This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that known books bound in human skin include a highwayman's memoirs bound in his own skin, a novel about a man being left by his lesbian wife, and a BDSM erotic poem?
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that known books bound in human skin(pictured) include a highwayman's memoirs bound in his own skin, a novel about a man being left by his lesbian wife, and a BDSM erotic poem? Source: Rosenbloom, Megan (20 October 2020). "The Anthropodermic Book Project's List of Confirmed Human Skin Books as of March 2020". Dark Archives: A Librarian's Investigation Into the Science and History of Books Bound in Human Skin. New York, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 229–230. ISBN978-0-374-13470-9.
Comment: There are many possible combinations here. I've gone with three, there are many other possibilities (but I want to keep the last one in). Images are tricky because none of the "gold-standard tested" ones have free images, but this one is generally considered confirmed. There's another image in the article of a printing of a book known to have multiple anthropodermic copies, where the copy is advertised as so, but I'm not sure if it's confirmed.
I'm not sure that this is how WP:DYKRULES is meant to be interpreted, especially given the wording was just tweaked to 'sentences'. (Tabular lists are a complex case, though, because they're not common at DYK -- but a strict 'only as mentioned in the exact same place' rule for a tabular list would likely rule out any hook about the, uh, books.) Theleekycauldron? Vaticidalprophet10:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a mistake in the summarization on my part – the hook fact can appear in pieces, as long as each bit is cited. A refs column is a standard citation format, so it's fine. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Vaticidalprophet: I don't want to call you the resident human skin book expert, but...In any case, I am sadly personally familiar with a case of anthropodermic bibliopegy that was relatively high-profile in my hometown and grad school. The Iliff School of Theology in Denver possessed a book, a Latin-language history of Christianity entitled Institutionum Historiae Christianae Compendium, that was previously bound in the skin of an American Indian. The skin, likely that of a Lenape (Delaware) man murdered by a white man under the pretense of trespassing, was removed and buried after student and outside pressure in 1974, with the event suppressed by confidentiality agreements. George Tinker, a professor at Iliff, has been a leading voice in exposing this ugly incident. I have some fairly reliable sources that covered this specific book (which I plan to write an article about); I'll list them below. Do you think it merits inclusion on this FL?
Usually, I'd have no issue plugging in an entry like this per BOLD, but I am not well-read on this topic outside of this single instance and don't wanna fudge around on a brand-spanking-new FL. Thank you, and please ping me in your first reply! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen this case before, Pbritti -- thanks for bringing it to my attention! It seems fine to me to list that under Suspected -- if I'm reading the sources right, the cover was repatriated well before it could formally be tested? (Intuitively, this case clusters strongly with confirmed-fakes, but that's OR. It might make it difficult to write a standalone article about, though -- if all the sources assume it's definitely legitimate, then an article would have inherent sourcing issues.) Vaticidalprophet02:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to contact Iliff this Monday (or, if work proves too heavy, Tuesday) and see if they have published anything that utilized scientific methodology to confirm the composition of the cover. Reliable sources exclusively describe it as human skin. However, the only published academic material on the book is that of Tinker. Unfortunately, Tinker's writing is—by Wikipedia's standards—not reliable. I will search for additional information where I can, but I would like to see this specific book mentioned wherever you think it is appropriate. Maybe we can circle back when I can bring some perhaps non-digitized sources to bear? ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout this article, each reference of claims involving the race of the person whose skin was used to bind a book was concluded to have been “fraudulent.” This word suggests that the person making the claim did so while having knowledge that it was false, but submitted the claim regardless of that fact.
It would be more appropriate and less biased to use the word ‘unsubstantiated’ as this removes the general assumption of the claimant as having malicious intent, and allows for the possibility that the they had a reasonable suspicion until testing could provide definitive evidence. Asase Akua Asum (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: Hook needs to be fixed; the information is present in the article but in pieces. The hook needs to appear in the article with a citation no later than at the end of the sentence. RV (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
It's good to go then. Thanks RV (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)