Talk:Bigfoot

Etymology of Sasquatch
This should probably be addressed in the article. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:7030:FD16:87D5:8432 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is: The name "Sasquatch" is the anglicized version of sasq'ets (sas-kets), roughly translating to "hairy man" in the Halq'emeylem language. --Belbury (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have source for that? If so we can slap that in the article and satisfy the IP users request. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean it is addressed in the article. I'm quoting from the History section there. Belbury (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake, so it is! I did not read the words "It is" in your reply and just saw green text. I've been skimming far to much text recently, and it shows. Thanks for your patience and time letting me know! GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 18:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I ctrl-f'ed "etymology" but didn't find anything. Regards, 2804:14D:5C32:4673:5DBE:2F80:27B7:584 (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree - It would nice to see a reference to the origin of the word Sasquatch. Here are two sources that trace the word origin to people of the Pacific Northwest.
 * https://languagehat.com/sasquatch/
 * https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20220720-the-true-origin-of-sasquatch LilacGiraffe (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Nominating this for Featured/good Article status?
I see this article was nominated for featured article status a few years ago. It looks to me like it has made tremendous progress since then. Does anyone think this could be a candidate for either good article or featured article? Of course, it might needs some work before then, but we could look at that. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've never initiated either process for any article, but I think I would support nominating this page. It has indeed made a lot of progress compared to where it was at previously. TNstingray (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't ever initiated the process either, but am learning for a few other pages. We could start by putting the page on Peer review/Guidelines to get some fresh eyes and suggestions on it. I currently have a page being reviewed, so I can't add another right now. If someone else wanted to add this there, mentioning that we want to get it to good or FA, we could get some momentum. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 23:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. TNstingray (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this article could use some improvement before nominating. For example looking at the 2nd paragraph, it references 7-10 refer to scientists trying to disprove bigfoot.  It would be good to include work of scientists Grover Krantz and Jeffrey Meldrum.  Both earnestly studied the bigfoot phenomena. Especially since reference 8 mentions Krantz.
 * Perhaps remove the image of the black bear. :) LilacGiraffe (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is impossible for science to "disprove" something. The null hypothesis is that bigfoot does not exist, to reject it we just need a living bigfoot, or a corpse. Neutral point of view states " Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." The article discussing Krantz is adequate for the lead, if you want to discuss his research agenda and the failure to produce evidence of bigfoot, that could be in the body. If a reference mentions Black bears are one of the many preposed explanations for the bigfoot sightings, a photo of one is appropriate. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 04:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Are these ethnic groups?
Wondering whether "bigfoot", "sasquatch", "yeti", etc., should be uncapitalized in the article, as they aren't ethnicities, nationalities, or religious groups. Largoplazo (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * They are typically presented as proper nouns. TNstingray (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Actually I take that back, sourcing uses either the upper or lowercase. This should definitely be discussed, and the decision should be carried over to other pages like Yeti. TNstingray (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone making a survey of sources should distinguish contexts in which one of these terms serves as a name for what's being supposed to be a single anomaly, a unique creature like the Loch Ness monster, from contexts in which it's supposed that there are many of them, like leprechauns and elves. In other words, "A camper claims to have seen the Sasquatch last week" versus "A camper claims to have seen a sasquatch last week". Largoplazo (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It appears that there are contexts where Bigfoot singular is used as an individual cultural icon or advertising mascot. In the context of the wild, "Bigfoot" was the original proper name given to the singular culprit in the '50s, and this spelling seems to have carried over to interest in the alleged species. But we should go with the sources. Also, not that this is how we determine Wikipedia content, but the source editor underlines "bigfoot" and "sasquatch" in red indicating they are incorrect, haha. TNstingray (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

redundant wording: Alleged by some
From the opening paragraph shown below, I suggest changing 'alleged by some' to 'alleged' or 'believed by some.' Alleged, implies something is unproven and only believed by some and the sentence also says bigfoot is a 'mythical creature.'

"Bigfoot, also commonly referred to as Sasquatch, is a large and hairy human-like mythical creature alleged by some to inhabit forests in North America, particularly in the Pacific Northwest." LilacGiraffe (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)