Talk:Nebraska Man

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Nebraska

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Nebraska portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska (assessed as Low-importance).

AiG[edit]

Is the AiG link really necessary? It basically just expounds upon the falsities already debunked in the main Wikipedia article. I'm removing it; if anyone has a good idea why it should stay, bring it up here. --Cyde Weys 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's being fair. You would have no objection to the truths in the main Wikipedia article being repeated and expounded upon elsewhere (as indeed they are). Let people decide for themselves.

No, the AiG link nor the EvolutionDeceit.com link gave anymore information than what is already provided in the reference section. As well, the ultimate design of the AiG and ED websites beg the question of whether they are reliable sources. They seem to be overtly opinionated and not objective concerning the issue (e.g. taking the stance of evolution as an evil on the world). The TalkOrigins site, however, gives a more objective approach to the history of Nebraska Man. I'm willing to discuss the reliability of the TO article linked in the external links section, however. For reference: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rec Specz 04:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawings[edit]

The two drawings published in Illustrated London News on June 24, 1922 should be shown here. Nebraska man's tooth Drawings and Nebraska Man illustration of two humanlike creatures I hope those drawings is not copyrighted. --OnlyHuman 13:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references[edit]

I found these, thought they might be useful._Dragon Helm 07:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist statements[edit]

The final paragraph seems unduly critical of creationists. As it stands, it says: "Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted a decade after its discovery, creationists have promoted this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they allege undermine the credibility of how palaeontology and hominid evolution theories are crafted, and how information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge." It seems somewhat revisionist, as the "Nebraska Man" was taught in textbooks for quite some time, and the findings were published in the highest rated scientific perr-reviewed journal Science. I think this section should have the creationist comments removed for fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveleau (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite these textbooks? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska man is currently cited at the creationist website EvolutionDeceit.com, [1] By all means clarify the degree of acceptance of Nebraska Man, but the creationist misuse of him to discredit evolution and the scientific method is current. --Hugh7 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't conservapedia. I'm changing creationists to critics. Creationists aren't the only ones who challenge modern evolutionary theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.22.119 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Man has nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory. Nebraska Man is used to make a case that evidence that man descended from apes is wrong; I don't know anyone who's trying to make that case besides creationists, and if they exist they are way out on the fringe. Please cite a work that's not a creationist (or ID) work that uses Nebraska Man to try and disprove evolution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though not a deliberate hoax[edit]

All that was found was a tooth, from that tooth two naked ape-people were created, yet this is "not a diliberate hoax". Right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.30.150 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it's not a deliberate hoax. Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guettarda on this. Hoaxes and mistakes happen in all fields of human endeavor. It is impossible to stop them from occurring, but science in general does the next best thing in placing them under scrutiny and requiring more than a "first look" to enable them to become part of the observational database. In accordance with that, I'm going to remove the two "citation required" tags in the first paragraph, because they are impossible to fill in a scientific rather than an editorial, hand-waving way.

Though not a deliberate hoax,[citation needed] the classification proved to be a mistake.

However, such mistakes are not the norm[citation needed] in paleontology or historical science in general.

SkoreKeep (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a deliberate hoax, but as is so often the case, the retraction was far less publicized than the initial proclamation, thereby leaving the impression of Nebraska Man as a contribution to scientific knowledge far beyond its retraction date. Tim B C (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2] the retraction made the front page of the New York Times.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]