Talk:Boskop Man

message: The use of the wording "in other words" is incorrect.  In other words implies that the statements are logically equivalent in some way.  In this article, the statement that there is confusing and the statement that there is no Boskop Man are not equivalent, or at least not demonstrated to be.  --166.70.99.89 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The wording "in other words" 

message: This article appears to be a stub—it leaves many questions unanswered and covers only a tiny fraction of the end result of these discoveries.  I feel it should be marked as such.  --166.70.99.89 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: I've seen WP:BOLD abused far more often than I've seen it used correctly; but I wanted everyone to know that I've revised the article, adding links to other subjects, integrating the formerly redundant second and third paragraphs, and improving the reference to The Human Fossil Record. If any of this is incorrect, please make whatever changes are necessary. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of the article. 

message: It seems odd to me that criticism is represented as being cordoned off in its own little pen when the majority of the article IS criticism. It reminds me of one of Baudrillard's examples of hyperreality. It is subtly dishonest to represent this information in this way. Is the criticism in the rest of the article more objective or more truthful than that under the "criticism" headline? Then why doesn't it belong there? If the position Wikipedia editors want to represent is that the Boskop skulls do not represent a different hominid then one can say so in the article; There is no criticism section on the page for the Fiji mermaid, nor is one needed. However, the inclusion of both a "criticism" section and criticism in the supposedly non-critical portions of the article is a subtle form of misdirection. There is no advancement of the concept in this article without a qualifier, "purported", "claimed", etc. to BE criticized.
I did not edit the article other than by moving the bulk of the criticism to the "criticism" section, so that my intentions would be clear. The article now looks rather ungainly, but hopefully someone with the political capital necessary to be able to make edits to articles and have good faith assumed of them will fix it up.
98.154.22.134 (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" 

message: It seems odd to me that criticism is represented as being cordoned off in its own little pen when the majority of the article IS criticism. It reminds me of one of Baudrillard's examples of hyperreality. It is subtly dishonest to represent this information in this way. Is the criticism in the rest of the article more objective or more truthful than that under the "criticism" headline? Then why doesn't it belong there? If the position Wikipedia editors want to represent is that the Boskop skulls do not represent a different hominid then one can say so in the article; There is no criticism section on the page for the Fiji mermaid, nor is one needed. However, the inclusion of both a "criticism" section and criticism in the supposedly non-critical portions of the article is a subtle form of misdirection. There is no advancement of the concept in this article without a qualifier, "purported", "claimed", etc. to BE criticized.
I did not edit the article other than by moving the bulk of the criticism to the "criticism" section, so that my intentions would be clear. The article now looks rather ungainly, but hopefully someone with the political capital necessary to be able to make edits to articles and have good faith assumed of them will fix it up.
98.154.22.134 (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For fairness and to avoid the appearance of irrational bias imposed by subjective opinion in some kind of guerilla sceptics vendetta, there should be a Response to Criticism section on all of these controversial articles. Let the readers decide for themselves instead of this impression of a campaign of bias, as is the current state on Wikipedia. It's a situation which deserves to be fought against, because right now, wikipedia has minimal - or near zero - credibility.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.69.206.1 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" 

message: Maybe I'm wrong, but the use of the first person in the final paragraph seems out of place.76.9.167.121 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First person 

message: Thanks 2603:8001:5201:B43E:65AD:B604:FB47:6EDB (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest adding when the year they died. (you don't need to if the information hasn't been found.)