Jump to content

Talk:Giant human skeletons/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Bruxton (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 02:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Giant skeletons (United States); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Comment This might make a good quirky hook.(?) Bruxton (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Bruxton: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • stop Hold on, since when do we uncritically feature pseudoscience on the main page? These are not probably a hoax, they're obviously and definitely a hoax. The first hook is missing the key word "reportedly" from the article, and the two given sources are newspaper articles from more than a century ago. – Joe (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: The article is WP:NPOV and offers that this was likely a hoax, which is following a Wikipedia policy and pillar number 2 (WP:5P2). If you have a few reliable sources which state this is "obviously and definitely a hoax" please addd them to the article - it would still meet our guidelines as a WP:NHOAX. You can also refer to WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG for our rules about the DYK eligibility of this article. Bruxton (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not probably, definitely. There’s no mainstream support for this. We don’t need to find sources that use “obviously and definitely”. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Doug Weller: to state that in a Wikivoice we do need to have RS. If not it will be called out at errors or stopped before it gets to a prep or queue. Bruxton (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: the article makes it explicitly clear these claims have been “debunked”. We have no rs saying probably. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: thanks for the message. I am doing my best to maintain WP:NPOV. We usually tweak the hooks or write new ones to fit the rs and I was cautious about putting an absolute like that in wikivoice. If you have a hook to propose you can add it here for consideration. Bruxton (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with others that the DYK needs to be put on hold due to WP:FRINGE violations. The article definitely looks a thorough look over given already identified problems, and I do have to wonder about notability as well. KoA (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is the collegial response I have come tom expect here @ONUnicorn:. I like it and will see if @Onegreatjoke: does. Sorry for sucking you both into this. Bruxton (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely a better hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked about the article a few days about on my talk page, but I didn't realize this was also a DYK hook. In any case, as long as we're clear that this is about the hoax (in both the article and the hook), I'm fine with it. I like ALT2. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, ALT2 is very good. Sorry I was just too tired last night to make an effort at an alternative hook but I doubt I'd have come up with one as good as that anyway. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better hook, and more importantly the article has also been cleaned up following the discussion on WP:FRINGEN. I'm a little concerned that, had I not happened across this, the main page would have featured the extraordinary claim the giant skeletons exist, based solely on local newspaper clippings from 1883 and 1905. Bruxton is still arguing above that these are reliable sources and, even more bizarrely, that acknowledging that giants don't exist is somehow a breach of NPOV. I think a bit more scrutiny on their hooks would be a good idea, going forward. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: I found your three pronged attack of: AfD, melodramatic stop sign above, and call to action at fringe to be very un-collegial. Your last comments about me above are out of line as well. Rather than having a discussion with me, you ramped this up and you continue to use hyperbolic words to describe me or my actions. I am withdrawing this nomination as your fringe post is still garnering disparaging comments and threats to AfD this article. The other article will be withdrawn, and the main page will be safe from my bizarre misinformation. Bruxton (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional suggested sources

[edit]

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 10:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

[edit]

I recommend renaming this page to "Giant skeleton hoaxes (United States)" or "Giant skeleton hoaxes (North America)". Also, the essence of the first three paragraphs in the body, based on old sources, seem to be covered in this source [2] which was provided above by User:ONUnicorn.

So we could opt for using more current sources. Also there are other points from this source worth mentioning such as journalism in those early days did not have the professional standards of today. One reason for this can be found in the Wikipedia article: Silly season. Advertising dollars were based on readership and number of papers sold.

Also, Doug Weller provided some sources above that seem to be useful. The first source (Scientific American) can be considered dated, but the editors note that the skeleton is probably not human. The second source led me to connect giant skeletons with the Smithsonian. This connection led me to these sources: [3], [4] which debunk the Smithsonian destroying large numbers of giant skeletons.

This next source looks like a good [5]. I think the focus for this article should be on what contemporary sources say about buried ancient giant skeletons.---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn:, the history of the fanciful giant skeleton claims is why there is a belief that they exist, and why there was a need for the debunking. So they are there for the reader to interpret and they set up the need for the debunking. I do not agree with the erasure of all turn of the century news accounts because they set it up. I restored the removal of every news account. I agree that a discussion should take place about naming. Bruxton (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Start a move request. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the entire sections

[edit]

You need to get consensus before removing a large swath of the article @KoA:. The sections you removed are needed as a set up for why the debunking was needed. Bruxton (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton, you've been repeatedly cautioned about your use of sources related to these topics. You need to get consensus for disputed content like that per WP:ONUS policy, and you were clearly already reminded of that in the edit summary. KoA (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, you're not new here. We shouldn't have to remind you of core content policies like WP:ONUS and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joe and KoA on this matter. This article was very weak as it was. Yet, the basic outline of the removed material can be discussed using a the contemporary source User:ONUnicorn provided above - and which I also recommended. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have all come from the same message board to create a local consensus. I have learned that it is best to walk away from an article when this happens. Bruxton (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing; I don't want to take credit for finding the source I used to support my alternate hook in the DYK nom - that source was already in the article when I came across the discussion.
I agree with Bruxton that the early news reports are needed for context. How we handle them is a separate issue, but without including in the article that "X things were found in X place and X year and Y place and Y year and reported in X newspaper and Y newspaper as being evidence of giants", it does not make sense to say "Z scholar rejects the existence of giants".
What we are left with in the article as it stands currently is a section called "Debunking claims" but no claims needing debunking. We are not telling readers what needs to be debunked or why, who believed the debunked claims, etc. We are not journalists, but the 5 Ws and H of journalism (who, what, when, where, why, and how) are still essential to clear writing in an encyclopedic context. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can find sources discussing them. At least some of them should be in the article. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't need to synthesise primary sources from 19th century yellow journalism to provide that context. If there aren't sources that have already summarised the phenomenon of 'giant skeleton' claims, then this article shouldn't exist. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was indeed the key reason for removal. Those were plenty of WP:SYNTH violations. If there are secondary sources mentioning specific sources that is one thing, but we cannot be stitching together primary sources and editorializing ourselves like had been done. KoA (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with Joe and KoA. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed sections

Late 19th century

[edit]

On December 18, 1868 The Sauk Rapids Sentinel reported that quarry workers with the Sauk Rapids Water Power Company found a 10.95 ft (3.34 m) skeleton. But the next day the bones were missing, thought to have been shipped east. The giant was given the moniker of "Sauk Rapids giant".[1]

In 1885 Manchester Evening News reported that giant skeletons were found in the burial mounds located in Homer, Ohio. The paper reported that "each of the giants must have been at least 9 ft (2.7 m) feet in height.[2] Also in 1885 a cave near North East Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania was found to have giant skeletons of 10 ft (3.0 m) to 12 ft (3.7 m) tall. Many were reported to be complete. The Leonardville Monitor reported that scientists made careful measurements and determined that the bones were from a "race of gigantic creatures".[3]

Early 20th century

[edit]

April 18, 1901 The Omaha Daily News reported that archeologist J.G. Crawford discovered a skeleton in the burial mounds of Tangent, Oregon: the bones were said to be of an original mound builder. The skeleton was described as "...a man of great stature. The forehead is low and the skull formed somewhat like that of a monkey." The bones were said to have been found many feet deeper than those of the Native Americans.[4]

In December 1905 The Indianapolis News reported that skeletons of men who were at least eight feet tall were found in Newcastle, Indiana. Also in a gravel pit on the farm of George Anderson the "bones of very large men" and "strange weapons and utensils" were found. It was reported that the bones crumbled when exposed to the air.[5]

In 1908 The Sedalia Democrat reported that a group of hunters had found the skeleton of an enormous Indian in Hecker, Illinois. The size of the skeleton was estimated at 7.3 ft (2.2 m) based on the 22 in (56 cm) thigh bone.[6]

References

  1. ^ Berg, Jenny (15 January 2016). "Tall Tale:Sauk Rapids Giant Skeleton Remains a Mystery". S.C. Times. USA Today. Retrieved 11 May 2023.
  2. ^ "Discovery of Giant Skeletons". Manchester Evening News. 21 March 2022. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  3. ^ "Erie County Giants". The Leonardville Monitor. 2 July 1885. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  4. ^ "Giant Skeleton". The Omaha Daily News. 18 April 1901. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  5. ^ "Bones of Giants Unearthed". The Indianapolis News. 1 December 1905. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  6. ^ "Giant Skeleton Found". The Sedalia Democrat. 1 April 2016. Retrieved 10 May 2023.

Requested move 18 May 2023

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Giant human skeletons. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 02:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giant skeletons (United States) → Giant human skeleton hoaxes in the United States – this move accurately names and reflects the intended topic--- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer. The new title tells the reader that the reported incidents of giant skeleton discoveries were not based in fact. And as noted in the intro to this article, these reports were intertwined with the false belief that the indigenous tribes of North America were not the actual mound builders, when in fact they were. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In Jason Colavito's The Mound Builder Myth: Fake History and the Hunt for a "Lost White Race" (2020), he focuses chapter 9 on this topic. This seems a pretty reliable source, but I am (perhaps obviously?) not an expert on this. Colavito writes, "[This] was the popular view of the everyday American, conditioned by the King James Bible to think of humans of the past as that race of giants that menaced the antediluvian world, and conditioned by unscrupulous preachers, lecturers, and ink-stained hacks to imagine America's mounds as the resting the place of gigantic sons of fallen angels. (214) reports of more giants began to fill the newspapers-a combination of hoaxes, misidentified mammoth bones, and tall tales. (250)" The word "hoax" should be in the lead, but I have reservations about it being in the title. Hoax could imply that the people were tricked by these finds, but the most reliable sources suggest that part of the reason that this took off so fiercely is that people wanted to believe in this myth. I'm not sure what our policy is on titling something like this. The abstract to "Contested Indigenous Landscapes: Indian Mounds and the Political Creation of the Mythical "Mound Builder" Race" is available here: https://doi.org/10.1215/00141801-7888741 and the full article is available via wp libary. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. The Cardiff Giant was obviously a hoax, but people really believed that there were giant skeletons. And although I removed one because it was only 7 foot 3, people were, I think, smaller then which had an effect on what they thought of as giants. I've got the Contested landscapes article, must look at it again. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable, if we're really going to try and salvage this article. I don't know if the "in the United States" part is needed. There aren't any similar articles to distinguish it from, and there's always the possibility of expansion to cover other parts in the world. Anecdotally, I've had people try to convince me that bones belong to giants on excavations in the Middle East. (It was a camel we found by the side of the road). – Joe (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joe see the posts by User:In ictu oculi and Doug Weller below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giant-skeleton-uncovered-saudi-arabia/ I just added this as an outside USA section. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the proposer: If the view is taken these are not all intentional hoaxes then what would be a good title? I agree we can throw out any regional constraint such as the "United States."
However, I think there should be some sort of descriptive word used in conjunction with "giant human skeletons" that at least indicates a misidentification of some sort - which may not be intentional by the persons claiming the discovery.
For one thing, many of these were probably originally found by people who couldn't tell a human skeleton from some other animal. Also, as noted above, it could be that people were generally smaller in stature compared to our modern day.
And it is interesting to note (according to the above) that people were conditioned by their preachers to see these mounds as "...the resting the place of gigantic sons of fallen angels" - followed by a plethora of yellow journalism articles. So, the misidentification was probably not always intentional. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what the most appropriate title would be. I've rewritten the first line and I've added in a section with more reliable sources. (This probably needs to be trimmed.) It provides cultural background, a famous example of a misinterpretation, a famous example of a scam, and a completely fabricated hoax report. I hope this helps, Rjjiii (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a list of synonyms for "misidentify" here. Not sure if this is helpful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Steve I'm struggling to find an alternative word for "hoax". Maybe "reported findings" as in Reported Findings of Giant human skeletons. Not great, but better than the current. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure. There seems to be a specifically American phenomenon in the late 19th/early 20th century of reports of giant skeletons associated with mound builders, with no physical evidence because they were either spirited away by the authorities or conveniently crumbled into nothingness shortly after discovery (a classic sign of a hoax). This seems distinct from reports resulting from the misidentification of the remains of megafauna as human giants, which were generally earlier and more widespread, taking place over centuries in Europe and elsewhere. Brunton (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brunton: I see your point. We could make this article about occurrences only in the United States. However, it seems this phenomenon occurred in other countries around the period you mentioned - see this link: [6]. That link would not be considered RS (information purposed only). So, if we do expand coverage in this article beyond the U.S. we would need more reliable sources. I don't know if that is possible. Anyway, I'm just trying to weigh the possibilities and the work involved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Brunton. I wonder if the best path here is let the article develop and then decide on a title. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we could just use Ceoil's title and see how the article develops. We can always decide later. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More newspaper sources

[edit]

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/davidgrover125/giants-and-newspaper-reports/ Doug Weller talk 11:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug this is good. This shows how widespread these reports were, and possibly how much the public at large uncritically bought into this phenomenon. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any academic sources discussing the phenomenon of newspaper reports? That would be the ideal reference for this. Brunton (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this helpful? "Protection and Repatriation Act. In contrast with the legally problematic collection of indigenous remains, conspiracy theorists have accused the Smithsonian of being the center of a vast plot to seize, hide, destroy, or otherwise cover up the remains of giants. Creationists and others point to hundreds of newspaper articles from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries about the discovery of supposed giants’ bones, which sometimes resembled folk or religious descriptions of the semiangelic Nephilim of the Old Testament in having horns or extra fingers or teeth. By the late twentieth century, these claims morphed into a conspiracy legend of Smithsonian archaeologists collecting and hiding or destroying...Card, Jeb J.. Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past (p. 157). University of New Mexico Press. Kindle Edition. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(much abbreviated) context like that would be most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section to the beginning of the article. The organization is still a bit rough and there are likely things that need to be trimmed or summarized. I wanted to go ahead and get this into the article to provide an overview of reliable sources and options for illustrating the article. Rjjiii (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ Rjjiii, thanks as the article is worth attention. Its really interesting how this story developed and evolved. Ceoil (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Moberly, Missouri

[edit]

I tried to end the mythology section in a manner that could either be split into a newspaper section or segue into one, as that was how the article was previously organized. I don't know if I will personally do that, but I thought it would be appropriate to share these sources.

Andy White, anthropological archaeologist, blog posting:

Archived versions of stories cited by Andy White above, a 5-part series by D. Craig Asbury for the Moberly Monitor in 2014:

  1. https://web.archive.org/web/20150529101925/http://www.moberlymonitor.com/article/20140326/News/140329743
  2. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906014532/https://www.moberlymonitor.com/article/20140327/NEWS/140329739/0/SEARCH
  3. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906021444/https://www.moberlymonitor.com/article/20140328/NEWS/140329726/0/SEARCH
  4. https://web.archive.org/web/20150507011426/http://www.moberlymonitor.com/article/20140331/NEWS/140329725/0/SEARCH
  5. https://web.archive.org/web/20150707053942/http://www.moberlymonitor.com/article/20140401/NEWS/140329723/0/SEARCH

2023 3-part series by Winona Whitaker, Managing Editor, for the Moberly Monitor:

  1. https://www.moberlymonitor.com/stories/april-fools-joke-or-just-fake-news,33634?
  2. https://www.moberlymonitor.com/stories/the-creation-of-a-hoax,33797?
  3. https://moberlymonitor.com/stories/the-legacy-of-the-lie,35185?

Rjjiii (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two lead sentences no longer supported in body

[edit]
These sentences from the lead:

"Examples from 7 ft (2.1 m) to 19 ft (5.8 m) tall were reported in many parts of the United states. Several reports said that the bones crumbled when exposed to the air."

Editors have erased all references from the body that once supported these sentences so that they are now un-cited claims. This crumbling bones claim was one way that amateur anthropologists got around having their claims verified. I suggest going back to add the supporting references or erasing the sentences from the lead. I believe KoA erased one supporting sentences for crumbled. Diff and Brunton erased the other. Diff
For the size of 19 feet, I am not sure where the claim came from because the references I used when starting the article supported 8 ft (2.4 m) to 12 ft (3.7 m) tall and there is no 19 foot reference that I can find in the body. I see a reference for 18ft and for 20ft but not 19. Bruxton (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've matched the heights more clearly. One of the sources quoted an estimate in boots/stockings and I was not 100% sure how to phrase that; this should be more clear. This article gives analysis of the crumbling bones story: https://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/502-reward-for-photographs-of-lost-giants-the-skeletons-from-delavan-wisconsin Rjjiii (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are good for WP:PARITY if coming from an expert, but otherwise wouldn't really be used for sourcing standalone. If content in the WP:LEAD isn't sourced, it's then best to remove it. KoA (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giant_human_skeletons/Archive_1&oldid=1169191497"