the Titan (mythology) link to the Wiki page it specifically mentions that large things have been erroneously named as Titanic, when the name doesn't in itself imply that. The original Titans were huge (though not as large as the Gigantes) but there's no indication that their children (e.g. Prometheus) were overly large. --MJW 62.25.102.1 14:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reality of Giants

The real core issue I want to explain is that Giants [in the sense of large mammals and reptiles] did infact exist in the past-- and this should be no surprise. Prehistoric animals of colossal size; Mammoth, Bison, Camel, Bear, vulcher, and even beaver, of very large proportions have co-existed with our ancient ancestors in the dawn of pre-history between 2 million and 5,000 years ago in America and the entire globe. Examples of these giants would be: Teratornis-meriamii or Teratornis Woodburnensis, a giant vulture whose wingspan spread between 12 and 20 feet wide. Or how about the Columbian, or Imperial mammoth who stood 12-16 feet at the shoulder, Giant short faced bears 10- 12 feet tall, Beavers 6 to 8 feet long, Bison 9 feet tall at the shoulder, and camels 12 to 18 feet high. Not to mention giant lizards and reptillians whose ancient bones were excavated by native peoples--and legends likely sprang from such early fossil discoveries, combined with actual live encounters between pleistocene animals and man.

To view the skeletons of such ancient giants, you need only visit a local museum of natural history.

Giant humans: When looking at how tall humans can conceivably grow under the most optimal conditions, it is certainly doubtful that men a legitimate 12 or 15 feet tall have ever existed in the earth's past. However, tribal ethnic variations of humans averaging between 6 and 7 feet tall have existed in many ancient civilizations. (ex: Adena royal class). Infact one only needs to look at current living populations to see the reality of this:

The Dinka tribe of Sudan, men. Avg 6'5 c. 1990 (Guinness Book) Kranhacacore Indians of Mato grosso, Brazil men avg. 6'6 c. 1956 (Guinness Book)

Thus, in such a tall average population you will likely have an occasional giant, or person of much greater size or strength than the norm.

Based on current height statistics: http://www.halls.md/chart/men-height-w.htm , atleast 1 in any 100 men are likely to be 6" taller, or 6" shorter than the average 50th percentile.

This means, that in a theoretical population whose avg stature was 7 feet, 1 in 100 men will be 7 feet 6. Using the same proportion we could further calculate that 1 in 10,000 such men could grow to 8 feet tall. The odds then jump to 1 in 1 million who could grow 8 feet 6 ins. And then using these same numbers, 1 in 100 million might grow 9 feet.

Thus as you can see, even in a population averaging 7 feet, based on current height statistics, it would be impossible for someone to reach 10 or 12 feet, unless the population numbered in the billions.

The tallest living man verified by science was 9 feet tall, Robert Wadlow c. 1940. Had he lived even 5 years more, he may have maxed out at close to 3 meters (10 ft) tall.

Therefore, I believe you could safely say that giant humans do have a limit in stature, at about 9 to 10 feet-- and these are the individuals ( regardless of pituiary or genetics) who may have inspired the myths such as Goliath, Hercules, and Paul Bunyon.

That's not how statistics work at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.217.194 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Separtate article?

It is absurd for this to be a separate article. Clearly, giants exist. Why are they shunted into mythology just as they are exceptional? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

--63.224.226.148 09:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, but there is a difference between mythological 15 meter giants, and genuine 2 to 2,7 meter people.

The mythological giants of lore do indeed deserve a seperate article. Whereas those real "giants" who have gigantism and geneticly tall stature deserve their own article aswell.

It probably is a good idea to distinguish between people in the public mainstream world who have pituitary disorders or other forms of 'gigantism', and the ancient giants who ranged to over 36 feet in height at the greatest. This article also probably allows more freedom from the prying/attacking eyes of the highly dogmatic and inevitable 'mainstream crusaders'. Yes, real giants, like the enormous giants of mythology, certainly did exist. There does not seem to be any logical reason to disbelieve in such things when they are recorded in bones and in the history of every known civilisation, either orally or in writing. Mainstream academics are often very cloistered, however, and do not care to believe in anything that they don't see around campus, it seems. When the ancient Greeks refer to their heroes as two to three times as tall as an average man and describe physical acts by them which would be impossible otherwise, the natural reaction is to assume that the ancients were making it up or exagerrating for effect. It seems to me that ancient peoples spent much more time outside than modern academics, and as a result probably saw quite a lot more giants.  ;) It is clear to anyone who really reads ancient texts and really studies history that these beings existed, but for many 'official' scholars their mind has been set up to filter out everything outside of their education. I suppose that in the future when the Billy Meier contacts are acknowledged as reality, these non-critical 'skeptics' will be tearing their hair out of their scalps at the statements by the Plejaren that human species range from 40cm to 11 metres in height, and that giants such as the cyclopes and gigantes were actual historical entities. Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should comment, however, that the Creationist/Christian interpretation of giants being the descendents of angels (non-physical beings) that somehow mated with physical humans, or anything along those lines, is utter non-sense. They use the fact of giants as an excuse to bolster their religion. And furthermore, I must in this sense give some slack to the closed-minded academics who deny the existence of giants as they existed, since in typical human folly they are merely making the illogical association that because Creationists/Christian fanatics promote the idea of giants being historically real, therefore, all people who believe in the reality of giants are Creationists/Christian fanatics. This is just the classic converse error, essentially. The real story of giants, as will be accepted in the mainstream sometime this century, is that they were either genetic deformities resulting from mutations or incorrect couplings of human parents, or they were descendents of gigantic humans from other star systems who simply possessed enormous stature naturally. Also, some of the giant creatures were genetically engineered by ancient humans (~11,000-33,000 years ago). Indeed, as bizarre as it seems, some human giants were the size of the giant sloth or larger, and of course possessed a different-looking frame and stronger/thicker bones than smaller humans. Matthew A.J.י.B. 18:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant Skeletons

I believe that alleged giant human skeleton discoveries should be investigated but with caution. It is true that the Smithsonian in the latter 1880's-1890's in their annual reports of burial mound excavations had indeed measured a number of skeletons at heights approaching and exceeding seven-feet.

However, reported human skeletons 12, 15, or 36 ft were most likely based on poorly identified prehistoric animal bones, or extreme exaggerations and hoaxes.

== Possible explination ==

It is is possible that the alleged 12 and 15 ft cases were skeletons of neanderthals with gigantism, however neanderthal remains are very rare, and a discovery of one with gigantism would certainly be well documented. The 36 foot skeleton sounds absurd, even an elephant with gigantism would not, well like said before, the referenced sites are questionable at best.

--If modern humans can't grow 12 or 15ft, then obviously a Neanderthal with gigantism couldn't have either. The largest prehistoric ape known to have existed was Gigantopithecus, probably a quadroped, but estimated to have stood 9-10ft tall when standing, and weighing half a ton or more.

There is some speculation that Homo Erectus "Meganthropus" may have been quite large, but this has not been proven.--70.59.155.91 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely true, Neanderthals were signifagntly larger than Sapiens, if a homo Sapien with gigantism can grow to be near 9 feet, a neanderthal with gigantism could come close to 12, of course this is again highly unlikely. However a Gigantopithecus is possible, though again unlikely. While the Meganthorpus' esixtence is questionable, it is not impossible. After all scientists were and still are puzzled by the Homo floresiensis, so a giant like relative could exist.

--Neanderthals were larger, but not taller. Same height, much more bulk.

They were shorter than modern men, but significantly heavier set.

i delete something

Djinn is not a giant. By the arabs, it is considered as a spirit, frequently depicted incredibly strong and cunning, but not a giant. so i delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.247.39.34 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Stephen A. Kaatman?

A Flordia resident, Stephen A. Kaatman, was brutally attacked and fatally wounded by a giant in Tampa, Florida on April 20, 2007. Witnesses described the scene as "the most disturbing and disgusting act of violence ever done to a human being." Authorities could not contain the giant, as he was so enraged he broke free of his handcuffs, "twisting the metal like it was taffy," as described by an officer who was on the scene. Kaatman suffered a very large skull fracture, as giants tend to smash downwards on their victims, crushing all bones in their path. The victim also had two broken femurs, a shattered ribcage, seven broken fingers, and a lacerated tounge.

while this is an amazing story can anyone find any more info on this?

Eisnein 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

--Wow, are you sure this wasn't a giant neanderthal that has somehow survived to modern day, or possibly a descendant of a gigantic human from another star system as that imbecile above postulated!?

AnimalMother 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Evidence

While we all like to believe in the existence of true giants, I find some of these claims sketchy. I strongly question the validity of this 36 foot human skeleton. And the referenced sites are rather dodgy.

I agree with this completely. I made several adjustments to the language in the Remains section and marked several of the references as needing verification. 24.0.61.64 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Anthropologist Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Dr. Paul Louis André Kiener, Professor of Pathological Anatomy at Montpellier school of Medicine, Mr. Delage, Professor of Paleontology at the University of Montpellier, M. Sabatier, Professor of Zoology at the University of Montpellier, and the additional anatomists who examined the large bones of Castelnau-le-Lez and unanimously agreed that they were human, all of these gentlemen's expertise must be discounted because... they're all dead. And that's how science works. --75.175.77.34 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Red hair & double rows of teeth

I noticed that several of the giant types were described as having red hair and double sets of teeth. Interestingly, red hair and double sets of teeth are also associated with a disease called Hyper-IgE syndrome. (Hyper-IgE syndrome, however, is not normally associated with gigantism). Nortonew 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolls

The mentioning of trolls here is ignorant. "Troll" is simply the traditional name of giants in post-medieval Scandinavian folklore. In the Norwegian fairy tales collected in the 19th century, trolls are usually depicted as evil, but rather stupid, giants. Outside the fairy tales, the term has a wider meaning though, and also includes smaller "supernormal" beings and evil forces of nature (the word might even be used for animal predators in some sources). As an adverb, the word might also point to magic: Trolldom = witchcraft; trollkjerring, -kvinne = female witch; trollkarl, -mann = male witch; trollfolk = people with magic powers. Å trolle = to execute magic; fortrolle = bewitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.212.42.108 (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Skeleton of Giant

I don't know where to place this in the article but there has been a hoax roaming the internet about the finding of a giant human skeleton. This has been reported by the National Geographic.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC) A human skeleton measuring 3.6 meters (12 feet) tall was unearthed at Lompock Rancho, California, in 1833 by soldiers digging in a pit for a powder magazine. The specimen had a double row of teeth and was surrounded by numerous stone axes, carved shells and porphyry blocks with abstruse symbols associated with it. Where is the source evidence ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.34.223.1 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Important link

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-skeleton.html

Above is the website which states that those giant human skeleton pictures are false. It also provides the link of where those pictures were taken from. It was from some online image contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.248.47 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Should giantesses in fiction be a seperate ategory from giants in fiction?

I think this is one of those categories like witch that is gender specific. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Egyptian Giants???

I looked up 1 Chronicles 11:23, but it doesn't mention any "giants of Egypt". It mentions one Egyptian person who was very big. He's not a mythological giant. 178.48.52.73 (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Despite the usage argument against this move, there is a rough consensus that the broad concept's long-term significance is enough to make it the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

---

• Giant (mythology) → Giant
• Giant → Giant (disambiguation)

– WP:BROADCONCEPT. Giants (Greek mythology), Giants (Norse mythology), Giant (Dungeons & Dragons), Giants (Marvel Comics) etc. will all fall under this rubric, and many of them are already linked here. There are a number of Giant films and songs, but in terms of long-term significance demanded by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, none of them can hold a candle to characters of Biblical and Greek mythology that have been around for literally millennia. Still other things on the disambig page, including admittedly very important concepts, aren't known simply as "Giant": Giant star, Gas giant, Giant Forest Ribbet32 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. A well-argued case in which a broad concept is the primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose reluctantly. The fact that a single movie has nearly as many page views as all of the mythical giants (see here and choose "Chart type" → "Pie") combined with the presence of so many other Giants leads me to believe that having Giant as a DAB page is the best approach. A broad concept article already exists as Giant (mythology) and it is the first link on the DAB page. —  AjaxSmack  04:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • A classic case of the problem with page views. Giant (1956 film) has nearly as many page views as all of the mythical giants, does it? This statistic is obviously measuring something, but it's not obvious what. Andrewa (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with you in general and am loath to rely only on pageviews for a number of reasons related to the nature of a encyclopedia but it's hard to imagine that someone clicking on "Giant (1956 film)" would be looking for anything but that. (Whether they're actually reading the article is another matter.) However, it's the existence of so many other notable topics named Giant but unrelated to the mythical creature that swayed me. —  AjaxSmack  05:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Agree it's a puzzle. The film had a strong cast, did well at both the box office and Academy Awards and has received other significant accolades. But it's still hard to believe that sixty years later, so many people think of it and relatively few of Jack and the Beanstalk when they search on giant. A puzzle indeed. On the number of other topics at the DAB, I note that many of them are explicitly Giants rather than giant. This may be part of the problem. Andrewa (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Despite the longevity of mythical giants I wonder if the movie is not a bit more encyclopedic than the creatures. I see less likelihood of a Jack and the Beanstalk fan searching for a giant than a James Dean fan searching for Giant. On your second point, I agree that the Giants shouldn't muddy the waters of this discussion, and if this article is moved, Giants should still redirect to the DAB page. —  AjaxSmack  01:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. – Nimit (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:BCA and WP:CONCEPTDAB. Similar to how Mini is at its current title despite it not being WP:PTOPIC per current significance. feminist 15:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note that a histmerge was required between Giant and Giant (disambiguation). As a result, there were a couple of junk deleted revisions left behind here at Giant – these should not be restored due to parallel histories. Jenks24 (talk)

Goliath

A recent change does portray a view which I'm familiar with, but asserts it like if it was the only, or correct point of view. Since it is mythology and culture and Goliath is often presented as a giant and that some religious groups also believe that he was nephilim or nephilim-hybrid, that the comparison to grasshopers is also an imprecise metaphor, it may be best to rely on a secondary source which discusses those aspects, instead of offering our own commentary in Wikipedia's voice. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)