This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was just working on your list and received an Edit conflict note when storing my edits. Here you will find my comments:
Do you have any literature source for the Auning Woman?
On de:Benutzer:Bullenwächter/Literaturvorlagen you will find a selection of literature on bog bodies in my book shelve.
I have entered a interwikilink on my bog body list to your list.
Now I have to go offline - have a nice day. -- Bullenwächter ( talk) 18:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
There should be no external links in the table at all. External links do not belong in the body of an article. Links to other sites should be used as references as appropriate, as the links then will populate to the refs section. Links to images not on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia need to be removed completely.
People who took photos of modern facial reconstructions may have copyrights to their photos, but it is the underlying work's copyright that is important. A number of these types of images are on this page. Unless the reconstruction is so old it is public domain, or if the artist has agreed for it to be used here, then Wikipedia cannot have it here. There may be fair use arguments in some cases, but the one that brought me here was a photographer claiming to own the copyright to the entire image just because he snapped the photo. That's a derivative work, and a copyright violation. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I did a few reconstructions using AI (GAN) from artbreeder.com and I own the work. Would that be acceptable here ? Here is the one I did for the Roum Man though I might have done him too redheaded, I think it's close. The entire process of reconstruct is documented on the lineage for the work ( 1 and 2) Renmiri ( talk) 13:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Yde Girl.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
I tried to enter a sort template in order to get the datings chronologically sorted, but I guess I used a wrong template. -- Bullenwächter ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just pointing out here, Dröbnitz girl should be under Germany - the area in question being German in 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.22.102 ( talk) 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
By the same token as the Drobnitz Girl, shouldn't the Ballygroll Child be under United Kingdom? Kdammers ( talk) 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the date ranges of th eradiocarbon dates should be explained more thoroughly, indicating that the range includes 1 (or is it2?) sigma. Kdammers ( talk) 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
If she were a true bog body, a discarded body with no coffin, she would appear in the list. It is 100% legitimate for someone reading about bog bodies to want to read about a coffin-burial preserved in "peat from a bog". That is why we have the "see also" section in articles. Egtved Girl: "The burial mound was made out of acidic peat from a bog" ... "The girl's final resting place was first unearthed in in 1921, in a large burial mound made of peat bog." -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The Grauballe Man entry states that his "fingers had been so perfectly preserved in the bog that researchers were able to take his fingerprints, as with Old Croghan Man [citation needed]." I added the "citation needed" because the Old Croghan Man article does not mention this.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of bog bodies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of bog bodies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7980350-identify-the-remains-of-iron-age-woman{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.svtplay.se/klipp/100360/vem-var-bockstensmannenWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 24 external links on List of bog bodies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lostchildreninthewilderness.wordpress.com/category/hobbies/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I've just added the first individual from Søgårds Mose who was found in 1942, as previously only the disarticulated limbs found in 1944 had been included.
I've also removed the sex and date information from the 1944 find, because I think they'd been mistakenly applied - van der Sanden (1996) [1] does not give a sex for the 1944 finds (and I don't think you could reliably sex disarticulated limbs), and the source used for the 1944 find specifically states that the radiocarbon date was from another individual (presumably the 1942 discovery, as they line up pretty closely).
I also calibrated van der Sanden (1996, 194)'s radiocarbon date of 2080 +/- 75 BP using OxCal Online 4.4 ( https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html) but I don't know if that's okay (does it count as original research?). If it isn't, how should I include it, given that the other dates are all given as calendrical dates?
I hope that's all okay with people? What shoud I do if it isn't?
References
Hi! While I was on the hunt for more info on this find, I found multiple articles stating that archaeologists now believe that this foot belongs to a man. I believe that the "break-out" study was From Foot to Fact: New Light on the Fræer Bog find by Lynnerup, Niels. The problem I'm having is that I can't actually find any copy of this study.
Another strange thing is that no one seems to be citing that study, instead they're citing a later a later study by Niels in which he says this:
"For instance, the Fræer foot is the only body part recovered from a bog body found in 1842. Because of the small size of the foot it was previously interpreted as belonging to a female. By visualizing the calcaneus, it could be measured and the dimensions compared to forensic anthropological regression analyses (Introna et al., 1997; Gualdi-Russo, 2007). Based on this result the foot is now believed to come from a male."
This is a bit frustrating because I feel like I'm unable to find the primary source. I've elected to Be Bold and edit the page despite this, but I figured I'd let the populace know and see if anyone has any opinions on this. SnaggleTooth5353 ( talk) 03:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was just working on your list and received an Edit conflict note when storing my edits. Here you will find my comments:
Do you have any literature source for the Auning Woman?
On de:Benutzer:Bullenwächter/Literaturvorlagen you will find a selection of literature on bog bodies in my book shelve.
I have entered a interwikilink on my bog body list to your list.
Now I have to go offline - have a nice day. -- Bullenwächter ( talk) 18:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
There should be no external links in the table at all. External links do not belong in the body of an article. Links to other sites should be used as references as appropriate, as the links then will populate to the refs section. Links to images not on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia need to be removed completely.
People who took photos of modern facial reconstructions may have copyrights to their photos, but it is the underlying work's copyright that is important. A number of these types of images are on this page. Unless the reconstruction is so old it is public domain, or if the artist has agreed for it to be used here, then Wikipedia cannot have it here. There may be fair use arguments in some cases, but the one that brought me here was a photographer claiming to own the copyright to the entire image just because he snapped the photo. That's a derivative work, and a copyright violation. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I did a few reconstructions using AI (GAN) from artbreeder.com and I own the work. Would that be acceptable here ? Here is the one I did for the Roum Man though I might have done him too redheaded, I think it's close. The entire process of reconstruct is documented on the lineage for the work ( 1 and 2) Renmiri ( talk) 13:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Yde Girl.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
I tried to enter a sort template in order to get the datings chronologically sorted, but I guess I used a wrong template. -- Bullenwächter ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just pointing out here, Dröbnitz girl should be under Germany - the area in question being German in 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.22.102 ( talk) 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
By the same token as the Drobnitz Girl, shouldn't the Ballygroll Child be under United Kingdom? Kdammers ( talk) 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the date ranges of th eradiocarbon dates should be explained more thoroughly, indicating that the range includes 1 (or is it2?) sigma. Kdammers ( talk) 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
If she were a true bog body, a discarded body with no coffin, she would appear in the list. It is 100% legitimate for someone reading about bog bodies to want to read about a coffin-burial preserved in "peat from a bog". That is why we have the "see also" section in articles. Egtved Girl: "The burial mound was made out of acidic peat from a bog" ... "The girl's final resting place was first unearthed in in 1921, in a large burial mound made of peat bog." -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The Grauballe Man entry states that his "fingers had been so perfectly preserved in the bog that researchers were able to take his fingerprints, as with Old Croghan Man [citation needed]." I added the "citation needed" because the Old Croghan Man article does not mention this.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of bog bodies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of bog bodies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7980350-identify-the-remains-of-iron-age-woman{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.svtplay.se/klipp/100360/vem-var-bockstensmannenWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 24 external links on List of bog bodies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lostchildreninthewilderness.wordpress.com/category/hobbies/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I've just added the first individual from Søgårds Mose who was found in 1942, as previously only the disarticulated limbs found in 1944 had been included.
I've also removed the sex and date information from the 1944 find, because I think they'd been mistakenly applied - van der Sanden (1996) [1] does not give a sex for the 1944 finds (and I don't think you could reliably sex disarticulated limbs), and the source used for the 1944 find specifically states that the radiocarbon date was from another individual (presumably the 1942 discovery, as they line up pretty closely).
I also calibrated van der Sanden (1996, 194)'s radiocarbon date of 2080 +/- 75 BP using OxCal Online 4.4 ( https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html) but I don't know if that's okay (does it count as original research?). If it isn't, how should I include it, given that the other dates are all given as calendrical dates?
I hope that's all okay with people? What shoud I do if it isn't?
References
Hi! While I was on the hunt for more info on this find, I found multiple articles stating that archaeologists now believe that this foot belongs to a man. I believe that the "break-out" study was From Foot to Fact: New Light on the Fræer Bog find by Lynnerup, Niels. The problem I'm having is that I can't actually find any copy of this study.
Another strange thing is that no one seems to be citing that study, instead they're citing a later a later study by Niels in which he says this:
"For instance, the Fræer foot is the only body part recovered from a bog body found in 1842. Because of the small size of the foot it was previously interpreted as belonging to a female. By visualizing the calcaneus, it could be measured and the dimensions compared to forensic anthropological regression analyses (Introna et al., 1997; Gualdi-Russo, 2007). Based on this result the foot is now believed to come from a male."
This is a bit frustrating because I feel like I'm unable to find the primary source. I've elected to Be Bold and edit the page despite this, but I figured I'd let the populace know and see if anyone has any opinions on this. SnaggleTooth5353 ( talk) 03:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)