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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Bruxton ( talk) 13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Giant skeletons (United States)

• ... that the discovery of giant human skeletons in the United States was news during the late 18th and early 19th centuries? Source: Source and source
  • ALT1: ... that the discovery of giant human skeletons in the United States was probably a hoax? Source: hoax and hoax
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KWCH-DT

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.

Comment This might make a good quirky hook.^{( ?)} Bruxton ( talk) 02:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• 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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

@ 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)

@ 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)

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)

• Canvassing like minded people with this notice. As an editor, this is rather disappointing to see. Bruxton ( talk) 20:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Asking for a third opinion at a noticeboard is not canvassing. That's the whole reason they exist. –  Joe ( talk) 08:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that the original hook is misleading. Alt 1 is better, but may I propose:
  • ALT2: ... that the discovery of giant skeletons in the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s was a "giant fraud"? Source: [1]

  That should address the concerns raised above. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 20:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

That's definitely a better hook. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@ 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)