Talk:Giant human skeletons

On 18 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Giant human skeleton hoaxes in the United States. The result of the discussion was moved to Giant human skeletons.

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Folklore Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

non-rs in Giant of Castelnau section

This is a student paper:[1]. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A student paper by a student that has no background in palaeontology and "determines" the bones to be cave bear bones based on some totally unscientific photoshop exercise of hers.

Against the analysis of real scientist from like Lapouge and his colleagues of the University of Montpellier.

That's for sure some self edit by the "student".

Amazing 2A01:CB08:24F:4100:FD04:2741:CEB2:9EF2 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIAS

Obviously this is an overgrown DYN article and good for what it is, but the current phrasing leans much too hard on this being a US topic when it's just a human one. We shouldn't blank content, but we should rephrase it so the lead covers the topic more generally, the US bits are collected into a US section, and the sections on other countries offers some similar level of details instead of "there are these other countries that had a similar thing somehow according to a website I saw".

In particular, one of the major cases of this silliness was the Oxford prof Robert Plot misidentifying one of the earliest 'scientifically' described dinosaur bones as the femur of the Biblical giants before another scholarly troll 'scientifically' named his specimen fossilized testicles in Latin. Generally, the nephilim are going to be the background for most of the early modern mistakes/hoaxes for Europe and its colonies. In China, dinosaur bones were probably more often misidentified as proof of dragons but doubtless some of them were considered early giant humans as well and the article should include more such ideas around the world.

Alternatively, the move was a mistake and the title should specify that this article is only about hoaxes in the United States like the proposer originally suggested. ("Giant human skeletons" should properly also include a section on discoveries of the bones of very tall actual people, in addition to the mistakes and hoaxes.) — LlywelynII 19:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII good idea. But are you expecting others to do this or are you going to? I’m sure no one would object to well sourced additions. Doug Weller talk 21:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expecting anything to be done. I'm drawing interested editors' attention to the fact it should be done. — LlywelynII 22:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; feel free to expand the article or drop sources here for other areas of the world. No objections, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dewhurst should not be used as a source

Hello Mooncake23, I have this on my watchlist and saw your recent edit. I wanted to offer a few tips and explanations of Wikipedia policies.

When editing on a fringe topic, rely on sources "outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself". Auerbach (2015) looks great. Dewhurst would not be considered a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. The guideline is at WP:FRIND.
Avoid embedding links, even for reliable sources. It makes the articles more confusing and more prone to link rot. The guideline is at WP:CS:EMBED.
Avoid loaded language and "subjective proclamations". The guideline is at MOS:PEACOCK.

Additionally, if you are looking for ways to expand this article, you may want to reach out to LlywelynII or at least check out their post above. Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]