Talk:Percy Fawcett

The New Yorker article by David Grann

Page should be updated in light of David Grann's (most enjoyable) piece in the Sept. 19, 2005 issue of The New Yorker, "The Lost City of Z." Alas, I don't have it handy. userX 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ehi qualche buona anima lo traduca in italiano. Grazie

Yes, it should be updated - but let's keep it balanced. Fawcett was a racist who described Amazonian Indians like apes: "with exceptionally long arms, and with foreheads sloping back from pronounced eye ridges - men of a very primitive kind... great ape-like brutes". He was a decent army-trained surveyor, but a lousy explorer, mostly relying on boats supplied by rubber barons and mostly staying in comfortable rubber stations in Bolivia. When he went off on his own little ill-planned adventure it is no wonder he got lost and disappeared, probably starved to death. This guy is no hearo. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fawcett only described one tribe that way, the Maricoxis. Try actually reading his book before making such a sweeping - and inaccurate - statement. Further, he was trained as a surveyor by the Royal Geographic Society, not the army.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Lost City of Z tells an entirely different story of Fawcett, someone who was over and over nonviolent in his interactions with Amazonian Indians, who befriended and learned smatterings of the languages of tribes commonly seen as antagonists to Europeans, and who unlike other explorers did not rely on boats but traveled across land, through harsh jungle. Instead you seem to be describing Alexander H. Rice, Jr.. zafiroblue05 | Talk 08:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hemming's remark about Fawcett being a "Nietzschean explorer" is quite inappropriate. While the intended criticism of Fawcett may in itself be fair, there is no basis at all for implying, as Hemming's words do, that Nietzsche (would have) regarded Brazilian indians as monkeys. Nor is there any reason to imply that Nietzsche was not "enlightened". Evidently neither Hemming nor the writer of the Wikipedia article is an authority on Nietzsche. It ought also to be added that attitudes such as those attributed to Fawcett were unfortunaetly extremely common in his day. Henryhearty (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Did he say that they were monkeys or merely that they had simian characteristics?173.72.63.199 (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Hans Wurst

Chronology discrepancy

"... stories of the "Lost City of Z" became the basis for [Doyle's] novel The Lost World." which was first serialised April 1912.

"Based on documentary research, Fawcett had formulated his ideas about a "Lost City of Z" in Brazil by the time of the outbreak of World War I" August 1914.

If his ideas about "The Lost City of Z" inspired The Lost World, then he must have been spreading them by the beginning of 1912.

My bet is that The Lost World (which doesn't really even have a lost city - it has a village of primitive ape-men about the same as a native South American village) was NOT based on Fawcett's theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.138.65 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word "Indian" as derogatory.

I don't see how the word "Indian" can be used outside of the scope of quoted statements without being offensive. The real question is what is gained by using "indian" (outside of quotes) when the term refers follows from colonial perspective in order to frame indigenous peoples as lesser than Europeans. The language here should be consistent with the title of the article "Indigenous peoples in Brazil", and the use of "indian" in that article should also match it's title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdrbogart (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Seconding this. I'm kinda shocked to see no one has attempted to change this, since this comment here. 104.189.5.96 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Bdrbogart As you will be aware, this change from "Indian" was attempted in 2017 and rejected then. The use of the word is mentioned in most books of the time and since. I see no point in trying to change or rewrite history to suit a current, possibily minority, view. David J Johnson (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

David J Johnson Translating outdated and derogatory language with the same meaning (but highly differing connotation) is in no way "changing" or "rewriting" history. The change is an attempt to strip the language of the negative connotation and does nothing to occlude or obfuscate the meaning of this article. My suggestion draws attention to racist perspective of the past, not hiding it. April 13th, 2019 (UTC)

Implausible references

References attributed to Misha Williams and John Hemming both seem implausible personal opinions, unsupported or contradicted by other evidence. Williams' theory that Fawcett proposed to set up a religious cult of his son has the ring of the wilder type of conspiracy theory. Hemmings appears to be driven by personal malice, and his citation is unclear. Unless we are to assume that Fawcett was a Walter-Mitty fantasist, he established good relations with the indigenous peoples and carried out significant reliable mapping of Bolivia, Brazil and Peru. There is no evidence that he caused the deaths of many people, and he condemned the barbarity of Europeans towards indigenous Americans, an attitude enlightened for his day. Contrary to Hemming's innuendo, he did not make the claim that he was Britain's 'greatest explorer' (that title perhaps belongs best to H M Stanley), which was attached to him by a publicist.

OK, these are 'referenced sources', but nowadays anyone can publish anything on the internet, no matter how implausible, contradictory, biased or scurrilous and that seems to be good enough for Wikipedia to retail it on Chrismorey (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Chrismorey's comments above. These two "authors" obviously have an axe to grind. Fawcett's relationship with indigenous people was enlightened and his mapping was backed by the South American governments. As for Misha's comments, it is unsourced by reliable secondary sources. Likewise John Hemming comments are textbook personal malice. Perhaps references to these two should be deleted? Further comments requested. David J Johnson (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Fawcett's bones

The section on Fawcett's bones states that the indigenous elder stated the bones originally found and claimed to be Fawcett's were not. The next sentence states there is no evidence for this. But the paragraph above that states that although the bones were originally assumed to be Fawcett's, subsequent analysis confirmed that they weren't. Am I misreading this, or does this article state that there's no evidence the bones weren't Fawcett's right after it states the bones weren't Fawcett's? I don't know if it's perhaps worded in a confusing manner or if I'm misreading, or if an edit needs to be made somewhere, but it seems contradictory. JackMeraxes (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

?

did anyone ever find percy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.124.23 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

There's a game about this person (spoiler) called Mu Cartographer, should it be added to this article? It is on Steam. Mademoiselle Extravagante (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t a reference list for pop culture minutiae, no.

~2025-32512-48 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

"The Glove"

@Manytexts Would like more information or a better reference in regards to the statement under the sub heading Final Expedition that mentions the group "The Glove":

In 1924, with funding from a London-based group of financiers known as The Glove,

The reference given has no link and simply says The London Illustrated News, 22 June 1924. Cannot find this particular issue. There is an issue from that paper on the 21st of June. Any info on this particular financial group would be greatly appreciated. 199.168.73.169 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

As you say, it's hard to find anything more than it says here in the article. I don't know who found the reference and on searching came up with nothing. I guess it will have to do since it's so far a hint to his funding. Thanks for pointing it out. Manytexts (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I just made my account because I've been specifically fixated on this organization for a while now. I've tried to dig into so many sources on "The Glove," and looked at both the surrounding Illustrated London News articles but also other instances of 1920's articles referencing his voyage and disappearance, and I've found nothing besides modern references clearly taken from this article mentioning the glove. In my opinion the closest group that it could be, but most likely isn't, is the Worshipful Company of Glovers of London. I decided to remove the text so there is no likely misinformation, but I'll keep researching where Fawcett gained his funding! Marchjam (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Good luck!23:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC) Manytexts (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

This page needs to be completely rewritten and researched

The sources here are mostly misleading or dead links, as well as a lot of pseudoscience and fiction being cited as if it was real. There's plenty of own research and speculation to be found, conflicting accounts and attempts to mix pseudoscience and cryptozoology in with actual facts and historical research. One of the books cited literally claims it was written by Percy himself through a medium 10 years after his death... I tried to fix what was most egregious but honestly this page needs some serious work put into eliminating any pseudoscience and own research and strengthening its sources so the article becomes moderately passable in terms of what's expected for wikipedia (Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability). Historiatop3 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Questionable (at best) sources i found - non-exhaustive:

2

3

4

9

11

14

15

16

25

30

31

32

33

35

36

37

41

42

46 Historiatop3 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Dead Horse Camp location

I'm a little surprised that the article includes no information about which location of Dead Horse Camp is more plausible. One of the locations given would have them travelling 460km from Cuiaba in just over a month and may allow you to immediately launch downriver into the Rio São Francisco system, whereas the other is much closer at 264km and would have you enter the Ribeirão Capitão Noronha. Not knowing the terrain, I wouldn't want to pass judgement (and river navigability may depend on seasonal rainfall in any case). But surely, this very significant difference in distance to the two locations would have received scrutiny in RS? 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:34BD (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)