text:
Talk:Lukas Podolski

No Polish passport
German wikipedia discussion:

Lukas Podolski hat nur die Deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit, einen polnischen Pass hat er nicht. Damit dürfte die Diskussion um eine doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft beendet sein. Andreas Stops, ans sport GmbH (Management Lukas Podolski)

abgesehen davon, dass es mir egal ist zwei punkte zum vorstehenden (nicht signiertem) beitrag von Benutzer:Stopsi; warum ist anzunehmen das du Andreas Stops vom Management Podolskis bist? und weiterer; sagt das Management immer die wahrheit? *grins* ...Sicherlich Post 14:25, 14. Jun 2006 (CEST) Gerne kannst du unter 02161/821280 anrufen. Diese Nummer steht auch auf Lukas´ Website. Für weitere Infos stehe ich gerne zur Verfügung. Wieso sollte man eine doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft leugnen? Gruß Andreas Stops

Wenn das so ist sollten wir den Artikel auch entsprechend ändern. Oder hat jemand wirklich handfeste Belege für den polnischen Pass? Diese polnische Zeitung war wohl bisher die einzige Quelle für eine doppelte Staatsangehörigkeit. Hans Schäfer 11:20, 15. Jun 2006 (CEST) In der aktuellen Ausgabe der SportBild sagt Podolski, er habe keine doppelte Staatsbürgerschaft. --BLiZz@rD 16:00, 15. Jun 2006 (CEST)

Ich habe es rausgenommen. --Streifengrasmaus 16:06, 15. Jun 2006 (CEST)

Podolski has carried Polish passport, Polish nationality and Polish citizenship because he his Polish parents and all children of Polish parents have Polish nationality and citizenship as a matter of Polish law. edit for diction and grammar, hopefully without changing meaning Radio Guy (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone find any sources either way? Kingjeff 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just read his Interview in the magazine SportBild from 15.June 2006. Because he has no polish passport, he could not play for the Polish national team. If you don´t believe me ask his management under 02161/821280 !

Nonsense. He was born in Poland, has Polish citizenship, passport wouldn't be a problem. Polish coach at the time chose not to call him to Polish national team, thus he joined German team. That's all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.13.109 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Podolski's origin
Maybe one tries to write this section in an objective way, providing all necessary information as well as all arguments pro and contra. For instance, it is written now that "His paternal family belongs to the German minority in Upper Silesia." But when one looks in the wiki link to the "German minority in Upper Silesia" one may infer that most of them live in the Opole district, not Silesia. That artcle also states that "The registered German minority in Poland consists of 152,900 people according to a 2002 census". One wonders if Podolski's family belong to that group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zb007 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well someone (Jacek Kendysz) changed Podolski's origin from Silesian to Polish. My question is whether he is also of German origin. If not why would he otherwise be given the German nationality? I believe Miroslav Klose is truly of German ethnicity. Meursault2004 16:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/weltfussball/artikel/202/79123/

Am Sitz der "Sozial-kulturellen Gesellschaft" der deutschen Minderheit im oberschlesischen Oppeln (Opole) wie auch im Haus der Deutsch-Polnischen Zusammenarbeit in der sechzig Kilometer südöstlich gelegenen Industriestadt Gleiwitz (Gliwice) herrscht geradezu Jubelstimmung: Die Oppelner sind stolz auf den in ihrer Stadt geborenen Miroslav Klose, sein Vater Josef stammt aus einer deutschen Familie. Die Gleiwitzer sind nicht minder stolz auf den von dort kommenden Lukas Podolski; seine Großmutter wohnt noch dort, ihre Muttersprache ist Deutsch.

Die Familien Klose und Podolski sind in den achtziger Jahren als Spätaussiedler in die Bundesrepublik gekommen. Sie hatten Anspruch auf die Aufnahme in die Bundesrepublik, weil die Großeltern vor dem Krieg Reichsbürger waren. Das kommunistische Regime in Warschau bestritt zwar offiziell, dass in Oberschlesien noch Deutsche lebten. Doch war es auf Kredite aus dem Westen angewiesen.

 * I think his grandmother/grandfather was a ethnic Pole, but was born in Silesia when it was German in about 1935 and therefor she/he was a German citizen. Therefor the family had the right to go to Germany in 1987.

 * I don't know if Lukas Podolski is of German ancestry. Answer for your question: it's possible to acquire German citizenship by naturalization (you can read about it here). Jacek Kendysz 14:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Is he both Sielesian and Polish, because Silesia has both Czech, Pole and German peoples. Bona Fides 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Podolskis family came as Aussiedler, this means specifically that they claimed German ethnicity and on that basis receceived citizenship. Two states in the world award citizenship to foreign nationals based on their ancestry: Germany and Israel. Read about it at de: Lukas Podolski and Aussiedler

 * How do we know all this. Is there anyway we can comfirm this? Kingjeff 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Couple of myths to dispell. Germany and Israel arent the only ones. Asamoah also was awarded citizenship. His father was Waldemar Podolski (Pole), his grandma and cousins live in Gliwice (Poles). A lot of Poles migrated to Germany for political/economic reasons in the 80s, some with ancestors, some without. Give some sources which precisely give who in his family, if anyone, was German. We know Miroslav's dad was half-German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.241.79 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 June 2006
 * His family come from Kresy, as most people in Gliwice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.198.167 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 June 2006

Here is something some of you might be able to do. How about looking for a source to see if he has any German background? If we find something, problem solved. Kingjeff 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Lukas is one of the sweetest football player of the germany football worldcup group. I am a fan of him. But who not???

Poldi doesn't dislike the German anthem. He exclaimed it was "fantastic" to have it on his boots. http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060511/1/6r0a.html I don't know if he sung it. Perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he did. It's not interesting and not proven or disproven by any one so far. No need to argue about stuff too trivial to be called "trivial". There are songs about him. That's more remarkable. City-17 22:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As per the article: "The Podolski family had the right to move to Germany because his (mixed Slavic-German Upper Silesian) grandparents had been residents of the German empire (Reich) until 1945 when they became Polish citizen."

I'm not sure why this description is so ambiguous and odd. Posolski's parents are both considered ethnic Germans by Germany because their grand parents were all ethnic Germans -- citizens(not "residents"). Just going to shorten this and clean it up. Ernham 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)ernham

Point by point
''The Podolski family had the right to move to Germany because they were ethnically German, as Lukas's grandparents had been German citizens until 1945 when they "became" Polish citizens. Podolski grew up in Bergheim, North Rhine-Westphalia, near Cologne.''

 * Instead of tabloids, please show me a source from a respectable biography that states that his parents are "ethnically German".

 * I didn't write it but put that back in because it could be true. I found a source now and edited it. City-17 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite being born in Poland, Podolski has German citizenship only.

 * Should read: As a result of being born in Poland, has Polish citizenship [/sarcasm]. That you include such a "fact" kind of reveals your intentions.

 * It reveals MY INTENTIONS? You don't know MY intentions. You only know YOUR intentions. See the above section No Polish Passport. Podolski admitted to not having a Polish passport in SportBild. City-17 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He wears unique shoes that display the Brandenburg Gate and have inscribed the words 'Unity, justice and freedom' -- from the German national anthem. "It is special to have the words of the national anthem printed on my boots. It is fantastic," Podolski said.

 * I seperated this "tidbit" and requested a citation. Now see why I revert your version? Esp. with the historical name on a contemporary topic? Now please try editing some other articles instead of only Podolski and Klose, and how not-Polish they are. Pawel z Niepolomic 16:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You did't read the discussion page, I provided a citation already: . And you didn't read my most recent version, there was NO »historical name on a comtemporary topic« anymore!
 * What article I edit, it's none of your business. City-17 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain Pawel z Niepolomic how the clubs in which his parents had played are relevant to the early career of Lukas. Please explain on which sources you base your »He is a dual Polish-German citizen« and why this would overwrite the information about his passport. City-17 11:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, I will trim it. His bio is the source. Many Poles dont have passports, yet they are still Polish citizens. Pawel z Niepolomic 23:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * His »bio« is your source? Where exactly is his bio? Just because you say many Poles don't have passports doesn't make that statement wrong. I also fail to see why you insist on »emigrated«. Explain these things first before you force them again. City-17 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He's a Polish footballer too.
As a Polish citizen (he has) and native Pole we should called him as a Polish fotballer too! Not only German. Kowalmistrz 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He is not Pole! He's not even polish citizen. He's native SILESIAN. If you don't believe me just ask him 80.49.150.73 14:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He was asked in interview after Polish-German match. i saw it in TV. Podolski said, in POlish, that he has two fatherlands and his heart beats for both Poland and Germany. Szopen (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also in German: http://www.tagesspiegel.de/sport/;art272,2062857 "„Man kann so sagen: Ich habe zwei Heimaten“, sagt Podolski." Szopen (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In POlish: "Setki razy mówiłem, że Polski się nie wyprę. Nigdy. " "Hundred of times I said that I won't deny [my ties with?] Poland" - http://www.sport.pl/sport/1,90858,5284464,Podolski_typuje_final__Niemcy___Polska.html
 * Why he doesn't play for Poland: because no one from Poland wanted him to. "What were you expecting? That I would go to Poland and beg?"
 * " Zaraz pewnie usłyszę, że poleciałem na kasę i nie mam honoru, że polscy działacze się o mnie bili, prosili, żebym zagrał z orzełkiem na piersi, tylko ja to wszystko miałem gdzieś. Mam już dość tych bzdur. Prawda jest inna, to z waszej strony nikt mnie nie chciał" "Nikt nie proponował mi gry dla Polski, gdy jeszcze to było możliwe. Co miałem robić? Przyjechać i upraszać się, by ktoś z reprezentacji się mną zainteresował? Bądźmy poważni."

http://www.sport.pl/sport/1,65025,5284694,Podolski__Nikt_z_Polski_sie_o_mnie_nie_bil.html
 * I think this is clear, that his primary nationality is German, but he many times stressed that ties with Poland are VERY IMPORTANT for him. Szopen (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there's no Silesian nationality! "Silesian people" is an ethnic group, a part of the Polish nation. Related with West Slavs and Germans, and the most with Polish Slavs, the modern people of Poland. And HE HAS a Polish citizenship! As a son of Polish citizens born in Poland he has since his birth. It's by the Polish law. Kowalmistrz 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He's the son of his Polish born parents and he was born in Poland too. That's why it says his nationality is polish. Kingjeff 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * see the previous discussion on this talk page about this controversy. He was an ausiedler, and emigrated to Germany under the special laws for people defined as ausiedler. As a comparison, Owen Hargreaves is a Canadian footballer, as he is a Canadian citizen and was born in Canada, he is only a England footballer because he plays for England, he is not an English footballer.

 * Also, another interpretation of the term. He is not a "Polish footballer", as he has never played for Poland or any Polish club.  The closest he has come to being a Polish footballer is when he played against Poland in the WC, and if everyone who plays against Poland is Polish, well then there are a lot of Polish footballers... perhaps Jens Lehmann is also a Polish footballer, as he held a clean sheet against Poland.

So far, I have seen no evidence that he retains Polish citizenship.

 * --Jadger 06:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually, if you are born a Polish citizen, it is quite difficult to get out of it. Consider this (from Polish nationality law):

 * Loss of Polish citizenship

 * Since 1962, Polish law (including the Constitution) does not allow the government to revoke someone's citizenship. Renunciation of Polish citizenship requires a petition with extensive supporting documentation subject to the approval of the President of Poland. Administrative processing of the petition can take up to several years and the President's decision is final and cannot be appealed in court.

 * Since we have no evidence that Podolski went through this complicated procedure and thus got rid of the citizenship he acquired at birth, we can be fairly certain he remains a Polish citizen by law. Still, given that he left Poland when he was a toddler, calling him Polish is not justified, unless evidence is presented that he himself desires this. Balcer 06:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about these pointless details. He was born in Poland, lived in Germany for most of his life and now plays for Germany at the national level. We know he was born in Poland but why do all Polish people want some recognition for this? To make up for the fact that your national team isn't what it "could be". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.5.244 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 * getting a german passport you have too give up all others (usualy?) - so his only nationality is German because of German nationality laws banning double nationality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.204.109 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Orzechowski demands revoking citizenship from Klose and Podolski http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80269,5293215,Orzechowski__odebrac_obywatelstwo_Podolskiemu.html
 * Well, you can't revoke citizenship from someone, who does not have it. Szopen (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Most countries do not recognize the concept of dual citizenship but merely turn a blind eye when their citizens bocome citizens of other countries. Podolski must have been a Polish citizen by birth. Unless there were special provisions in some treaty between Poland and Germany concerning abandonment of citizenship by Polish citizens moving to Germany by virtue of their German ancestry, Podolski could not simply give up its Polish citizenship by becoming a German citizen. It is actually very difficult to give up one's citizenship for any reason. So, barring any special provisions, Podolski in the eyes of the Polish law is still a Polish citizen. Conversely, because the concept of dual citizenship is commonly not recognized, I guess that according to the German law, a person may become a German citizen only if they agree to give up their previous citizenship. And because the German law does not mean anything in Poland, such an act of citizenship abandonment is not recognized by the Polish state. Therefore, the discussion about Podolski's citizenship is pointless because the correct answer depends on from what angle you look at it. His loyalty is with Germany and that is the only thing that matters.128.146.238.235 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I know Germany didn't accept dual citizenship, but from what I've heard, they do now. Same thing goes for Poland and Sweden.

Norum (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics and sports
It matters not what his nationality is or was. What matters is what kind of footballer he is — and what sort of Mensch he is. Too bad certain politicians (such as Mirosław Orzechowski) on either side of the Oder can't accept that we are all human beings.

Sca (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are totally right. And Orzechowski was widely condemned by majority of Poles. This guy sits in government offices and apparently has nothing to do so stupid stuff comes to his head. BTW Podolski is great, his left foot is magic. Tymek (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

German city name
Why do people add over and over German translation for Gliwice on this page? It can be easily found on Gliwice, there is no reason to add it here (even more so, as it was a Polish city when Lukas Podolski was born there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konkursor (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Konkursor, why did you recently remove e.g. Danzig from several articles, violating the Gdansk/Danzig double naming policy? -- Matthead Discuß   23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Was'nt Lukas Podolski actually born in Gleiwitz, Silesia, which came under Polish Administration as Gliwice in 1945 ?
There is much talk about Lukas Podolski, as well as Miroslav Klose and others, having been born in Poland. Lukas was actually born in 1985 in Polish Administered Silesia.

The territory including Gleiwitz, Silesia, German Empire, was in 1945 conquered by Soviet Union, who gave it to Communist Polish Administration.

For Wikipedia to reflect International Law and to be correct it would have to state that Lukas Podolski was born in Polish Administered Silesia, and not that he was born in Poland.

Podolski, Klose and others of native German Silesian families, born in territory under Communist Polish Administration since 1945 conquest by Soviet Union, held automatic German citizenship. Upon arrival in Western Germany they automatically received their German passports. An Observer 9 September 2008
 * Interesting. Now get a gun and start another war. Haven't we had enough of them in Europe? Tymek (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes completely no sense. Podolski is not a German name. Are you Germans so tick that you can't accept that he is from Polish descent, and thus make up things like these? And you always tell Polish people that they should stop living in the past, but you do exactly the same! Stop being such hypocrites. -Thedrunkenpole

 * "Polish Administered Silesia" is this a joke??? By the time Podolski was born, Gliwice and Silesia were officially in Poland for 40 years. It wasn't just "administered" by Poland, it was in Poland therefore Podolski was born in Gliwice, Poland. The Eastern German territories were given to Poland to compensate for seized Soviet territories in Eastern Poland which the "Allied" Soviets refused to return to Poland. Podolski should not just be listed as a "German footballer" but either as a "Polish-German footballer" or at least a "German footballer of Polish descent". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckenbauer1974 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

what is your character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.253.120 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Apparently I was born in "Polish Administered Silesia" too. Hahahaha. (polskaGOLA) (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Imaginary Polish Origin
Podolski is 100% German. During the second half of 20th century, the ethnic Germans in Poland were forcibly Polonized. Still, they remained Polish on the outside and German on the inside. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 * You failed to mention that during the 18th, 19th and into the 20th century Germans forcibly were "German"-izing Poles. To pontificate that they are Polish on the outside and German on the inside is very arrogant and uneducated of you.

 * I am not being arrogant. I am just saying that Lukas Podolski is an example of a Polonized German who is Polish on the outside and German on the inside. Shannon1488 (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence whatsoever that his last name (Podolski) was originally a German name that was Polish-ized? If not, he's as Polish as any other ethnic Pole. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gliwice/Gleiwitz
Illraute changed his birthplace from Gliwice to the Germanized name of Gleiwitz, citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Biographies However, this overrides the convention to use modern names only if the person is clearly German. We cannot say that Podolski is clearly German because he says he speaks Polish at home. http://www.focus.de/sport/fussball/em-2012/dfb-laenderspiel-klose-und-podolski-kehren-heim-nach-polen_aid_662183.html Since he was born in 1985 when the city was known as Gliwice and he's natively Polish-speaking, there is little argument to use the Germanized name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)

Edit request on 12 June 2012
it says hes german when he is polish

80.73.214.11 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm denying the request because he plays for Germany and holds German citizenship. Kingjeff (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Polish-born German
Would it not make sense to refer to Podolski as a Polish-born German? This would not only be a good compromise between those who consider him Polish or German - but far more importantly it is factually accurate. Completely disregarding ethnicity (which needn't be relevant in the opening paragraph) it refers to the fact that he was born a Polish citizen and NOT a German one, but now IS a German citizen, regardless of whether he officially holds Polish citizenship today or not. This is clearly relevant as his notability is for playing for Germany's national football team - thus representing a country he was not born a citizen of. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * He is known as a football player. He plays for a club and a national team. Those should be mentioned. His ethnicity is not a factor. Per WP:OPENPARA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For the fourth time, I have not mentioned his ethnicity. It is clear that when I say 'Polish' I am referring to nationality, as in legal citizenship, so you don't need to bring up ethnicity any further. He is known as a football player for Germany, and so his birth nationality - nothing to do with ethnicity - is therefore relevant, isn't it? The Raincloud Kid (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. You think "German" here means he's an ethnic German. It doesn't. It means he plays (or played) for the Germany National Football Team. Any mention of Polish in this context is a discussion of something other than his notability as a footballer. So you're the one who's raising the irrelevant information, aren't you? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I did not think that describing him as 'German' means he's ethnically German. For the fifth time, this is not about ethnicity. I have literally no idea what his ethnicity is, and I don't care either way (if it's relevant, I'm neither German nor Polish and have no vested interests), so again, please stop brining up ethnicity. And actually no, describing him as 'German' (as in the following quote from the opening paragraph: Podolski 'is a German footballer') does NOT mean he plays/played for the Germany national football team, what it means is that he is a footballer who is a German national (as in legally, a German citizen). While it is of course completely accurate, it is also completely relevant that he was not born 'German' (again, as in a German national, as in legally a citizen of Germany) as his notability is for playing football for Germany. It is not at all the norm that most players who represent their countries are not actually from those countries - it is comparatively very unusual, hence its relevance to his notability. This isn't some kind of value judgement on my part about how 'German' he is - as far as I'm concerned, he is a German citizen and that's all we need to know about his status today - but his status in his early years was as someone entirely (legally) Polish, which is relevant to the notability of someone famous for playing football for the Germany national team. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Revived in 2022
This was last discussed nearly five years ago. The state at the end of March, 2017 was "is a German footballer". Fast-forward a year, "is a German footballer". 2019-03-17: "is a German professional footballer". 2020-03-30: "is a German professional footballer". 2021-03-28: "is a German professional footballer". 2021-09-23 "is a German professional footballer". Then, while I was blocked, made a WP:BOLD edit to add Poland-born German. This changed a phrase that had lasted well over five years, although I did not check before March 2017. On 2022-02-02 completely removed nationality from the lede, so it had lasted a little more than four months. On 2022-02-23 claimed that there had been a deletion of truthful information without justification. The latter part is true as no edit summary was provided, not sure it was necessary as this it is common practice to remove nationality from footballer articles when there is contention. This started an edit war that included reverts by, three by me, and one (apparently on principle alone) by.

So here we are. I believe that the problem started on 2021-09-23 when the longstanding German footballer was changed. At the very least, it should have been changed to "Polish-born German", if it were changed at all, but do not think it needed a change. I have left all of the previous discussions above and would be happy to remove nationality per MOS:ETHNICITY and leave the discussion for an appropriate part of the article, but clearly some editors do not feel that to be appropriate either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming your good faith and mine (seriously, our goal is to develop Wikipedia) it would be worth discussing it publicly. Removing the nationality would be in line with the MOS: ETHNICITY policy, and a reference in later sections of the article. However, I opt for "Polish-born German" because: 1) it is wider than the phrase "German" itself, and Podolski himself had Polish parents and was born in Gliwice, Poland; 2) indicates that as a footballer he represented Germany in football, but the origin itself is from elsewhere. Please refer to this issue and support the idea of introducing "Polish-born German" (as you had a different opinion, I respect it), and if not - introducing MOS:ETHNICITY second. Atlantico 000 (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is long-standing consensus not to use hyphenated/composed nationalities (such as Polish-German, or Polish-born German). Either we put one nationality only, or remove it and explain the situation further down in the lead. In Podolski's case, though, I was wrong in removing the nationality: sure, he was born in Poland, but he lived all of his life in Germany and strictly represented German national teams. It's a similar situation to Raheem Sterling. Nehme1499 10:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would remove the ethnicity from the lede. It is sufficient to say for which national team he played. Mentioning ethnicity brings no benefits and only increases the potential for such discussions. --Jaellee (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And Raheem Sterling is presented as the "...Jamaican-born English professional footballer...", and he moved from Jamaica to England in the age of 5, so there is no problem to describe Podolski as the "Polish-born German..." (he moved to Germany from Poland in the age of 2). There is no doubt, that he was born on the Poland's ground. Sterling, as well as Podolski, played for the national team of a contry other than the one in which he was born. Atlantico 000 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because the lede of Raheem Sterling includes such a phrase, this doesn't mean that it is the right way to handle such cases. We should remove it from Raheem Sterling also, but at this talk page we are discussing Lukas Podolski and my opinion this article hasn't changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaellee (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can just as easily remove nationality from the lede of Raheem Sterling as it can be removed anywhere.
 * What no one is commenting on are three things: 1) the long-standing nature of only listing German here. Why does it suddenly need to change?
 * 2) No one has addressed MOS:ETHNICITY In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. For guidance on historic place name versus modern-day names, see WP:MODERNPLACENAME.
 * Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. So why is his Polish birth of any consequence? There are some players who play for one nation at a youth or junior level and then switch in their senior year. That is not even the case here. He never played for Poland at any level (although he may have played in Poland as a child or has subsequently at a professional level or even against them at the international level). This feels like Polish flag-waving to me. There's not even any indication he identifies as Polish and there seems to be some evidence above that he does not hold a Polish passport.
 * 3) The football project has long stated that in cases where there is dispute, to remove all mention of nationality from the lede. I am not sure if that is the best option, but it's better than an unjustified and unreasonable hyphenated nationality as is being proposed here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I opt for removing the nationality from the lead; and thus working out some sort of consensus. However, I do not agree with your statement that his Polish birth has no consequences - he was born there, speaks Polish, currently plays in Poland (Ekstraklasa's Górnik Zabrze), engages in social campaigns in Poland, etc. (I do not want to make changes to the article yet, because there may be other opinions, but if no one removes the nationality from the lead within a few days, I will do it myself). Atlantico 000 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors who was involved in the dispute, you should not assume to conclude that a consensus has been reached. Please let an uninvolved editor do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have a problem with replying to messages in the discussion - and this results in misunderstandings. After all, I announced that I would introduce changes after a few days. In fact, I can do it on the basis of MOS:ETHNICITY. But ok, I am waiting until the end of the week for some substantive voices that would be against MOS:ETHNICITY, and if it is not - I am introducing changes (because someone has to, and you are not too interested in it). Atlantico 000 (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not assume I have a problem. Stating it is even worse. I have no problems with responding to discussions and I have responded here frequently. There is no expected time to respond. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool, nothing happened! Thanks for all your views during the current discussion. Atlantico 000 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop adding your preference. I will request an admin lock if you try it again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Try it :) Everything was lege artis here, there was a discussion, it was shown that changes can be made in line with MOS:ETHNICITY. Each of your withdrawn changes will be a sign of your bad will, which admins are unlikely to miss. I will quote you: "The football project has long stated that in cases where there is dispute, to remove all mention of nationality from the lede. I am not sure if that is the best option, but it's better than an unjustified and unreasonable hyphenated nationality as is being proposed here". Atlantico 000 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Requested page protection. You can claim I am editing in bad will, but that is clearly not the case as I have made my position clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw your application and addressed it in the form of an objection. I do not understand your problem, since compliance with Wikipedia policy (MOS:ETHNICITY) has been established, and you yourself wrote that you have no problem with it (hence my surprise). Atlantico 000 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You objected to your edit warring notice, not to my application for page protection. You do realize that you are changing valid changes to content, right? That's the galling part. I am not a nationalist, and would prefer no nationality in the lede, but 1) others are not of the same opinion, and 2) would prefer a consensus to be applied, and it existed for more than five years (as I showed in my first edit in this section). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are to remove "German footballer" then I think the lead sentence needs to mention that he played for Germany, as this is a major part of his notability. MOS:ETHNICITY does seem to encourage noting a person's nationality if it is relevant, so I think German should be added back in.
 * Also later on in the lead, it claims he "originally wanted to play for the Polish team": I'd expect a direct quote to support this, not an article making an unattributed statement that he "was interested in representing his homeland". Spike 'em (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with both points. The source is dead, but perhaps an archive can be found. The "international debut and breakthrough" section is unsourced as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same source (number 7, from goal.com), as I can open that? Spike 'em (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Objection to closing
I wrote to Jkudlick that I do not agree with the closing of the discussion and ask for it to be opened. Atlantico 000 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Atlantico 000, you state, yet your edit warring to the article, edit summaries and comments here, makes it seem that you thought that something had been agreed to. You cannot have it both ways. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, and what does it change that the discussion shouldn't be closed? Atlantico 000 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You claimed it was closed when you got to remove "German" from the opening sentence. I stated, every time you did that, that an uninvolved editor should look at the discussion and come to a conclusion. That is what happened. The closing editor applied policy and guidelines to the conclusion. It was only then, when your opinion was challenged, that you claimed that the discussion was not actually closed. Do you have a policy reason that contradicts what was written by the closer or are you simply wanting the discussion closed your way? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My reason is that we have weighed the opinion and the opinion of someone new who joins the discussion is not arbitration. It's like someone who says there shouldn't be any nationality in the lead and would close the discussion instead of writing an opinion. It is also strange that the discussion is alive, then I go out for a dozen or so minutes and see that the discussion is already closed and it is impossible to comment. Atlantico 000 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to further argue that if we abandon nationality with controversial nationalities (e.g. Matty Cash) - and you have no problem with that either - then you should agree and have no problem with removing it here and with possibly other articles - what is consistent with the policy, you indicated it yourself (e.g. this is how the editors decided to remove Cash). Atlantico 000 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not address my questions. Was there something in the closing rationale that was incorrect from either a policy or guideline point of view?
 * What I like or do not like is not germane to the discussion, particularly since you are cherry-picking comments. To be clear, I stated that I would like nationality removed from all article—every last one of them—however Wikipedia as a whole does not agree. As a result we have guidelines for how nationality should be included in the lede and how ethnicity should or should not be mentioned.
 * So that you cannot claim something to the contrary, I agreed with the consensus that was in the lede for the past five years and believe that Jkudlick did an excellent job of reviewing the content that was listed and and pointed the relevant guidelines in closing the discussion.
 * The discussion had truly ended. You had no more evidence that his nationality should be hyphenated, and the majority of editors felt that highlighting only German nationality was all that was merited for this player who made 130appearances for the Germany National Team over a 13-year career with them. I would have liked to have seen the summary clearly state that he does not hold a Polish passport, but I did not see it. Regardless, it was a good decision, not because it agreed with my point, but because it balanced all of the pertinent information with guidelines.
 * At the risk of further offending you, unless you can offer a clear reason that the closing notes erred, I cannot see a reason for re-opening. I would also suggest that you wait a day before responding here not only to let other editors comment, but also to allow yourself time to come up with a valid objection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a decision not to get involved with the article about Podolski for the time being. At the moment, I am able to accept your point of view, but maybe I will come back to this topic in the future. Atlantico 000 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a small issue with the English language, Atlantico 000, that concerns me. You wrote "your point of view". In most other languages, a different word used for second person singular and second person plural. In modern English, it is usually the same word: your. I will assume that you mean second person plural as this was a consensus decision, not my person opinion, or that of a singular other editor, being forced on the group. The reason I mention this is that is that it seems that you want to keep coming back to try to change the consensus. This could be seen as tendentious editing, and is frowned upon. If that is not what you were implying, my apologies for assuming this edge case.
 * I cannot see a shift to the lede changing as Podolski's career is starting to come to a close, and unless something drastic changes, I do not see a valid reason to reopen it, let a lone continue to revisit the discussion. With that said, do not let my opinion dissuade you from doing what you think is either right or necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant second person plural. So take it easy, I respect everything that is said here. Thank you for the kind words. Maybe we'll have another chance to discuss it in the future. Atlantico 000 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lukas Podolski


text: Category:Bridges completed in 1950

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Bridges completed in 1950


text:
Pasco Province

The Pasco Province is one of the three provinces that make up the Pasco Region in Peru. The capital of this province is the city Cerro de Pasco.

Boundaries

 * North: Huánuco Region
 * East: Oxapampa Province
 * South: Junín Region
 * West: Lima Region, Daniel A. Carrión Province

Geography
The Waqurunchu mountain range traverses the province. One of the highest mountains of the province is Waqurunchu at 5748 m. Other mountain are listed below:

• Anka Wachanan

• Añilqucha

• Awki

• Challwash

• Chuqimayu

• Hamp'atu

• Hatun Ukru

• Hatun Waqya

• Kasha Pata

• Kimaqucha

• Kiswar Mach'ay

• Kuchpanqa

• Kurawniyuq

• Luliqucha

• Luychu

• Luychuqucha

• Llama Lluchka

• Manka P'ukru

• Marayniyuq

• Millpu

• Mina Kasha

• Mishi Waqanan

• Muruqucha

• Ñat'iqucha

• Ñawsan

• Ñawsanqa

• Ñawsaqucha

• Pachapa Simin

• Parya Punta

• Pichqa Pukyu

• Pirwa Hirka

• Puka Uru

• Pukaqucha

• Puma Hirka

• Puma Wayin

• Putaqa

• Ranra Tampu

• Qaqa Mach'ay

• Qawi

• Qiwllaqucha

• Ranra Tampu

• Raqray

• Saqra Mach'ay

• Shaywa Punta

• Tampu Raqra

• Tawllish

• Tinyaqucha

• T'uru Hirka

• Uskhu Raqra

• Wachwa Rumi

• Wallqash Hanka

• Wank'a Wank'a

• Waqay Rumi

• Waqurunchu (Huá.-Pas.)

• Waraqu

• Warmi Chuku

• Waswas

• Waychaw Wachanan

• Wayrachina

• Yana Chaka

• Yana Chuku

• Yana K'uchu

• Yana Mach'ay

• Yanaqucha (Huachón)

• Yuraq Mit'u

Administrative division
The province has an area of 4758.57 km2 and is divided into thirteen districts.

 * Chaupimarca
 * Huachón
 * Huariaca
 * Huayllay
 * Ninacaca
 * Pallanchacra
 * Paucartambo
 * San Francisco de Asís de Yarusyacán
 * Simón Bolívar
 * Ticlacayán
 * Tinyahuarco
 * Vicco
 * Yanacancha

Population
The province has an approximate population of 123,015 inhabitants (2017).

title: Pasco Province


text: Category:Bridges completed in 2003

title: Category:Bridges completed in 2003


text: File:Ha'man.jpg

title: File:Ha'man.jpg


text:
Rum (disambiguation)

Rum is a distilled alcoholic beverage made from sugarcane by-products such as molasses or sugar cane juice.

Rum may also refer to:

Islam and the Near-Eastern Christians

 * Rum (endonym), a term meaning "Romans" historically used by Muslims to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire ("Byzantines") and geographically Asia Minor, the heartland of the Empire, in the Middle Ages as well as being used by the present day Middle-Eastern Christians of the Antiochian Patriarchate and Jerusalem Patriarchate to refer to themselves as Rûm Orthodox, especially by the Arab Orthodox Christians
 * Ar-Rum, translated as "the Romans" or "the Byzantines," the 30th sura of the Qur'an
 * Rumelia, the "land of the Romans", the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire
 * Sultanate of Rûm, a Seljuk sultanate, established on conquered Byzantine territory of Asia Minor from 1077 to 1307
 * Baciyan-i Rum

Geography
Places named Rum include:
 * Rùm (or Rum or Rhum), Scottish island
 * Rum, Austria, Tyrolean market town
 * Rum Cay, Bahamas island
 * Rum Hill, a mountain in Otsego County, New York
 * Rum, Hungary, village
 * Rum, Iran, a village in South Khorasan Province
 * Rum Island (Tasmania), Australian island
 * Rum River, waterway near Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Media

 * "Rum", song by Alestorm from the album Back Through Time
 * "Rum" (song), a song by Brothers Osborne
 * Rum (film), a 2017 Indian film

title: Rum (disambiguation)


text: Category:Bridges completed in 1927

title: Category:Bridges completed in 1927


text: Category:Bridges completed in 2001

title: Category:Bridges completed in 2001


text: Category:Bridges completed in 1913

title: Category:Bridges completed in 1913


text: Category:Bridges completed in 1955

title: Category:Bridges completed in 1955


text:
Talk:Piltdown Man

Cricket Bat reference
"On November 21, 1953, however, scientists pronounced it a crude forgery, the marriage of a modern human skull and an orang-utan's jaw, and decided that the entire package of fossil fragments at Piltdown - which included a ludicrous prehistoric cricket bat - had been planted by someone."

 * Cricket bat? - Omegatron 23:47, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * http://www.cricketbats.com/

Monicasdude 22:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (no financial interest)

 * I know what cricket is. I'm not that ignorant of an American.  :-)  I meant why the hell would cavemen have cricket bats? - Omegatron 00:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * No doubt it was an attempt at humour. A candaidate for BJAODN perhaps? Lisiate 02:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * No, no. It's from an external source, and not mentioned in the Wikipedia article.  I was wondering if it was true, and what would have been the motivation.  Here is one copy: http://www.meta-religion.com/Paranormale/Frauds/piltdown_man.htm - Omegatron 12:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The cricket bat explained (Piltdown A Scientific Forgery, Frank Spencer, ISBN 010 838 5225):
 * The object was a stout and almost straight blade of bone, measuring 41 cm long and varying from 9 to 10 cm in width. The thicker end had been shaved into a point, while the other had been rounded like the base of a cricket bat. . . Dawson and Woodward [concluded] that the object was an implement which had been fashioned from the upper part of a third trochanter of an extinct elephant and that it probably been a "digging stick" used for grubbing up roots for food . . . (p. 87)

Martin Hinton is credited with carving the cricket-bat: http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/betrayers_of_truth.html

Cricket bat image at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/03/piltdown_man/html/tools_and_fakes.stm

The cricket bat reference comes from a follow up paper by Dawson and Woodward in 1915. The authors themselves are not responsible, as the comment was made in a 'Discussion' section at the end of the paper, recording the thoughts of scientists present at the original reading of the paper. 'Mr Reginald Smith' is recorded as saying "he could not imagine any use for an implement that looked like part of a cricket-bat" (p148). Whilst this comment is telling of how English-centric the scientists' studying Piltdown were in their thinking, it should be noted that no one ever said that they actually thought it was a cricket bat. Dawson, C. and Woodward, A.S. (1915) “On a Bone Implement from Piltdown (Sussex).” Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 71:144-149. Carl weathers bicep 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * WRONG! There was a TV documentary about Piltdown man which stated exactly that - those who did not fall for the hoax labeled the object a cricket bat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.55 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If your "WRONG" statement was directed at my comment, then feel free to go ahead and check my references. Its right there in the 1915 paper. Not to dispute your expertise or anything, what with you have watched a documentary about Piltdown Man once. --Carl weathers bicep (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment 2
I have removed the following sentence from the Exposure section: "Perhaps the most ridiculous revelation was that an 'artifact' near the bones which was believed by the scientists to be a tool or a part of the skeleton, but later turned out to be a cricket bat." It is entirely untrue that this item "turned out to be a cricket bat" - it was a fake prehistoric artifact carved out of bone. Nor was it ever believed to be part of the skeleton.

I cannot help wondering whether this anonymous addition was really made in good faith. It would imply that the scientists who examined the finds and believed them to be genuine, were not just gullible or careless, but staggeringly incompetant. Could it be a subtle creationist dig - an attempt to imply that scientists are prepared to overlook obviously bogus evidence as part of some grand "pro-evolution" conspiricy? --TomH 02:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

'''It is entirely true that it was a cricket bat. See, for example, the recent TV documnetary mentioned below ''' 68.183.223.189 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't the "cricket bat" but that the text suggested doesn't feel creditable; cricket bats are made of wood so unlikely to be confused as being part of the skeleton. As a tool, then that is creditable as some willow wood carved to appear as an older artefact could be a viable trick especially given how willow wood rots. The text "most ridiculous revelation" though seems to be conjecture as it would appear to me that the re-profiling of the skeleton itself would always be the most ridiculous. Who claims it the "most ridiculous revelation" ?, who says it was thought to be part of the skeleton ? Ttiotsw (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How dense can evolutionists get? The fact that wood should not be mistaken for bone is exactly why the cricket bat is the "most ridiculous" aspect of this hoax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.55 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, as everyone knows, TV documentaries are an entirely trustworthy source of information. 208.79.94.252 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Do we actually have a direct quote of the documentary? And what documentary was it?  When was it broadcast?  That some critics at the time teased advocates of Piltdown about the "cricket bat" shaped object does not at all prove that what was found *was* a cricket bat!   Here is a quote from Smith-Woodwood in The Earliest Englishman, p.44:

... I stopped his work, and searching the spot with my hands, pulled out a heavy blade of bone of which he had damaged the end. It was much covered up with very sticky yellow clay, and was so large as to excite our curiosity. We therefore washed it at once, and were surprised to find that the damaged end had been shaped by man and looked rather like the end of a cricket-bat; we also noticed that the other end had been broken across, and we thought it must have been cracked by the weight of the gravel under which it was originally buried. on p.45 are two drawings of the "tool", and they do indeed resemble the wedge of a cricket bat. Smith-Woodward surmises that they are made of bone from an elephant. He says (p.47): " We cannot guess for what purpose it was made or how it was used... On the whole, it suggests a digging stick... Although no wooden tools have been preserved in the Piltdown gravel, there can be no doubt that the man who made the bone tool just described was accustomed to work in wood. The method of shaping the bone suggests work in wood." Indeed! It does look like a hoaxer's joke. But do we have a reference for the notion that it wasn't bone but was indeed wood? --Dannyno (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I researched Piltdown pretty throughly a few years back, relying on the original material rather than an unnamed documentary, and never came across anything that suggested the 'cricket bat' wasn't simply a bone implement that resembled a cricket bat. As far as I am aware no one ever seriously suggested that it was a cricket bat (see my reference in discussion above) --Carl weathers bicep (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment 3
Who was Martin Hinton and what could have been his motive in perpetrating the hoax? Bastie 00:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment 4
Just a couple of points.

Firstly, I seem to remember reading that Dawson had a history of faking. This was in connection with the sighting and recording of rare birds in Sussex, I believe.

Secondly, The Piltdown forgery was technically extremely poor. Its genius was in offering the experts exactly what the wanted, evidence that human evolution was brain-led. It was also a British fossil man, the French had theirs, the Gemans had theirs and even the Chinese (horror of horrors!) had theirs, so where was the British one? It was all so unfair. Because it gave them what they wanted the people who were taken in by the Piltdown forgery were prepared to ignore all of the rules that normally apply to any sort of evidence.

Thirdly, one big problem that fakers have is where one thing joins another, in this case the area where the jaw joined the skull. The faker solved this problem by simply breaking off the terminals of the jaw. It was pointed out at the time that this must cast doubts on the integrity of the specimen, but these objections were made in the main by foreigners, whose opinions, by definition, did not count. Happy days.

Regards, Nick. --Nick 11:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Creationist fun
From the article, at the end of a section:

Although now clearly discredited, Piltdown Man is a bit of a cause célèbre for creationists, who claim it shows evidence of corruption in the scientific community, and points to the possibility that other hominid fossils are hoaxes.

I think this needs to be fleshed out with some common sense reasons that this is not evidence against evolution. First of all, the hoax was perpetrated by one or a few people and discovered and outed by the scientific community as a whole. Modern theories of hominid descent (obviously) do not rely on this "fossil" and thus are unaffected. In addition, the number of hoaxes in the history of biology pales in comparison to the number of hoaxes and just plain outright lies in the creationist and intelligent design movement. --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It may not be constructive to get involved with such a project unless it is kept attached to significant publications that can be verified and cited. The first example I found online was : Time Magazine’s New Ape-Man by James Perloff (2001). I'm not sure that this is a great example; is it at all significant? Maybe the thing to do is search harder in an attempt to find the best example where we can cite a published article that was an attempt to use the Piltdown hoax to call into question other hominid fossils AND where there is a published rebuttal of that article. The Piltdown Man article could then describe that pair of published articles. --JWSchmidt 14:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should be waging the evolution v. creationist war here, the following might be fair to both sides of the argument:

Now clearly exposed as a fake, the Piltdown skull has been taken up by advocates of creationism who claim the forgery exposes corruption in the scientific community and points to the possibility that all existing specimens of fossil hominids are forgeries, thus weakening the case made for human evolution. The advocates of human evolution counter the creationists' claim by pointing out that the Piltdown hoax was exposed by the members of the same scientific community whom they, the creationists, accuse of corruption.

Regards, Nick. --Nick 15:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * What is a source for, "The advocates of human evolution counter the creationists' claim by pointing out that the Piltdown hoax was exposed by the members of the same scientific community whom they, the creationists, accuse of corruption"? --JWSchmidt 16:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Everything you need to know about Piltdown man is at TalkOrigins, including scientists' rebuttals to the claims of creationists. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but that webpage did not satisfy me. That page has the following statement, "It has been argued that this is a good example of science correcting its errors," apparently written by Richard Harter. I'm not sure that a website for a discussion group is a very authoritative source. It does not appear to support the statement, "The advocates of human evolution counter the creationists' claim by pointing out that the Piltdown hoax was exposed by the members of the same scientific community whom they, the creationists, accuse of corruption." --JWSchmidt 17:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It appears so to me. The site very thoroughly documents how the forgery was discovered and supports the citing passage. The talkorigins website is more than a mere discussion page. It is very highly regarded and even cited in some college textboooks. --JPotter 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * How can TalkOrigins not satisfy you? It's only the number one evolution-related site on the net.  No joke.  It has contributions by dozens of scientists and other very smart people.  It's a lot more than a mere website for a discussion group ... and by the way, talk.origins is no mere discussion group.  And you're right, it is a rather unbiased treatment of the issue and it does point out some scientific problems about Piltdown Man.  So I must therefore amend my earlier statement.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * My problem starts with the phrase "The advocates of human evolution". Does anything written on the www.talkorigins.org website document the views of "The advocates of human evolution". I doubt if "The advocates of human evolution" represents any identifiable group that could be documented as holding a particular point of view. The Piltdown Man webpage seems to have been written by one person, Richard Harter, who wrote "It has been argued that this is a good example of science correcting its errors." Why try to make a point by citing a commentator for a discussion group? Does Richard Harter authoritatively speak for, "The advocates of human evolution"? If others have made the argument, why not cite them directly? It would be better to cite one authoritative publication by a scientific authority on evolution who has (in print) made the argument that the Piltdown hoax, "is an example of science correcting its errors." --JWSchmidt 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, you just don't understand what TalkOrigins is. I'm not surprised.  I guess you just haven't spent a lot of time in evolution circles.  You should try hanging out in talk.origins some time ... you'll learn a lot, and you'll understand what the site is about.  As for that document being written by "merely" Richard Harter, it was peer-edited and peer-reviewed by many other people.  TalkOrigins is pretty much the best evolution vs. creationism or just plain evolution resource on the net.  I guess it's not obvious on the surface why this should be true, but it is.  And if you want to find a scientific journal article that deals with the Piltdown Man .. go right ahead.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I am very familiar with the talkorigins website and I do not have many complaints about the Piltdown Man article by Richard Harter, particularly since it even cites an article I wrote as one of its sources. I just do not think that it makes sense for Wikipedia to suggest that the Richard Harter webpage speaks for, "The advocates of human evolution." I agree that it is useful to cite an online reference that is available to Wikipedia readers. In a short search, I was unable to find a better online article that discusses the Piltdown hoax in the context of creationism. Here is a proposal that could use the current reference. Change the article to say something like: "Richard Harter reviewed the steps by which members of the scientific community came to doubt claims that were made about the Piltdown fossils(cite reference). Continued scientific study finally showed that the fossils were part of a hoax."  --JWSchmidt 00:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * O.k., here are references for places where Piltdown Man has been given as an example of self-correction in science:
 * Feder, K.L. 1990. Frauds, myths, and mysteries: science and pseudoscience in archaeology. - Mountain View (Calif.), Mayfield.
 * Shermer, M. 2001. The borderlands of science: where sense meets nonsense. - New York, Oxford University Press.
 * Langdon, J.H. 1992. Lessons from Piltdown. - Creation/Evolution 12, 2 (no. 31, Winter 1992): 11-27.
 * Langdon, J.H. 1993. Self-correction in science: the case of the Piltdown hoax. In: Langdon, J.H. & M.E. McGann. Eds. 1993. The natural history of paradigms: science and the process of intellectual evolution. - Indianapolis, University of Indianapolis Press: 69-82.
 * I plan on doing some editing of this Wikipedia article soon. For example, there are links to web pages by the BBC and NOVA; however these are not really good resources. Both were written to showcase a television documentary (originally on the BBC that NOVA re-marketed) that was more about promoting the shoddy Hinton theory than science. Anyway, if anyone's interested I have published an extensive bibliography that is available online for free for the first three months of 2006. --TomT 13:00, 5 January 2006 (EST)

I'd like to offer an explanation from my recent edit, in which I replaced the controversial text that referred to Creationism with a more generic statement about skeptics of the scientific process. First, the text as written put an inappropriate spotlight on the Creationism debate. This article is not about that debate, but about a specific historical scientific claim. The article is fairly brief as it is and the level of detail does not support drawing out the Creationist debate. Second, the statement stereotyped the Creationist viewpoint and implied that all Creationists argued that Piltdown showed science to be flawed, which isn't the case. Third, the text implied that Creationists are the only skeptics of the scientific community and scientific process, which is also not the case. Fourth, there are other points about the relevance of Piltdown, such as the fact that many fossil dating methods were improved through the inquiry on Piltdown, and the fact that we can now have a greater trust in science because Piltdown raised the level of scrutiny applied to scientific claims, are not included here, for the sake of brevity.

Rather than clarify all of these points, it makes more sense to simply refer to the general legacy Piltdown has on the reputation of science. Highlighting Creationism smacks of a political agenda on both sides and should be avoided. Coastside 15:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Creationism still points to the Piltdown man as a failure of science, it's worth mentioning. There's references to the talk:origins archive now.  If the creationist side brings up piltdown on an ongoing basis, it should be pointed out, as well as the flaws that piltdown illustrates for both sides.  I tried to reflect this in my edit, though I don't know if I was successful.  WLU 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Instrumentalization?

 * What is this section trying to say? It's not creationists who (weakly) claim PM is a forgery but the scientific community which does.  A sentence later the sense of the previous sentence is reverted -- scientists (strongly) exposed the forgery. As written, the section is self-contradictory -- but there's a bit of a gratuitous sneer towards creationists isn't there?
 * Instrumentalization? Is the appearance of this word as the section heading someone's idea of a deconstructionist joke?
 * The claim that creationists are making a specific claim beyond the common consensus public claim, i.e. that PM was a hoax in 1912 and exposed in 1953, a period of 41 years, needs a cite, even before one starts to evaluate its possible signficance to this article. patsw 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Who exposed the fraud?
I should be grateful if editors from here could look at Edward Thomas Hall. Can you source, or disprove, the claim that he exposed the fraud, please? BlueValour 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, BlueValour. The items you reverted were by me, not TomH. I forgot to sign my little piece. Skull with a k is the correct spelling. Not sure why you removed the little groaner at the end. Possibly you didn't get the joke (such as it was), or else you feel that the seriousness proper to articles should extend to talk pages as well. I don't think it needs to. Please feel free to remove this paragraph when you have read it. Copey 2 10:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth Oakley did it. He's the one that invented radiocarbon dating which dates fossils and showed PM wasn't half a million years old; thus exposing the fraud. --Indie.Bones 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Indie Bones

This Article... sucks
Its... just wow. Really badly built and arranged. I'm gonna do what I can, but I need more help from people who know more about the subject. AllStarZ 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not too bad down to the "Popular culture" section. After that it seems like a series of afterthoughts. Copey 2 13:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Timewatch Episode
On the night of children in need 2003, over on BBC2, at 9pm, there was a timewatch episode about Piltdown Man entitled "Britain's Greaest Hoax" (I know because I recorded it out of intrest and have kept it ever since.) It presented cases for all the suspects and one of the interviewees said that Martin Hinton may have known it was a hoax and planted the cricket bat as an indicator that it was a hoax. --Indie.Bones 18:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Indie Bones

Piltdown and Science
Quote: "The fact that this theory was disproven, in spite of the enormous amount of research required, shows that science is a self correcting discipline."

This is a stupid statement. One example cannot prove that science is a self-correcting discipline. Science has many flaws. It is also unsourced. I brought it here to see what other users think before I remove it. Lotans 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That whole section is horrible. It sounds like a speech, and presents opinion. This was written by somebody who has a bias, and trying to erase the falsehood. This article is is an apology of a lie. Lies still exist in science, which this section tries to assure you they don't. Should I mention some lies in recent past?68.125.189.60 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I wholeheartedly agree that this section is problematic. I think it's bad enough that there are some previous mentions of the whole evolution/creation debate (which is obviously silly and doesn't even merit discussion in an article like this).

 * The whole tone of that section is unencyclopedic. It comes across as an apology in the above mentioned debate. You can almost hear the sound of the soapbox scraping across the pavement as the "speaker" steps up to it.

 * I've examined it for any possible fragments that can be retrieved and worked into the context of the article and I'm afraid I've come up empty. Without resorting to "weasel words" and without sources, there's really nothing there worth retaining.

 * I'm going to chop it out.

 * Steve Lowther 03:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've chopped it out. I also took the liberty of tweaking the intro a bit; removed "so called", "early 20th century" to 1912, "ape" to "orangutan"...

Steve Lowther 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling the forgery a "hoax" is the onset of the "excuse" tendency of this article. As early as 20tiies French and German scientists knew that this was forged, typical for that time in science, they did not write much on it. Neglecting such a find meant more or less doubting it. The fact that other scientists, esp foreigners were not allowed to inspect the skull closely, says all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.214.253 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Phylogeny of Eoanthropus
According to Beard (2004, 284-85), Eoanthropus was found in rocks dating to the Pliocene. The occurrence of Eoanthropus in the Pliocene of England may suggest that this genus was an aberrant descendant of its African ancestors, which lived during the Pliocene.

Beard, K. C. 2004. The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey. The University of California Press, Berkeley, 348 pp.

Credulity
Perhaps an advocate of the theory of evolution, as opposed to one disputing it, can give an NPOV account of the credulity this hoax found in the scientific mainstream as if it were "too good to check". The earliest debunkers, for example, for dismissed for their jealously of the fame Charles Dawson obtained. 12:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * In George W. Crile's (his Wikipedia entry cites him as "a significant American surgeon") 1915 A Mechanistic View of War and Peace, the frontspiece is a full reproduction the Piltdown Man (then called the Sussex Man; a cropped version appears in the article), which the caption cites as "the most ancient known inhabitant of England" and notes Dawson as its discoverer. Crile titled the illustration "The Establishment of Action Patterns of War." I'm not necessarily an advocate of the theory of evolution; just someone who bought Crile's book thru Amazon. (Mencken cited it in an essay.) BubbleDine (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

re-write
I re-wrote much of the article below the history section. A lot of this meant basically taking out original research and what looks like a paste and extensive summary of the talk:origins archive page on Piltdown. It's much shorter, but I think it reads better. Could still use a bunch of references though. WLU 18:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

what if
it is no fake? there are such opinions. why are they suppressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.142.110 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Are you asking if the bones are not a fake? They were pretty soundly classified as a fake, completely out of keeping with the theory of evolution.  Any other opinions to the contrary would have to be reliably sourced, and I'm guessing wouldn't stay up for long.  WLU 15:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Since evolution may be a point of contention here, let me rephrase it: "They were pretty soundly classified as a fake, completely out of alignment with each other without resorting to crude tampering." That's it, the jaw (in its original shape) simply cannot be fit to the cranium. It was deliberately damaged, believing the damage would a) make it match the cranium and b) to obscure the fact that it originally didn't fit. But every anatomist of today would recognize the bone growth patterns and be able to give a rather good estimate of the amount of material removed.
 * Also, the specimens have been identified as something known in every case. Dysmorodrepanis 13:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More sources than you'll ever need
Here: http://www.palarch.nl/NorthWestEurope/nweur_2006_1_1.pdf

New Zealand dentist in 1937 noticed problems
According to THE LOST CONTROL AND OTHER MYSTERIES: FURTHER REVELATIONS ON NEW ZEALAND'S FLUORIDATION TRIAL a New Zealand dentist first discovered the Piltdown Man. They give a citation of: Taylor, R.M.S. (1937) The dentition of the Piltdown fossil man (Eanthropus dawsoni) from a new aspect. Presented to Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science. Reprinted in Taylor, R.M.S. (1978) Variations in Morphology of Teeth: Anthropologic and Forensic Aspects. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas. I didn't see a mention of this here. II | (t - c) 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

2003?
The timeline at the end of the article includes the year 2003, describing it as marking the "full extent of Dawson's hoaxes exposed." However, in the rest of the content of the article, the year is only mentioned in conjunction with a 50th anniversary exhibition, and in the publication dates of several of the reference sources, which I would assume were published at that time to coincide with this anniversary and/or with the exhibition.

So... outside of an exhibition and books published in conjunction with it, what exactly happened in 2003 to more fully expose the hoaxes? I can think immediately off the top of my head of three major anniversary exhibitions which occured in the last year or two in my field of study - Japanese history - relating to the anniversaries of various historical events; but that doesn't mean that, purely by acknowledging and celebrating an anniversary with an exhibition, that anything new is being discovered or exposed.

What was discovered or exposed in 2003 that was not in 1953? Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the 2003 part per the above - still unanswered - question. Alfons Åberg (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Portrait
That portrait is obviously a photo, not a painting. Awien (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a painting, as a brief moment spent with Google shows. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/human-origins/piltdown-man/ 78.28.98.192 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way is that page supposed to show that the portrait is a painting rather than a photo? There doesn't appear to be any reference to it at all. Also, the person who originally posted the image to Commons only described it as a portrait, not a painting. Awien (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This page on the other hand calls it a photo. Awien (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You can clearly see a the detail of this painting (in colour) over there. In any case, the composition seems to be (at least to me) too unnatural to be a photo in any case. 77.233.75.87 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Also. https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/tag/john-cooke/ Quote: "This is not a photo, but the painting made by John Cooke, R.A" 77.233.75.87 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Colour doesn't prove anything - black and white photos were and still are colourised in various ways for various purposes. Your latest link is hardly an authoritative source, while this book calls the image a "group portrait". I suggest that we use that wording here, since it seems a perfectly adequate description. Awien (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Royal Academy's list of Academicians does not include any John Cooke, so that scuttles the Iconic Photos blog's credibility. There is one portrait by a John Cooke in the National Portrait Gallery  of a style so different from the Piltdown portrait as to make it highly implausible that he painted both.
 * As for the composition, the stiff poses would be due to the long exposure times photography required at the time, while no painter worth his or her salt would chop two of the sitters off as has happened here, nor would they have left a central face (Dawson?) in deep shadow. Everything points to its being a photo. Awien (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search reveals the original painting. Comparing them side-by-side makes it obvious that this is a painting, if a rather poorly reproduced one (perhaps we should replace the article image with the color version?). "It would have been a photograph" is an absurd assertion; painting did not suddenly become extinct upon the invention of the camera. Additionally, your personal beliefs about good composition are not relevant or verifiable in reference to this painting. Bournemouth University's page on the Piltdown man states that "1915 was also the year that the an oil painting depicting the ‘main protagonists’ of the Piltdown discovery and subsequent debate, and entitled “A Discussion of the Piltdown Skull”, was unveiled at the Royal Academy in London. The “Discussion”, painted by John Cooke, was an artistic interpretation of a meeting held on the 11th August 1913 at the Royal College of Surgeons."
 * Hopefully this clears everything up. Somnambulent (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Portrait is hung in the council room of the Geographical Society of London and is discussed here https://blog.geolsoc.org.uk/2012/12/13/a-tale-of-three-meetings/ ADR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.120.175 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Needs more History and Philosophy of science
This article needs more HPS to maintain its B rating or move forward to A. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

First sentence contradicts itself
"The "Piltdown Man" was the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human, ... later discovered to be a hoax"

That first sentence is factually incorrect because it states something like "X is Y, but X isn't Y". Would it be more accurate to say "The Piltdown Man was believed to be the fossilized remains...", or "The Piltdown Man was a hoax presented as the fossilized..." Wanderer of Wiki (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I think either of your suggestions would be an improvement, although my preference would be the first ("was believed to be..."). Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Well spotted, WoW. As Nev1 says, either one would be an improvement, but I would actually favour the second as getting the word "hoax" into the text as early as possible. In fact, how about adding it to the title: Piltdown Man Hoax? Awien (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 * You do make a good point about pointing out it was a hoax as early as possible, so you've convinced me that the second option would be better. As for the title, I think "Piltdown Man" is the more common name although "Piltdown Man hoax" would still be accurate. I did a superficial search of Jstor and the term "Piltdown Man" turned up 319 results to the 9 of "Piltdown Man hoax". That said, it is regularly referred to as a hoax or forgery so I can see where you're coming from. Nev1 (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I knew nothing about this subject. When I first looked it up I almost moved away from the page with the thought it was real. The hoax part was on the next line, and I almost didn't read it. My bad for skimming, but I wasn't expecting the later part of the sentence to nullify a clear statement from an earlier part. I will try introducing the word "hoax" nearer to the beginning. I am new to this - should I discuss the exact change first on the Talk page, or just go ahead and make the (minor) change? Wanderer of Wiki (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Heh, never mind - someone already changed it. Wanderer of Wiki (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and did it (crediting you WoW in the edit summary) since you seemed to be reticent about it. Now, what about changing the title? I don't think either of you would object - does anyone? Awien (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 * No objections here. I think it is a good idea. Wanderer of Wiki (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So... where are the bones now?
I find it very odd that no mention is made of the bones' current whereabouts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Peterson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Find out and add it to the article, perhaps other editors haven't been able to find out. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

this article gives the location as the Natural History Museum, the photo has a NHM digital graphic in the corner and the article reports a news story on the NHM website which gives most of the details.- ADR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.155.248 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Which Smith?
Towards the end of paragraph five of the Find section it says "Smith sided with Woodward and at the next Royal Society meeting..." It's not clear from the rest of the article which Smith this is refering to. It's not a reference to Arthur Smith Woodward (for obvious reasons), and the only other Smith mentioned in the body of the article comes later on, in the sixth paragraph of the Find section (American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller). Could this mysterious Smith in fact be G Elliot Smith, who is mentioned in the caption for the 'group portrait' image in the introduction section? He was a member of the Royal Society, after all. However, it's a little confusing as the body of the article doesn't make any reference to the people depicted in the image. Thanks! Siscarfe (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion in The Forum July 1914
I am not expert enough in the subject, but you may wish to add a reference to scientific discussion prior to 1915 e.g. this article in The Forum, July 1914: https://archive.org/stream/theforum52newy#page/2/mode/1up Echinops (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Echinops

Need for globalization of the perspective
I restored the {Globalize} tag, removed by Maunus. His rationale, limiting the early 20th century paleoanthropology mainly on 'the US and "England"', while dismissing other anthropologists worldwide (mentioning India and China in a derogatory manner, which IMO reflects somewhat unfortunate attitude towards non-Western scholars on his part), while not acknowledging scholarly anthropological research on the European continent at all) shows how much important it's important to put the supposed global influence/or acceptance of the Piltdown Man into correct perspective. Thanks.--188.122.212.12 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not mention China and India in a derogatory manner. Fact is that there was no scientific milieu there that took notice of this so the globalization tag is asking for the impossible. You mention France and Germany, but scholars there were just as mislead by the hoax as in anglophone countries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ever heard the term implausible deniability?
 * If true, this should be referenced and put into perspective - how widely it was accepted in the international scientific community and whether the degree of acceptance was globally the same as among the British scientists. The article now states: Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. but also The influence of nationalism is clear in the differing interpretations of the find: whilst the majority of British scientists accepted the discovery as "the Earliest Englishman", European and American scientists were considerably more sceptical, and several suggested at the time that the skull and jaw were from two different creatures and had been accidentally mixed up.- did it led all the scientists or primarily the British ones? These are the questions which should be adressed and clarified.--188.122.212.12 (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is of course true that the British had a particular stake in having the earliest human on their national territory, and Arthur Keith was by far the staunchest defender. Nonetheless it remains a fact that the belief in Piltdown by a sizeable portion of the anthropological elite made it impossible for other theories and finds (such as Dart's) to gain acceptance and in doing so the Piltdown undeniably did slow down the GLOBAL progress of science in the decades while it was being discussed. You seemingly have good access to the sources, so how about you start improving the article instead of just tagging it? In any case the globalize tag is not the tag you need for this question.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Denied
T. de Chardin denied that he was in England at the time of the first discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.54.253 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Gould's deduction and analysis-de Chardin was the probable culprit
http://www2.clarku.edu/~Piltdown/map_prim_suspects/Teilhard_de_Chardin/Chardin_Prosecution/piltdownrevisited.html

Gould wrote in Natural History Mar 1979 a good argument implicating de Chardin, and despite prior sections here de Chardin was in the area long enough (and savvy enough about archeology) to convincingly plant the pseudoartifact in a place where it would be found- he did not need to be in the area the day of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.78.58 (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Identity of Forger
This section begins with the statement that "The identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown." My read is that both palaeoanthropological and circumstantial evidence now indicate, possibly conclusively, that the forger was Charles Dawson. The August 10, 2016 article by Isabelle De Groote (Solving the Piltdown Man crime: how we worked out there was only one forger) reviews recent DNA analyses, CT scanning and X-ray tomography studies that made by De Groote and her colleagues. Combine this evidence of consistency of techniques and the limited number of specimens used to create Piltdown I and II with the fact that Dawson was at every discovery, and the only one seen at the Piltdown II site. This led De Groote and her colleagues to the conclusion that Dawson was the only forger responsible for the hoax. An archival research furthermore showed that Dawson was responsible for at least 38 forgeries, such as Roman inscribed tiles and a statuette excavated by him. Catrachos (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I too was thinking that that statement is no longer valid. Awien (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"an example of the dishonesty of paleontologists who study human evolution"
Could the word "supposed" or "alleged" be inserted here in front of "dishonesty"? The only dishonesty is on the part of creationists who quote the Piltdown Man hoax as "evidence" that scientists were supposedly lying, and that creationists are by implication always truthful.89.212.50.177 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Something Missing
I'm new to this subject, it's all quite interesting. As far as the article goes, there's one thing I, the casual reader of Wikipedia articles, still find quite unclear; it is understood that the skull is a faked composite, yet the article refers to the braincase as being "two thirds the size of a modern human". Was the braincase from a single human? If not, OK, but clarify the point. But if it is from a single modern human, nowhere is it addressed as to why the brain size is so small. Are there any theories out there as to the origins of the source individual used in the hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:3C24:8B48:824E:B1F1 (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piltdown, East Sussex which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Motive
There is no reason why this should not be in the article. Gould is a great source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Piltdown Man


text: Category:Bridges completed in 1912

title: Category:Bridges completed in 1912


text: Category:Bridges completed in 1982

title: Category:Bridges completed in 1982


text: Category:Bridges completed in 2004

title: Category:Bridges completed in 2004


text: Category:Bridges completed in 1960

title: Category:Bridges completed in 1960


text: Talk:Barrow-wight

title: Talk:Barrow-wight


text: Category:Bridges completed in 1987

title: Category:Bridges completed in 1987