Talk:Giant human skeletons

non-rs in Giant of Castelnau section

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)