Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 10

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately through March 2010. Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Bigfoot/Archive11. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Picture template
I have replaced the template with just a captioned image because the template presents uncorrectable NPOV problems. In a nutshell, the template denotes Bigfoot, without qualification, as a creature. In addition to saying it outright, it also denotes it as having a habitat. The mainstream view is that it is not a creature, but rather a myth or rumor, which clearly do not have 'habitats'. Further, the template titles the image "bigfoot", while the mainstream view is that there is no such thing and that there can therefore be no image of it. Opening the article with a prominent unqualified fringe view is unacceptable. Perhaps a more appropriate template could be chosen, but as I said, for now I have simply placed the template with a captioned image. Locke9k (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure why that template exists in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The template may have some validity to it although I'm not sure yet whether or not it is worth having. I've expressed my concerns for some fields on Template talk:Infobox paranormal creature —Fiziker t c 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added my concerns there. The problem is that template is also sometimes used in places where its probably ok, so for now it seems like all we can do is avoid using it in articles where it presents NPOV problems. Locke9k (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that Bigfoot is not a creature, then again the article is about Bigfoot. We should include the possibility of it being real. Significant published viewpoints need to be made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular views. This was indeed a popular film of what may be a real Bigfoot and is perfect for the article. It doesn't violate any copyright infringement laws. If someone denotes the picture as real or fake it will be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.--Simpsoncan (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I adjusted the wording because alleged is asserted to be true or exist. Possible seems to be more fitting because it is being of something that may or may not be true--Simpsoncan (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of alleged is better than possible. Anything can be possible, so this doesn't really provide information. The important thing is that some believers in Bigfoot say that this is a Bigfoot. Possible does not convey this. —Fiziker t c 19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Possible" also is an opinion. Most people says it's not possible to be a photo of Bigfoot. Alleged is factual. DreamGuy (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so I'll change it back.--Simpsoncan (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that hasn't helped much, but that's not the most important point. The current caption --"Frame 352, alleged image of Bigfoot, from the Patterson-Gimlin film" -- gives only one side of the story, favouring the existence of Biggie, naturally. What would happen if I changed the caption to say "Frame 352 of the Patterson-Gimlin film showing Bob Heironimus wearing an ape suit." I can hear the screams from here, and yet it is referenced and illustrates a point made in the article text. Comment? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to show what the classic Bigfoot look is. You can't get much better than the one from Patterson-Gimlin film (there aren't many other Bigfoot pictures that we can us: search on Wikipedia and flicker has some creative commons stuff but not much). I don't think it's necessary to discussion the origins of the film in the caption as it's talked about in both this article and the film's article. Perhaps it should say something more along the lines of how this is the icon picture of Bigfoot rather an alleged or possible photograph. —Fiziker t c 02:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The iconic look isn't as important as what the caption says about it. You say a couple of pars earlier that "The important thing is that some believers in Bigfoot say that this is a Bigfoot (and the caption possibly) does not convey this". You're advocating POV. Blatantly. It is no less important that some people believe the image shows Bob Heironimus in an ape suit. If you want to give POV, then it has to give both. I asked a question which you didn't answer -- "What would happen if I changed the caption to say "Frame 352 of the Patterson-Gimlin film showing Bob Heironimus wearing an ape suit."'. Well?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now if we can work together to maintain a neutral balance between Fiziker and Kaiwhakahaere we will have the perfect article.--Simpsoncan (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be POV if we gave the impression that this is actually a picture of Bigfoot. However, we want a picture that shows what Bigfoot is supposed to be like. It seems like you would prefer to have a drawing of a Bigfoot so it's clear that the picture is in no way real. I think that might work but as is this, I believe, shows the classic Bigfoot look. I believe you are misinterpreting statement (although, it is not all that clear given the direction this discussion has gone in). I was arguing that the word alleged is better than possible because the picture is not about whether or not that is Bigfoot but rather that that is what Bigfoot is supposed to look like. Re your caption: what purpose would that surve in this article? —Fiziker t c 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What purpose would that caption serve? Being accurate, it would faithfully illustrate referenced info in the text of the article. But. Did you not notice something? I did not advocate using that caption. I gave it as an example of "Heironimus in an ape suit" being no less pertinent or important than "believers in Bigfoot say that this is a Bigfoot''. In fact they probably carry equal weight but I think it is enough for the caption to simply say it is a frame from the film.  What's wrong with that? Simsoncan was right when he commented "if we can work together to maintain a neutral balance between Fiziker and  Kaiwhakahaere we will have the perfect article". To be neutral, the caption either presents both points, or neither.  Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What caption do you suggest? —Fiziker t c 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the article. I just made a change. Note the edit summary which says "Make caption neutral, and remove unsourced pov. Note that it is the second par that has a reference. The first par has none". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your edit and have reverted it. If anything, your edit advances a POV, and one contrary to the one you thought the wording you changed was somehow promoting. And your claim about "both points, or neither" isn't really relevant. Saying something was alleged to be Bigfoot doesn't advance either side. Just saying it's a frame of a film doesn't give any context about what the frame is alleged to show. Your edit also removed a mention of cryptozoology and that science doesn't support the claims, which push a POV by omission. The claims are documented in the article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A good caption should clearly state what an image is even if a reader has not read an article (specifically, if someone scans an article and sees a picture, he or she should be able to determine what it is about). This is reflected in WP:CAP where it says that one criterion for a good caption is that it "establishes the picture's relevance to the article." I think the caption could be reworded to make the importance more clear (I'll try to present something when I finish some other work), but to remove the importance is ridiculous. —Fiziker t c 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't really see any major POV issue with the present caption. "Alleged image of bigfoot" seems to me to capture the status of the image.  I think that Fiziker's argument is sound; the caption should establish the relevance of the image in an NPOV way.  The one significant improvement I could think of right now would be to change the wording to make the attribution of the claim more clear, so that readers know who is alleging that this is bigfoot.  I will see if I can come up with a way to do that. Locke9k (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the new revision, which reads "Frame 352 from the Patterson-Gimlin film, alleged by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin to depict Bigfoot," improves the article at all. First, there are more people who allege that this is a Bigfoot than Patterson and Gimlin. The reason why this is important is because it is alleged by many Bigfoot believers, not just the two who captured the image. Second, isn't the caption a bit redundant to refer to the pair twice? —Fiziker t c 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the picture in Bigfoot in popular culture is much better. I know that both Bigfoot's believers and critics find it not serious enough. However to the great majority of people in North America it is a much better picture of what Bigfoot really is. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Amateur/fan art is not encyclopedic at all. Those things shouldn't be on any article on this site, ever. The film is the most memorable and famous alleged depiction of the creature, so of course it belongs here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I knew already that the "owners" of this article wouldn't like it. However, I think this person has as much right to draw a picture of Bigfoot as anyone else. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Without naming the “others” it’s worded to sound as if everyone other than Patterson and Gimlin believe it was a man in a suit. I'll have to change it to make the article comply with the WP:RS and WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV policy.--Timpicerilo (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Map
Hi there just a small thing, that map seems to show sightings in the US and Canada, not just US. Could someone coreect this if i'm correct. THanks Jambo-numba1 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I recently uploaded a new map that now shows sightings in all of North America but didn't update the caption. Good catch. —Fiziker t c 17:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Subpage
Note that the subpage Talk:Bigfoot/Temp exists. Is it still needed? I had moved it from article space per WP:Subpages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was related to a dispute over POV in the article about when exactly Bigfoot folklore truly started. That dispute is unresolved, but unfortunately someone included that in the content that was placed on an archive of the talk page before anything was actually done about it. I think the page isn't necessary, but the conversation should be restored. DreamGuy (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

new research showing similarities between bigfoot and black bear niche
new scientific research has shown that models of bigfoot and black bear distribution models are indistinguishable. how does this get posted to the wikipedia article? the source is Lozier et al 2009, Journal of Biogeography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihateaphids (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Here's a link to the abstract... http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122476732/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.33.65 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight/POV on that same bear sighting
Rewriting the same info with the same sources does not at all have any chance of fixing undue weight problems, as you are still giving weight to the opinions of people who aren't experts to try to slant the debate. What some TV personality says in an off handed manner in an infotainment broadcast in no way represents any sort of pertinent, encyclopedic view on the topic. That whole part needs to be deleted again.

On top of that all, this is the exact same debate we've had on these pages for months: how much to cover a really trivial alleged sighting in this article. The consensus here has been that we already give it enough coverage as it is. Multiple accounts were blocked for edit warring with sockpuppet accounts over it, and I'd hate to think that this dead horse is still getting beaten. DreamGuy (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Below is an excerpt from Theodore Roosevelt’s 1893 book, The Wilderness Hunter. In this excerpt he wrote about this encounter near the Salmon River in Idaho.

--Timpicerilo (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bears or not the entire small section is not giving undue weight, it plays an important encyclopedic part in the history of Bigfoot stories. I removed wording considered as undue weight.--Timpicerilo (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about where quoting so much text above has anything To do with what we were talking about on the article? The bear sighting I wwa talking about was that mangy bear in the photos you and other editors over the past six months have been prmoting as important proof of Bigfoot's existence, not the bear in Rossevelt's story. You added all sorts of WP:UNDUE references to some photography group and some TV personality -- you get that we need reliable sources who are experts on a topic, right? Not people vaguely waving heir hands and calling something an unsolved mystery and etc.? Since you continued to add such content and did not fix the bad content once it was pointed out I'll have to go remove it for you to make the article comlpy with WP:RS and WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to be rude about it regardless of what you have done in the past six months. You removed the information I added on the bear sighting in 1893. This was the story the Bigfoot proponents talk about as historical evidence; not the 1900 hunting grisly book you replaced it with. The wording in the excerpt from the book above is the reason why they draw this conclusion.


 * As far as the other the story, is there proof that it was a bear other than the Pennsylvania Game Commission vaguely waving the picture in the air and calling it a bear? The investigating Bigfoot experts have identified it as a juvenile Sasquatch. If there is 100% proof it indeed was a bear and everyone agrees upon it then it’s hardly worth mentioning in the article. As far as I can tell that wasn’t the case with that incident.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Demanding "proof" for something is not how we do things here. Anyone pushing a WP:FRINGE view can try to demand that their side gets just as much attention as the mainstream expert side, but that's a violation of WP:UNDUE. "Investigating Bigfoot experts" is an oxymoron, as these experts are not in any way speaking for the field of zoology. It's like saying "Flat-Earth experts say the world is flat." or "People who think that crop circles are real communications from extraterrestrials examined the crop circles and proclaimed them real and unable to be created by mere humans." OF COURSE people who are spokespersons for wild, fringe views say they believe those fringe views. That's a tautology. We do not need to "balance" the views presented in articles, we need to report what the actual experts on the topics say. That's not some talking head infotainment guy on TV or distorting what some camera people o as part of a promotional to get press interest. And the part that "it's hardly worth mentioning in the article" is what the consensus has been saying for months, if you'd have followed the talk page discussion here instead of "archiving" it all way. We decided not to spend much time at all discussing this sighting except in the context of showing how lots of Bigfoot believers try to present bear sightings as Bigfoot sightings. And that's what the article was doing until you started putting back the same kinds of info that got those sockpuppet accounts blocked a few months back. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "They weren't bear sightings, they were Sasquatch sightings misinterpreted as bears." What if this was in the article? Some believe it, and for all we know it may be true. You have an expert that didn't claim it was a bear. Claims without proof are not facts therefore should not be represented as fact. I remember a time when some experts looked at photographs and told us there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it became the popular consensus. Look at all the trouble that one got us into!--Timpicerilo (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem in ref source.
At ref>Buhs, Joshua Blu, Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2009), 241 It needs to be

Lacking the "<" sign, thus showing up in the article as "ref>Buhs, Josh..."

Done Thanks! Celestra (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Replaced incorrect info once again"
You know, when using an edit comment making a claim like that, you should make sure that the info you are replacing is actually incorrect. This edit does not "correct" any info, but instead adds in slanted, emotionally-worded unencyclopedic language intended to try to support a WP:FRINGE-violating POV. If you add that kind of ba content it will just be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The information is incorrect and I made sure of it. It was the 1893 book not the 1900 one. The wording makes it sound like they are talking about a Bigfoot and not a bear. Did you read the excerpt from it? It wasn't emotionally-worded it was a quote from the book, I have now added quotation marks.--Timpicerilo (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The usage of the word “conversely” adds neutrality to the article to fairly represent the few published significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each. It allows balance to the opposing viewpoints. I also don't understand why this is repeatedly replaced with the wrong book. Maybe you should make sure that the info you are replacing is actually incorrect. If the majority of editors do not object I will replace both.--Timpicerilo (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get how things work. You need a consensus of editors to change something, not insist that you need a consensus of editors to stop you from making controversial changes. You do not WP:OWN this article and get to set the rules for how things are voted down or not. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO you need consensus to make a controversial change, not the other way around. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So if a consensus of editors decided that bigfoot was real, and flew down from orbit on alien space ships, then it would be perfectly OK to insert such a ridiculous statement, and impossible to correct it? I must say that I had NEVER heard of "Hunting the Grizzly and Other Sketches" in reference to bigfoot prior to the erroneous statement on the Bigfoot page.  I have always heard the origin of the story as "The Wilderness Hunter", and I get a LOT MORE Google hits for it than for "Hunting the Grizzly and Other Sketches".  In fact, searching ["The Wilderness Hunter" bigfoot] returns roughly 29,000 hits, while ["Hunting the Grizzly and Other Sketches" bigfoot] returns a paltry 130, all of them reproductions of the content in this page.  This is a serious problem as it is unverifiable WP:V, and may present WP:OR.  Wikipedia exists to report information, not create it. Magic pumpkin (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Do bears have 4 or 5 toes?
The article says they have 4. I had thought they have 5, each with a claw. The article Bear does not say.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 Steve Dufour (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Before 1958 section
This section is still extremely POV, as I described at length in previous talk page discussion that was archived before anything was done to resolve the problem. There were no Bigfoot sightings before 1958. Bigfoot folklore comes from Yeti stories, and the Native American and etc. stuff was only grafted onto it later to try to answer why an actual creature of that size could have been walking around without having been seen previously. This still needs to be fixed, as we don't want to mislead people by only giving the view of those people who think Bigfoot is real and use such alleged early stories to try to promote their side. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The section itself says that wildman stories are found in most cultures. Why do Bigfoot stories have to come from any one source if they are a natural part of human culture? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The don't have to, but when there is one overwhelmingly large source for the specific topic this article is about, we need to present it as such instead of coming up with a bunch of after the fact explanations that are at odds with the historical record. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are scientists that do not rule out the possibility of an undiscovered North American primate. Do not use this encyclopedia as a vehicle to promote anti-bigfoot sentiments or allow it to become a haven for hate groups riled over the mutable characteristics of Bigfoot believers.--Timpicerilo (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of scientists so rule out the possibility of a man-sized (or larger) North American primate. Accurately describing the current expert opinion on a topic is not pushing an agenda, it's following WP:NPOV policy and not misleading our readers into believing fringe theories advanced by people nobody takes seriously. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mogollon Monster
Common sense tells me it has enough notability for a stand-alone article... Kudos to Plazak.--Timpicerilo (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with "common sense" is so many people with ideas that are neither common nor sensible decide that whatever they believe must be both or else they wouldn't believe it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

”there were multiple versions of the book”
This edit contains incorrect content. The change was talked about seven days before it was made with no objections from any editors. The most talked about version presented by Bigfoot proponents as historical evidence of the creature’s existence is the 1893 version. http://texascryptidhunter.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-lurked-near-banks-of-river-of.html --Timpicerilo (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and that very fact is POV pushing, as they are specifically choosing the title that removes the bear from the title so it sounds more like a Bigfoot and less like the bear that it obviously was referring to. This title and date ARE accurate, and to claim that it's "incorrect" is wrong. The story comes from that book. The title you are talking about is the name of a section of that book that was published separately earlier. If we refer to a book name then we need the actual book name, which is the way I had it, not your way. I will revert your version per WP:BRD rules unless you can get a consensus of editors that your version is more correct, but it's not so I don't see that happening. When something is controversial we go by the WP:STATUSQUO until you get consensus to change, you don't get to change it to whatever you want and insist it stays that way. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow how using the often cited title and publication date of a book is POV pushing, especially when referring to the frequent use of said publication as a support of claims. No one, simply no one uses "Hunting the Grisly and Other Sketches" as a reference to Roosevelt's bigfoot story.  In fact, this Wikipedia page represents the origin for the claim, and cannot be allowed by WP:V and WP:OR.  If the story was first published as "The Wilderness Hunter", and then later included in an anthology, the correct reference is to use the separate, unabridged story.  Would you reference "Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone", or "The Collected Works of J. K. Rowling", which might contain an abridged version?  Obviously, one would reference the earlier work. Magic pumpkin (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It was the original story published in 1893 as a book called "The Wilderness Hunter" and is available at: http://overdrive.dclibrary.org/36DD7302-1EB5-4B02-8364-45B8650F2B59/10/323/en/ContentDetails.htm?ID=C7471F47-7EC5-434A-9CEE-508A314987B9 as I posted earlier. To say the 1900 book "Hunting the Grisly and Other Sketches" is sometimes presented by Bigfoot proponents as historical evidence of the creature's existence is incorrect. The Bigfoot proponents present the 1893 book. It's common sense that this part in the very least should be corrected to show this. Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable.--Timpicerilo (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changes often are. Your suggested ones are not, as explained above. DreamGuy (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote we change it to the indisputably correct "The Wilderness Hunter". 2 for, 1 against.  Votes tallied.  Change confirmed!  Seriously though, I WAS going to put a or there, except the reference to "Hunting the Grisly" is so original that WP:OR dictated its immediate removal. I did decide to play nice though, and inserted a dispute link to air the dirty laundry. Magic pumpkin (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Change it, don't be afraid to edit improve it for the better!--ChubsterII (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no improved it so it's not misleading. The version that was there was clearly intended to remove information that clearly shows it's about a bear so as to mislead people into thinking it wasn't about a bear but some unidentified beast. That kind of blatant POV pushing cannot be tolerated here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of sources (again?)
I assume this has been discussed before, but some of the cites in the article seem to be to amateur websites of questionable reliability. (WP:SOURCE, WP:RELIABLE). -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We deal with this problem a lot. Feel free to list the problematic sources here or go ahead and remove them. I fother editors disagree with removal they will no doubt say so here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just be careful about identifying websites as "amateur" and then removing them, as some well known researchers do maintain personal sites. The preference, of course, should be to find print material.  As an issue of preference, please use the cv template and see WP:Reliable_sources if you suspect the site is simply unreliable as a source, such that the editor might find other, more reliable sources.  If you suspect the site is complete bunk (e.g. a geocities site that claims bigfoots are extraterrestrials, owned by JoeAnonymous), then feel free to delete it. Magic pumpkin (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All though I realize there are many who read this page for laughs or to feed their imagination. "Sasquatch" or "Bigfoot" is more widespread then the Pacific Northwest tribes. in fact most "Eastern Woodland" tribes have been telling these stories for generations at powwows after all the tourists leave. My own great grandfather told us how one female with a baby then later a toddler crossed the dirt road by the family cabin every other morning or early evening. As an American Indian and having been on reservations across the U.S. I can tell you that "The People of the Woods" have found a refuge on many American Indian reservations across the United States of America & Native reservations in Canada. Although I haven't seen them myself I have spoke with those living with these gentle beings. There are is an associate Chief of the Seminole who has them walking through his yard on a regular basis. Even though there are readers of this article who find this unbelievable this is something I find very plausible and a reality for many Native persons living away from the activity of the main reservation. Personally I think they have moved more to reservation lands from Florida to Oklahoma to Washington because Indians won't molest them.

Thomas Greywolf Atkins wepunkwteme@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.166.1.3 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The work cited, Hunting the Grisly, in the Misidentification section, actually does not call the creature a bear. It claims that the animal was bipedal according to all of the observed tracks. While this does not establish that the animal was not a bear, it is disingenuous and not supported to claim that it was a bear based on this source material. Arthvader (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't agree more, I talked this subject until I was blue in the face but didn't get anywhere. Good luck with it.--Timpicerilo (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just face it, this page is in such blatant violation of WP:POV it's not even funny. Then again, so was the Global Warming page, until the scientists who actually studied global warming spoke up to debunk it.  But that's what happens when you get a bunch of editors who are opinionated on the issue, but lack actual knowledge. Magic pumpkin (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand WP:NPOV policy in the slightest, and your comment here shows a strong desrire to push your own POVs onto articles. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe just how deceptive some people are trying to be about this source. The book in question is in no way written to be about Bigfoot or mysterious unidentified creatures. It's a story about bears in context with plain old regular hunting stories. To present it as anything different is either ignorance of a colossal degree or intentionally trying to mislead people about what it says to support a pro-Bigfoot agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

yowie/bigfoot
I live on the tiwi islands in the northern part of australia and my family and myself have all seen these bush man.It is also a legend among our elders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.205.201.11 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bigfoot trap
Sorry that I had to nominate it for deletion: Articles for deletion/Bigfoot trap Northwestgnome (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dubious-discuss" and "unreliable source" tags in intro
Magic pumpkin has placed these tags on a line that has two sources, without stating any of his objections, either in an edit description or on this talk page. Since the statement is well sourced and there is no obvious basis on which to assume that it is either dubious or unreliable, I am reverting the edit for now since the editor has raised no points that I or any other editor may attempt to address. If, of course, they are re-added with an explanation from which to initiate discussion, a discussion can ensue here. Locke9k (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Too fast Locke. I have reinserted the tags, with explanation here.  The claim "climate and food supply issues would make such purported creatures' survival in reported habitats unlikely" is highly dubious.  In fact, I shall smash it to bits right here.  Bears, both brown and black, the animals commonly stated as being misidentified for bigfoot, require a similar diet roughly equivalent to or greater in caloric content than an estimated 500 pound bigfoot, and yet they do inhabit and are known to survive in the exact same environments which the citer claims that the citation claims such animals cannot survive in.  In other words, the citation goes against common sense, and well established forestry.Magic pumpkin (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I tagged the reference as unreliable because it does not fit WikiMedia's reliability requirements. It is not in English, it is not peer reviewed (the claim is so preposterous that it could not be peer reviewed), and it cannot be readily verified.  If it is so obvious that a 500 pound omnivore cannot live in environments which support 1200 pound omnivores, then such sources should be readily found in English, and probably even on-line.  Given the preposterous nature of the claim, I view it as unlikely that it would appear in any publication, especially one published in a foreign land, from which any studies on the bigfoot and North American ecology are unlikely.  Either the source itself is unreliable, or it has been unreliably or unfaithfully cited.Magic pumpkin (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your claims fall into two categories. The first is your claim that the statement in the article is "preposterous".  The second is your assertion that the reference does not meet WikiMedia's reliability requirements.  With respect to the first claim, your entire argument appears to constitute original research.  You have provided no sources in support, and your argument appears to simply consist of your personal reasoning, which has no standing in Wikipedia relative to third party sources.  In essence, you have not demonstrated based upon WP:RS that the statement in question is inherently unbelievable.
 * With respect to your second claim, the entire stated basis of your position that this source is unreliable is that it is a foreign publication. However, Wikipedia has no bias towards English language sources, and your claim that a foreign language source is inherently unreliable is inconsistent with any policy or guideline on Wikipedia of which I am aware.  If you can produce a link to a policy or guideline stating otherwise, please do so.
 * Finally, note that the statement in question is clearly framed to refer to megafauna cryptids in general. Its inclusion is highly important in giving due weight to the mainstream scientific viewpoint that megafauna cryptids by and large do not exist.  Locke9k (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add one more point: your other argument against the reliability of this source is that it is 'not peer reviewed'. In fact, Wikipedia does not require sources to be peer reviewed in order to be considered reliable.  If it did, the vast majority of sources providing any basis for this article would be unacceptable. Locke9k (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember, the Cryptozoology label alerts readers that this article is not about the mainstream scientific viewpoint nor total fiction like the article Frankenstein. Real or not the legend of Bigfoot does exist in our cultural history. If you chop edit to the mainstream scientific viewpoint there will be no article left. Plenty of criptid articles are on Wikipedia, one that comes to mind is the Loch Ness Monster.--ChubsterII (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on how your statement bears on the issue at hand. We have a sourced comment representing the scientific mainstream view, and an editor has added templates questioning the legitimacy of the source without a stated basis in reliable sources or Wikipedia policy.  It is appropriate for this article to represent the mainstream scientific view as such, and failing to do so would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PSCI.  The statement in question serves this purpose and is supported by an apparently reliable source, the only concrete objection to which has been the fact that it is an international source.Locke9k (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The bogus claim that "because climate and food supply issues would make such purported creatures' survival in reported habitats unlikely" should be removed. I haven't seen any evidence from the majority of science supporting this preposterous claim whatsoever! This single sourced comment doesn't jive with the rest of the scientific world.--Wikamacallit (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is about the least plausible argument against the reality of these cryptids. The Pacific Northwest is hardly a food-poor or climatically extreme environment. Far more worrying are the lack of carcasses from e.g. car accidents. 128.194.199.66 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Patterson-Gimlin film article
It seems to me that the regular editors of this page have turned Bigfoot into a decent article. Would some (or all) of you mind having a look at the closely related Patterson-Gimlin film? That article, which is longer than this one, needs a lot of general editing, but in particular I'm having difficulty sorting out the notability of various analyses of the film. Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Skepdic quote
The article plagarizes. It also uses unreliable sources for what the scientific community believes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have provided no basis for either of these claims. In fact, for fringe and pseudoscientific sources such as cryptozoology, which have received little publicized attention from mainstream scientists, the best reliable sources available characterizing the scientific consensus are often the very sorts of skeptic publications you have focused on.  This is the usual consensus on such matters.  Accordingly, I have reverted your edits.  Feel free to continue the discussion if you disagree. Locke9k (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If any part of this article is actually plagiarized from another source, please let us know which part and what you believe it to be copied from. ClovisPt (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Locke9k.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed explanations for sightings; Hoaxes
I think the first paragraph in this sub section should be dropped. The tone of the first sentence "Even proponents of Bigfoot admit that many of the sightings are hoaxes or misidentified animals" seems bias. Why is this worth mentioning? Tobatronix (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix the lead to flow better?
This statement seems clunky to me: The scientific community considers Bigfoot to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoaxes, rather than a real creature.[2] In general, mainstream scientific consensus does not support the posited existence of megafauna cryptids such as Bigfoot, because of the improbably large numbers necessary to maintain a breeding population,[3] and because climate and food supply issues would make such purported creatures' survival in reported habitats unlikely.[4] Despite these facts, Bigfoot is one of the more famous examples of a cryptid within cryptozoology.

The final sentence "Despite these facts, Bigfoot is one of the more famous examples of a cryptid within cryptozoology." seems kind of glued on and the reference to "Despite these facts" is a slight stretch. The paragraph mentions the scientific community's considerations, consensus and foot supply issues - but it is difficult to tell what facts the "despite these facts" refers to. 99.150.255.75 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting changing the wording to claim that bigfoot exists - but to change the wording to be less clunky and to flow better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.255.75 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonvandalism reverted as vandalism
Hello, I noticed that a previous edit was marked as vandalism and reverted. However, it doesn't look like vandalism - but more like a syntax error. I will fix the syntax error and re-add the change.  But - does anyone know the "criteria" Wikipedia uses to decide if "monster" should be capitalized in a monster's name? I see that Loch Ness Monster has a capital monster, and most of the other monsters in the "Similar alleged creatures in North America" section, but for some reason the "Lake Worth monster" is not and caused a link error when the editor added it. 99.150.255.75 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was the protection level changed on Feb. 18, 2010?
This article is always a popular target of random drive by vandalism. Why should we leave it open for this constant nuisance? I suggest it is changed back, constant policing robs good editors of their constructive time.--Timpicerilo (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly. Just looking at the edits that have occurred since then, I fail to understand why this article shouldn't be returned to the previous level of protection.  ClovisPt (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PeterSymonds unprotected the article because he got a request for unprotection on his talk. I've mentioned to him that there are some requests for re-protection here. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Now restored. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 06:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)