This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ermenrich (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 5 August 2018 (→"Mythology"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:04, 5 August 2018 by Ermenrich (talk | contribs) (→"Mythology")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Giant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Mythology Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Giants and their Origin
As to the origin and the Belief in Giants, Megalithic structures and ancient burial mounds have probably played their part in inspiring the myths and legends. Ancient Fossil animals such as Cave Bear and Mastodon bones may have been misinterperated by Native Americans and ancient Greeks as those of great heroes and Vilains. But the most likely scenario is that there were actual tribes and racial stocks of ancient man who stood between 2-3 metres of height. This can be testified even today with racial groups who live in East Africa and South America who commonly attain statures of 6-7 ft. Skeletons of this range and taller have been found all over the world-Many in the United States. Just take a look at the many different news headlines from The New York Times and Washington Post which gained national attention during the 19th and 20th centuries:
WASHINGTON POST HEADLINES:
· AN INDIAN GIANT’S TOMB
· A RACE OF GIANTS
· THE BONES OF A GIANT
· INDIANS SEVEN FEET TALL
· WARRIOR SKELETONS UNEARTHED
· Dug Up a Skeleton Eight Feet Long
· GIANTS IN THOSE DAYS; Monster Skeleton Discovered in the Miami Valley
· GIANTS' SKELETONS IN A CAVE
· SKELETONS OF DWARFS; Curious Specimens Brought from the Philippines
· EARLY AMERICAN GIANTS. ; Reasons for Believing that a Race of 20-footers Lived in Arizona.
· WILD SERI CANNIBALS
· ISLAND OF MYSTERY
· BONES OF GIANT ANCIENTS
· Giants’ Graves
· Find Horns on Human Skull
· OLD TIME GIANTS
· GIANT IN ANCIENT MOUND
· SOME HISTORIC GIANTS
· FIND PREHISTORIC GIANT
· SKULL GIVEN MUSEUM
· BONES OF STRANGE MEN
· Why Scientists Believe Mythical Monsters Existed
· FIND TWO SKELETONS OF PRIMITIVE MEN
· Giant Human Skeletons, 12 feet Long, are Found
· TRACES OF EARLIEST HUMAN RACE FOUND
· PREHISTORIC BONES REVEAL TRAGEDY OF GIANTS' LOST RACE
· Town Very Proud Of Skeleton Found
· Evidence of Giants Bared by Mounds
· 3 Huge Skeletons Of Humans Found
· WEIRD GIANTS of a DEAD PAST
· Oklahoma Indian Relics Unearthed; Thigh Bone of 9-Foot Man Found in Mound
· Largest Skull Ever Recorded is Discovered By Archeologist in Stafford County, Virginia
· Major Finds Grave of Giant Aleutian
· Giant's Skeleton Found by Soviets
· Mammoth Jaws Hint Existence of Prehistoric Giants
· Jaw and Skull of Oldest Man Safe in N.Y.
· Prehistoric Find Points to Giant Ape Man
· Strange Bones Dug Up
· Giant Skeleton
THE NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINES:
· SKELETON OF GIANT FOUND
· Reported Discovery of a Huge Skeleton
· THE EARLY AMERICAN GIANT
· THE BEST ITEMS BY MAIL; UTAH MOUNDS REPORTED DISCOVERIES MADE BY RECENT EXCAVATIONS TWO SKELETONS FOUND AND ANCIENT RELICS NEAR THEM
· BONES OF ALLEGED BROOKLYN GIANTS
· TWO VERY TALL SKELETONS
· THE BONES OF A GIANT FOUND
· THE GRAVEYARD OF THE GIANTS
· THE CARSON FOOTPRINTS
· SKELETONS SEVEN FEET LONG
· MONSTER SKULLS AND BONES
· SKELETONS OF A FORMER RACE
· SKELETON OF A BIG INDIAN
· A RACE OF INDIAN GIANTS
· MOUND BUILDERS' SKELETONS FOUND
· MR. JEFFERSON'S CYCLOPS. ; A GIANT SKELETON UNEARTHED AT BUZZARD'S BAY
· THE WISCONSIN MOUNDS
· IN THE WISCONSIN MOUNDS
· A Race of Giants in Old Gaul
· GIANTS OF OTHER DAYS
· RELICS OF THE ABORIGINES
· A TALL SKELETON FOUND NEAR PHOENIX
· WISCONSIN MOUND OPENED
· GIANT SKELETONS FOUND
· UNEARTHING REVOLUTIONARY BONES AT 181st STREET
· FIND GIANT INDIANS' BONES
· GIANT RACE IN GREENLAND
· A NEW RACE OF GIANTS
· GIANTS' SKELETONS FOUND
· STRANGE SKELETONS FOUND
· FOUND GIANTS IN CHINA
· GIANTS' BONES IN MOUND
· Not Human Skulls with Horns
· Unearths Skeleton of Indian Giant
· OLDEST SKULLS YET FOUND
· FIND SKELETON OF GIANT
· MUMMIES FOUND IN CAVES
· FIND FLORIDA GIANTS' BONES
· PUT MAN’S AGE BACK TEN MILLION YEARS
· GIANTS' BONES IN MEXICO
· GIANTS SURVIVE THE AGE OF FABLE
· HEADLESS GIANT BODIES FOUND IN PARIS GRAVES
· OLD ROYAL TOMB UNEARTHED IN OHIO
· UNEARTH THE BONES OF TEN-FOOT GIANTS
· FIND BONES IN MOUNDS
· THE GOBI GIVES US A MONSTER
· TAKING THOUGHT ABOUT STATURE
· ‘Oldest Human Footprint’ Points to Primitive Giants in Africa
· Skeleton of Giant Early Man Reported Unearthed in Mexico
· REPORTS FIND OF BONES OF MEN 8 FEET TALL
· FIND ANCIENT BONES NEAR PITTSBURGH
· EIGHT MT. CARMEL SKELETONS REACH LONDON
· INDIAN BURIAL MOUND YIELDS MANY RELICS
· Bones of Huge Man Reported
· CHILEAN FOSSIL MAN SEEN
· HINTS ‘GIANT’ ANCESTORS
· GIANT BONES IN RUSSIA
· ‘Largest’ Ape Man Found in Africa; Indicated to Top 9-Foot Java Man
· IN SEARCH OF EARLY AMERICANS
Should giantesses in fiction be a seperate ategory from giants in fiction?
I think this is one of those categories like witch that is gender specific. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Egyptian Giants???
I looked up 1 Chronicles 11:23, but it doesn't mention any "giants of Egypt". It mentions one Egyptian person who was very big. He's not a mythological giant. 178.48.52.73 (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Familial gigantism
Seeing as most of the information on this is testimonial, perhaps some realistic speculation would be appropriate, given that pretense exists for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:100:DC9C:9C1B:C77D:DEA8:309A (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
References
- Anywhere else, eg Wikiversity, this would be a good idea. But here sources need to discuss the subject, see WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Thanks though. Interesting link. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 26 February 2017
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Despite the usage argument against this move, there is a rough consensus that the broad concept's long-term significance is enough to make it the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
– WP:BROADCONCEPT. Giants (Greek mythology), Giants (Norse mythology), Giant (Dungeons & Dragons), Giants (Marvel Comics) etc. will all fall under this rubric, and many of them are already linked here. There are a number of Giant films and songs, but in terms of long-term significance demanded by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, none of them can hold a candle to characters of Biblical and Greek mythology that have been around for literally millennia. Still other things on the disambig page, including admittedly very important concepts, aren't known simply as "Giant": Giant star, Gas giant, Giant Forest Ribbet32 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support. A well-argued case in which a broad concept is the primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose reluctantly. The fact that a single movie has nearly as many page views as all of the mythical giants (see here and choose "Chart type" → "Pie") combined with the presence of so many other Giants leads me to believe that having Giant as a DAB page is the best approach. A broad concept article already exists as Giant (mythology) and it is the first link on the DAB page. — AjaxSmack 04:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- A classic case of the problem with page views. Giant (1956 film) has nearly as many page views as all of the mythical giants, does it? This statistic is obviously measuring something, but it's not obvious what. Andrewa (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with you in general and am loath to rely only on pageviews for a number of reasons related to the nature of a encyclopedia but it's hard to imagine that someone clicking on "Giant (1956 film)" would be looking for anything but that. (Whether they're actually reading the article is another matter.) However, it's the existence of so many other notable topics named Giant but unrelated to the mythical creature that swayed me. — AjaxSmack 05:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Agree it's a puzzle. The film had a strong cast, did well at both the box office and Academy Awards and has received other significant accolades. But it's still hard to believe that sixty years later, so many people think of it and relatively few of Jack and the Beanstalk when they search on giant. A puzzle indeed. On the number of other topics at the DAB, I note that many of them are explicitly Giants rather than giant. This may be part of the problem. Andrewa (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Despite the longevity of mythical giants I wonder if the movie is not a bit more encyclopedic than the creatures. I see less likelihood of a Jack and the Beanstalk fan searching for a giant than a James Dean fan searching for Giant. On your second point, I agree that the Giants shouldn't muddy the waters of this discussion, and if this article is moved, Giants should still redirect to the DAB page. — AjaxSmack 01:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Agree it's a puzzle. The film had a strong cast, did well at both the box office and Academy Awards and has received other significant accolades. But it's still hard to believe that sixty years later, so many people think of it and relatively few of Jack and the Beanstalk when they search on giant. A puzzle indeed. On the number of other topics at the DAB, I note that many of them are explicitly Giants rather than giant. This may be part of the problem. Andrewa (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with you in general and am loath to rely only on pageviews for a number of reasons related to the nature of a encyclopedia but it's hard to imagine that someone clicking on "Giant (1956 film)" would be looking for anything but that. (Whether they're actually reading the article is another matter.) However, it's the existence of so many other notable topics named Giant but unrelated to the mythical creature that swayed me. — AjaxSmack 05:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- A classic case of the problem with page views. Giant (1956 film) has nearly as many page views as all of the mythical giants, does it? This statistic is obviously measuring something, but it's not obvious what. Andrewa (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support. – Nimit (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support, per WP:BCA and WP:CONCEPTDAB. Similar to how Mini is at its current title despite it not being WP:PTOPIC per current significance. feminist 15:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Note that a histmerge was required between Giant and Giant (disambiguation). As a result, there were a couple of junk deleted revisions left behind here at Giant – these should not be restored due to parallel histories. Jenks24 (talk)
Goliath
A recent change does portray a view which I'm familiar with, but asserts it like if it was the only, or correct point of view. Since it is mythology and culture and Goliath is often presented as a giant and that some religious groups also believe that he was nephilim or nephilim-hybrid, that the comparison to grasshopers is also an imprecise metaphor, it may be best to rely on a secondary source which discusses those aspects, instead of offering our own commentary in Misplaced Pages's voice. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Giant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227023513/http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/James_Juris.htm to http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/James_Juris.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
"Mythology"
This entire page refers to all giants as being "mythological creatures", which is dishonest. There is far too much archaeological evidence as well as recorded eyewitness accounts to call it a "myth" on an objective source like Misplaced Pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samechillguy (talk • contribs) 2018-08-05 19:03:18 (UTC)
- @Samechillguy: then you won't have any problems finding academic sources for the archaeological evidence. Can we please see some? (agh, where are my tildes?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 2018-08-05 20:03 (UTC)
- If you mean gigantism, we have an article on that (to which this one also links). —PaleoNeonate – 19:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- My assumption is that he's referring to "real giants" as supposedly discovered in the headlines listed above under "Giants and their origin" in this talk page. Probably not anything that we need to acknowledge beyond the current "alleged fossil evidence" already in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)