Talk:Piltdown Man

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Piltdown Man article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 18, 2009, December 18, 2010, December 18, 2011, and December 18, 2012.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: FYSEM-UA 900 Busting 11 myths about the archaeology of human evolution

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xiaoer8848 (article contribs).

Motive

[1] There is no reason why this should not be in the article. Gould is a great source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who dun it?

Greetings. This is in the lede - - -

"An extensive scientific review in 2016 established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was responsible for the fraudulent evidence.[1]"

Yet, this is in "Identity of the forger" - - -

"The identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown, but suspects have included Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Arthur Keith, Martin A. C. Hinton, Horace de Vere Cole and Arthur Conan Doyle.[16][17][18]"

Citations [1] and [18] seem quite definite about Dawson as does all the evidence against him (the other 38 known hoaxes he fabricated and the papers he plagiarized). It seems safe to commit to Dawson as the culprit in this article and just say that the others were suspected "at one time" or something similar.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]