Talk:Cardiff Giant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

"Then he transported to giant by rail to a near Binghampton and eventually to Cardiff in November 1868. He had spent $2,600 for the hoax"

This sentence doesn't really make sense to me. Kranak 20:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it as part of a series of edits. - DavidWBrooks 23:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, doesn't quite make sense due to bad grammar. I suppose it should go like this:

"Then he transported the giant by rail to Cardiff in November 1868. He had then spent $2,600 on the hoax."

rather than

"Then he transported to giant by rail to Cardiff in November 1868. He had spent $2,600 for the hoax"

Furthermore, it's unclear how and why Nevell came to know of the giant. Was he an accomplice to Hull? Did Hull tell him where it was buried or did he find it by chance? What were his motives, and what was Hull's interest in the whole thing? Qui bono? Kranak 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something got messed up in the editing - maybe in my editing. Hopefully I've fixed it now - including the fact that the name is Newell, not Nevell. - DavidWBrooks 17:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, still broken. Kranak 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, it now states that Newell was his cousin. It makes a lot more sense now. Good. Kranak 17:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs some rewriting

Much of the text appears to be more or less copied from this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/cardiff.html It needs to be rewritten so the text is original. -ramz- 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent photograph

A more recent photograph of the state would be great. --Thenickdude 03:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This article uses no references to speak of, and requires cleanup to meet wikipedia's standards. Halogenated (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of adding the reference tag is to inform the reader that what they are reading is unreferenced, and may be un-reviewed original material. It stands out significantly because it needs to. Although there is no specific directive to where the tag is required to be placed, it is typically placed at the top. If there is a dispute, then the best solution is to cite the claims of the article. Halogenated (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is increasingly not placed at the top, largely because so many of various tags have been slapped on wikipedia articles that we're becoming unreadable. The point of tags like this is to alert *editors* that reference work needs to be done to the article (or style improvement or other non-vital issues); if there are claims of error or serous POV issues, then that tag certainly needs to be at the top to alert readers. If we're only commenting on style issues (no references) then it shouldn't interfere with the casual reader, as these certainly do up high. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the casual reader should not be concerned over the legitimacy of an article with no citations? This has not a style issue. There are no claims of errors because there is no ability to criticise based on the lack of evidence for any of the statements made. It is not a NPOV matter, because there is nothing to compare the POV with, or whether there is a reason to believe that this article reflects a POV instead of a series of facts. I'm not suggesting the article is factually incorrect, but I, like any conscientious reader, always error on the side of skepticism when reading an article that has no citations. Therefore the reader should be made aware of this immediately upon reading the article. The wiki tags for these things are definitely a little overwhelming, and could possibly be scaled back somewhat, but as I said, the whole point is to make clear to the reader, not just the editors, that the material therein is of uncertain origin, and may or may not be at all accurate. I hope we can agree on this. Halogenated (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the tag to refimprove - there are come citations I suppose, but they are of questionable validity due to their age and that they stem from non-academic (read non-peer-reviewed) sources, with perhaps one exception.Halogenated (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But the reader can SEE that there aren't many citations - why does it need to be rubbed in his face, to so speak? I think the obstacle the box presents in readability more than offsets any benefit it brings by raising caution in the reader's mind. (This is obviously a judgment call, whereas for some of the ridiculous boxes I've seen, like "the intro is too short" (honest!) there's no doubt - I just kill them.) The big advantage the box brings is that it allows searchability for those seeking to improve citations around wikipedia, but that benefit also exists when it's at the bottom. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that most readers probably don't pay a lot of attention to the citations, and presume a level of legitimacy. Erroneous perhaps, even in well cited articles, but the fact remains that an encyclopedia requires well-researched articles that are easily verified for correctness. If we're going to put forth an article that does not do this, it should be immediately recognised as such. The flag does not state the article is made with a POV or that the content itself is in question. It may be ugly, and there might not be an official decree as to where the flag should appear, but the even the page describing the use of the flag [[1]] mentions that the top of the article is the most common location, or specifically at the sections in question. Since the entire article is being flagged, it is appropriate to place at the top. I'm not picking on this article, I have seen countless such flags over many other articles, regardless of content type. I have also added to many without any concerns. Feel free to address an admin if you truly feel it to be inappropriate in this case, but my guess is you'll likely find little support. Cheers, Halogenated (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of folks joining in this interesting discussion, alas, so I guess we'll have to be a draw.

I'm not picking on this article either - I'm picking on those stupid boxes, which have frequently become a substitute for editing. I've heard from more than one reader - a person who has no desire to edit wikipedia, just to use it - that they find those boxes annoying, distracting and confusing. I think we need to squelch them unless they're vital, and I don't think the opinion that "this article needs better in-line references" is vital. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)