Talk:Bog body

message: Barbara Shack 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: We need some pictures please...what does a 500-year old person look like?
:There's some on Danish wiki at :da:Grauballemanden with gfdl licenses, if someone wants to upload them onto commons - MPF 00:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: Peat bogs are not the same as sphagnum bogs. "Peat" is a general term and peat can be formed from sphagnum moss, other mosses, sedges or various other kinds of plant material alone or in combination. I'm not certain what kinds of bogs are predominant in Europe and the British Isles so I hope somebody will check this and make the appropriate corrections. MrDarwin 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Northern European bogs (north of about 53°N where summers are fairly cool) are overwhelmingly Sphagnum bogs, and this applies to all of the bogs that bodies have been found in, as they are the only bogs acidic enough to preserve the corpses. A body in less acidic fen peat (derived from sedges) would not persist. - MPF 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sphagnum bogs

message: This article says more than a thousand, Haraldskaer Woman article says around 700 to date, which is correct? Khukri  (talk . contribs) 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of bodies? 

message: | This site give her age as 8000 B.C. but the article says 5500 years old. I was wondering what the source for that was. Storeye 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the scientific literature there are several datings ranging from 9000 - 6000 B.C. probably by mis understandings. The Danish National Museum sets her age to 9000 years , Kulturarv.dk writes 9000-6401 B.C. and mentiones a 14C-Dating to Maglemosian culture . I am still loocking for the original publication of the 14C-dating results. --Bullenwächter (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koelberg Woman 

message: I'm merging Stubs into this page!!
--水の男の子 (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm Trying To Help! 

message: I think this article should probably have a lead image. In my opinion it doesn't particularly matter whose body is shown, but I went for one of Lindow Man as it's one of the better known bog bodies, the image shows the whole of the remains, and the article on Lindow Man himself is of good quality (it's a Featured Article; I thought if there's going to be a linked image in the lead it may as well be to an article of decent quality). As I worked on the Lindow Man article and don't want to seem biased, I am quite happy for someone to replace the image of Lindow Man with something else, although I do think a lead image of some sort is necessary. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of a lead photo is a good idea. And the thought of linking it to an FA article was appropriate. However, the Lindow Man photo isn't particularly good. It is difficult to distinguish the human features -- appearing mostly like a flat piece of leather on dirt. I suggest using a photo which better portrays and elucidates the mummification to the reader -- such  as :File:Tollundmannen.jpg, :File:Grauballemannen1.jpg or one of the clearer full body photos at Commons:Bog Body such as :File:Tollundmanden i Silkeborgmuseet.JPG.  — CactusWriter (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly, it's not the best image. A full body photo would be preferable, however the ones on commons either aren't great or the dimensions aren't ideal. For example I think :File:Grauballemanden2.jpg is a very interesting picture and the remains are in good condition, but even at 300px wide I don't think it's detailed enough as the image isn't very tall. It's still in the article though. But both of the head shots you suggest are rather good, so I think either would make a good lead picture. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We'll have to wait for a quality full-body shot. I find the Tollund Man head shot a slightly better image only because the dirt mound in the Grauballe Man image tends to draw focus away from the face. However, the Grauballe Man shows the coloration. Take your pick of the two head shots -- either will be fine.  — CactusWriter (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an easy choice for the reasons you've given, but I've gone for Tollund Man. Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been wondering maybe we could change the lead image from the Tollund man to a head shot of the Grauballe man such as :File:Grauballemannen1.jpg from the commons. I can understand about the Tollund man being the lead image because he is probably the most famous, but maybe we could use the Grauballe man's picture because it is in color and in better quality. This is just an idea. Thanks, --Parasect (Formerly Platyfishkeeper) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The image wasn't chosen because of fame, but rather clarity of the subject. As stated in the above discussion, I think the Tollund pic provides better focus of the topic and the Grauballe pic provides better illustration of the coloration. I am fine with either choice.  — CactusWriter (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: I think a list of bog bodies would be very helpful to researchers like there is on the German Page. I would like this to be done, but I might not have enough time to do so. Thanks, --<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #008900">Parasect</SPAN> (Formerly Platyfishkeeper) 14:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given there are nearly known 2,000 bog bodies in Europe you couldn't fit a comprehensive list in this article. Therefore, the best you can do is include links to some of the most significant ones. At the moment, several are mentioned in the article and there's a section called Notable bog bodies, but I'm not sure how these have been selected. Nev1 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thank you for the tips! --Parasect (Formerly Platyfishkeeper) 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think there should be a short list of several bog bodies like on the German  page, because I believe that that is helpful info. Let me know if I'm doing the wrong thing, but this is how I think it should be done. --Your's Truly,
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: black">Parasect</span> (Discuss) 18:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got something in mind other than the current notable bog bodies section why not have a go? Seeing it in practice may get things moving. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have a comprehensive (or even partial) list of bog bodies which would no doubt be useful to someone researching the subject. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright I finished it. --<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: black">Parasect</span> (Discuss) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Bog bodies 

message: I tried to do my best to fix the bare urls with citations via Knight Cite.com. I hope this would help on this article. --<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: Turquoise">GouramiWatcher</span> (Gulp) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the tag on the top of the article be removed? I am hesitant to do so because I'm not soure if that is what I'm supposed to do.--<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: Turquoise">GouramiWatcher</span> (Gulp) 19:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I removed the tag. Please notify me if this was wrong. --<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: Turquoise">GouramiWatcher</span> (Gulp) 23:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bare URLs 

message: Some instances in this page are in the BC/AD format, and others are BCE/CE.  Per the WP:ERA guideline, neither is encouraged over the other, but a page should be consistent within itself.  I'm recommending that we get a consensus, and have the page follow that consensus.
As to what that consensus is, I see no advantage one has over the other, so I'd recommend we go with the first convention placed.  Thoughts?198.70.166.253 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Consistency 

message: In my opinion the title Bog bodies of Northern Europe is a wrong description based on an old fashioned scientific of art mainly based on B.V. Glob's book Moosefolket dated to 1965 having a strong focus on danish bog finds. Actually real bog body finds are also known and confirmed from Bavaria, there are evidence for bog body finds from Austrian and other South German states but not clearly scientifically confirmed which are definitively not belonging to the region known as Northern Europe. Actually according to the article Northern Europe the affilliation of Germany and the Netherlands to Northern Europe is an old fashioned fact, but the majority of confirmed bog body finds are originating from the Netherlands, from Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony which are not belonging to the region actually defined as Northern Europe. According to the actual scientific state of knowledge bog bodies can be a world wide phenomen, where ever bogs are present and wherever copres were found preserved by the bogs chemistry they would be defined as bog bodies. For the articles title I would prefer to use the previous term Bog body. The specification "Bog bodies of Northern Europe" should be used when clearing the specific historical, cultural and possible spiritual backgrounds of the reasons why people were put into the wet bogs. --Bullenwächter (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Any contrary comments? If not, I will move back the article to its original name --Bullenwächter (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The move has my support. As the redirect will be need to be deleted I think an admin is required, would you like me to make the move? Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems sensible to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bog bodies are found throughout the world; including in North America and Eastern Europe, in socio-cultural settings entirely distinct from those discussed in this article. For this reason the term "Bog bodies" – implying global coverage – is totally innapropriate, although I can appreciate that "Bog Bodies of Northern Europe" also has problems. How about "Bog bodies in Western Europe" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

text:  I strongly support the restoration of the previous title as well, as bog bodies are also found in places like the USA. It appears to me that there is enough support to move the page back to Bog body, but nothing has been done about it for a few months. Best, --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 17:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore title from [[Bog bodies of Northern Europe]] to [[Bog body]] 

message: It says he was de-verified, why is this at the very beginning of the article?  
Orchastrattor (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Along these lines, the summary of the Fischer chapter in citation 1 says: "Dieck (1965) noted that there were more than 1400 reported bog finds worldwide, a large percentage of them only body parts, varying in date from 9000 BC to World War II, but his data are now considered unreliable." Can anyone get through the paywall to see if the dates here are correct? Elsewhere I saw that the oldest bog body is only from 8000 BC and I'm skeptical about the WWII bodies. Would love to have a better source/ confirmation from the Fischer chapter on that! 12.13.22.66 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete/move Dieck speal