Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 13

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bigfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528021504/http://www.kean.edu/~bregal/docs/Bigfoot%20article.Endeavour.pdf to http://www.kean.edu/~bregal/docs/Bigfoot%20article.Endeavour.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * sourcechecked=true – but archive link brings up an "Author's copy" in PDF of a copyrighted article. I wonder whether that's a problem.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  03:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016
RE OPENING TEXT quote: Bigfoot (also known as Sasquatch) is the name given to a mythological simian,[2] ape, or hominid-like creature

makes an unfounded statement of fact - i.e. "mythological" - concerning a creature the existence of which has been neither proven or disproved scientifically

THEREFORE neutral langugage should be substituted for "mythological", the best option being "alleged" or (probably best) "purported"

206.47.117.183 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Cryptids are routinely described as mythological or legendary. The key criterion is that they have not been shown to exist.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  03:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Cryptozoologist Magnet
This article is one of Wikipedia's biggest cryptoozologist magnets and I'm seeing continued confusion regarding cryptozoology. First, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, folkloristics is an academic discipline. These figures are not cryptids—academics reject this term. There's no need to assume something from folk belief is hidden and waiting to be discovered. Beings in the folklore record developed and continue to exist in popular culture for a variety of reasons and most of those have nothing to do with monster hunting. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What's the plural?
"Bigfoots" or "Bigfeet"? This article doesn't use the plural, but Chuck Tingle does, and I think they do it wrongly -- my inclination is "Bigfoots" per Tolkien's "Proudfoots/Proudfeet" dichotomy (and remember Tolkien was a philologist). Is there an English rule for this, or is it a matter of opinion, or what? Herostratus (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected-edit-request-10-30-2016
Please remove the word "mythical" from the first sentence of the article. Many people put a lot of effort into searching for evidence of these creatures, descriptions like "mythical" makes the page come across as disrespectful.

-Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim the expert (talk • contribs) 07:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Bigfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/mammals/bearsign.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108035325/https://www.ksat.com/news/bigfoot-hunter-shares-pictures-of-dead-creature/-/478452/23743310/-/23q274/-/index.html to http://www.ksat.com/news/bigfoot-hunter-shares-pictures-of-dead-creature/-/478452/23743310/-/23q274/-/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211142427/https://news92fm.com/412748/alleged-bigfoot-body-houston-visit-details-released/ to http://news92fm.com/412748/alleged-bigfoot-body-houston-visit-details-released/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419030214/http://www.bigfootdiscoveryproject.com/media.php to http://www.bigfootdiscoveryproject.com/media.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - September 14, 2016
In reference to genetic analysis performed on hair samples, Section 5.2 Formal Studies ends with the following line: "The last two samples matched a fossilized genetic sample of a 40,000 year old polar bear of the Pleistocene Epoch". DNA analysis published in the scientific journal zookeys in march 2015 indicate that this is not the case, but rather that the hair of both samples was from a subspecies of brown bear common in the Himalayas

The specific text: "Other than one sample of human origin, all but two are from common animals. Black and brown bear accounted for most of the samples, other animals include cow, horse, dog/wolf/coyote, sheep, goat, raccoon, porcupine, deer and tapir. The last two samples matched a fossilized genetic sample of a 40,000 year old polar bear of the Pleistocene Epoch."

Should be changed to: "Other than one sample of human origin, all are from common animals. Black and brown bear accounted for most of the samples, other animals include cow, horse, dog/wolf/coyote, sheep, goat, raccoon, porcupine, deer and tapir."

Ldenison5 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Thank you for your suggested edit. Rather than citing the popular press, please go back and reference the journal article the press reports are based on; it would be considered a more reliable source although it's still "primary". How strong do you think this evidence is? Are there other citations evaluating it?  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk)  (contribs)  23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the actual scientific paper and an additional article from BBC news covering the findings. Evidence appears to be strong. There don't appear to be any publications disputing this research. Ldenison5 (talk)


 * ✅: also, the first finding was kept and the results of the second study were added.   Paine   u/ c  05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Contentious edits
has twice (thrice in one case) made a set of edits that a) delete "mythological" in the lead, b) change the assessment of the Patterson-Gimlin film, and c) alter the tone of skeptical assessments by adding words like "most" or "mostly". All without introducing new references. I've reverted these twice (and thrice in the one case, but I decided to self-revert that one to avoid getting close to a 3RR violation), all the while suggesting that these changes be taken up here on the Talk page. Here's the place . Explain what changes you wish to make to the article and why and what sources you are referencing to justify the changes.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk)  (contribs)  10:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you are saying Wordsighn (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

small changes in the article
I agree with the other poster here who said that the word "mythological" should be removed. While not yet proven to exist by the scientific method, there is at least some circumstantial evidence that something is out there, unlike a unicorn or a kraken. Also the statement that the Patterson-Gimlin footage showed no supportive data of any value is highly inaccurate. A source was cited, and at the time was probably an accurate assessment. But recent improvements in video technology have allowed some scientists to revisit the footage and have made some fascinating observations after the footage was stabilized. http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

The entire article is written ok, lots of good information with sources, but tends to lean toward the author's viewpoint of nonbeliever instead of straightforward scientific point. 19:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Asuato (talk)

http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asuato (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Meldrum is mainly to be applauded for giving careful scientific examination to this subject. So far, you've only pointed to self-published papers, i.e. primary sources not yet published in peer-reviewed journals. It's not yet time to change this article, but you may want to devote some effort to Talk:Patterson–Gimlin film. If you can get that article to be less skeptical, only then would it make sense to introduce here the changed evaluation of this one piece of evidence.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  21:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I am as skeptical as they come on the subject of the existence of Bigfoot, nevertheless I agree with those who object to the word "mythological" used in the lede. I just object for different reasons. That word implies something NOT related to the subject. This is the definition I am familiar with, which is at dictionary.com:
 * "The body of myths belonging to a culture. Myths are traditional stories about gods and heroes. They often account for the basic aspects of existence — explaining, for instance, how the Earth was created, why people have to die, or why the year is divided into seasons." (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mythology)


 * I suggest "fabled" as in:
 * celebrated in fables: "fabled goddess of the wood."
 * having no real existence; fictitious: "a fabled chest of gold." (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fabled) RobP (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see "fabled" as a good substitute. Perhaps you are being too restrictive in your sense of "mythological" and "myth". Consider the term "urban myth" or what happens on the show Mythbusters. These are both well accepted uses of the term that don't comfortably fit within your dictionary definition.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  14:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If I am being "too restrictive," then it's not just me. Yes, it seemed to me to be the wrong word when I read it - but after I did I ran a test (small scale as it was) and showed the page to several co-workers - and without specific prompting they both questioned me on that word. Perhaps "ological" adds a more subtle meaning than straight "myth."  Re-reading the lede just now, I see that same sentence has towards the end "that is said to..." - which is then somewhat redundant following mythological... so perhaps NO adjective is necessary there, thus avoiding the subtleties of that word?  RobP (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I just reviewed the sentence in question and "mythological" (which I think aptly describes the claims and stories spanning decades) is needed to convey the status of Bigfoot. "That is said to" is also needed to convey the non-factual status of the attributes or claims about Bigfoot, i.e. it lives in a specific place in a specific region. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The word 'mythological' should be replaced with 'legendary' for reasons of neutrality. Sea Captain Cormac 21:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

I too agree that mythical should be removed and replaced with  real Wordsighn (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

real would be POV pushing, IMO. mythical, is acceptably less so IMO. fabled and legendary would go too far in the other direction, IMO.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a wrong-headed discussion. In folkloristics, Legend does not imply fiction: as any folklorists knows, legends can in fact accurately reflect history. Generally speaking, mythological and fabled have very different implications in folkloristics. I would refer editors here to legend, myth, and fable but all three are terribly inaccurate and need to be rewritten with an introductory text to folkloristics in hand. In the mean time, just including that the entity is from American folklore does the job. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The main picture is of a female Bigfoot
If you look at her front you will see two breasts. It just a thought to list her sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.hallsted (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk about the  bigfoot  page
Who thinks that the bigfoot page a new update P.I.M.S. (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What aspects do you think need updating? --McGeddon (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * All it needs is an update P.I.M.S. (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop it, P.I.M.S., and pay some attention to all the warnings and advice on your own talkpage. Please use reliable sources. This is not the way to find reliable sources! Bishonen &#124; talk 15:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC).

Why is everyone against P.I.M.S? Wordsighn (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean what has this user done to you so far!!?!?? Wordsighn (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wordsighn just stop I have done enough already. P.I.M.S. (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

OK OK OK sorry Wordsighn (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wordsighn, are you and P.I.M.S the same person, or friends? I ask because I noticed this version of your userpage. Please note that Wikipedia is not for telling people about your mysterious experiences, and not for playing games either. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC).

No we are friends not the same person   Wordsighn (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry  I had a typo ,I meant we are friends and not the same person, what made you think that? Wordsighn (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good technical reasons made me think it. See your talkpage. You should reply to me there as soon as possible, or you will be blocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC).

Please don't block me!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! Wordsighn (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Paranormal Bigfoot?
Scientists believe Bigfoot is a paranormal figure. One group of Bigfoot hunters say that Bigfoot isn't human. They say he is a spirit. he isn't an alien but he is believed to be a creature connected to the paranormal side of this universe. No one really knows if Bigfoot is part of the Ape category or Supernatural category, but we hope to find out soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.202.190 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is one mention of paranormal in the current article, but it's modifying the Coast-to-Coast radio show. If you have something to add to the article, please provide some sources and we'll take a look.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  21:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

 * unclear request  Programming Geek talk to me 20:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

JBKH (also known as Sasquatch) is a simian-like creature of American folklore that is said to inhabit forests, especially in the Pacific Northwest. Bigfoot is usually described as a large, hairy, bipedal humanoid. The term sasquatch is an Anglicized derivative of the Halkomelem word sásq'ets.

Scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot and consider it to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, rather than a living animal. This conclusion is due to many reasons, including the lack of physical evidence after centuries of investigation despite the large numbers of creatures that would have to exist to maintain a breeding population. Occasional new reports of sightings sustain a small group of self-described investigators. Many reports of sightings are attributed to being various animals, particularly black bears.

Description
Individuals claiming to have seen Bigfoot describe it as a large, hairy, muscular, bipedal ape-like creature, roughly 2 - 3 m covered in hair described as black, dark brown, or dark reddish. Some descriptions include details such as large eyes, a pronounced brow ridge, and a large, low-set forehead. The top of the head has been described as rounded and crested, similar to the sagittal crest of the male gorilla. The creature has been reported as having a strong, unpleasant smell.

The enormous footprints for which the creature is named are claimed to be as large as 24 in long and 8 in wide. Some footprint casts have also contained claw marks, making it likely that they came from known animals, such as bears, which have five toes and claws.

Proponents of Bigfoot's existence claim that the creature is omnivorous and mainly nocturnal.

History
Wild men stories are found among the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Anthropologist and cryptozoologist Grover Krantz has written that stories of the indigenous population which can be confidently related to the Sasquatch, correspond to the areas where white Americans have reported similar sightings. According to David Daegling, the legends existed before there was a single name for the creature; and that they differed in their details both regionally and between families in the same community; and that similar stories of wild men are found on every continent except Antarctica. Ecologist Robert Pyle argues that most cultures have human-like giants in their folk history, expressing a need for "some larger-than-life creature." Each language had its own name for the creature featured in the local version of such legends. Many names meant something along the lines of "wild man" or "hairy man", although other names described common actions it was said to perform, such as eating clams or shaking trees. A story told to Charles Hill-Tout by Chief Mischelle of the Nlaka'pamux at Lytton, British Columbia in 1898 gives another Salishan variant of the name, meaning "the benign-faced-one".

Members of the Lummi tell tales about Mausika |Ts'emekwes, the local version of Bigfoot. The stories are similar to each other in the general descriptions of Mausika |Ts'emekwes, but details about the creature's diet and activities differed between family stories.

Some regional versions contained more nefarious creatures. The stiyaha or kwi-kwiyai were a nocturnal race that children were told not to say the names of lest the monsters hear and come to carry off a person—sometimes to be killed. In 1847, Paul Kane reported stories by the native people about skoocooms: a race of cannibalistic wildmen living on the peak of Mount St. Helens.

Less-menacing versions exist, such as the one recorded by Reverend Elkanah Walker. In 1840, Walker, a Protestant missionary, recorded stories of giants among the Native Americans living near present-day Spokane, Washington. The Indians said that these giants lived on and around the peaks of nearby mountains and stole salmon from the fishermen's nets.

Local stories were compiled by Indian Agent J. W. Burns in a series of Canadian newspaper articles in the 1920s recounting stories told to him by the Sts'Ailes people of Chehalis and others. The Sts'Ailes maintain, as do other indigenous peoples of the region, that the Sasquatch are very real and take great umbrage when it is suggested that they are legendary. According to Sts'Ailes eyewitness accounts, the Sasquatch prefer to avoid white men, and speak the Lillooet language of the people at Port Douglas, British Columbia at the head of Harrison Lake. It was Burns who first borrowed the term Sasquatch from the Halkomelem sásq'ets and used it in his articles to describe a hypothetical single type of creature reflected in the stories.

Spotted Elk, bears and the origin of the "Bigfoot" name
The name "Bigfoot" for the creature appeared in the late 19th century. Spotted Elk, also called Chief Big Foot, was a well-known Lakota leader killed during the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890. Famous in his time, his name likely inspired the name of two fabled attacking bears. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries at least two enormous marauding grizzly bears nicknamed "Bigfoot" were widely noted in the press, perhaps inspiring the common name of the ape-creature and may be a source of confusion in early stories. The first grizzly bear Bigfoot was reportedly killed near Fresno, California in 1895 after killing sheep for 15 years; his weight was estimated at 2,000 pounds (900 kg). The second grizzly bear Bigfoot was active in Idaho in the 1890s and 1900s, between the Snake and Salmon rivers, and was attributed with nearly supernatural powers. "Nearly twice the size of an ordinary grizzly, Bigfoot for years has levied his tribute of prime steers and no one has been found brave enough or clever enough to catch or kill him. With a single blow of his giant paw he kills the largest and best animal he can find and he usually takes the pick of a herd. He makes a single meal of the animal, and it is usually a meal that would provide a camp full of men for a week, and disappears, never to return to that locality again that season." The Idaho Bigfoot was shot and killed in 1902 near Pierce City, credited with killing 1,000 cattle in his lifetime.

Sightings
About one-third of all claims of Bigfoot sightings are located in the Pacific Northwest, with the remaining reports spread throughout the rest of North America. Most reports are considered mistakes or hoaxes, even by researchers who maintain that Bigfoot exists.

As Bigfoot has become better known and a phenomenon in popular culture, sightings have spread throughout North America. In addition to the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes region and the Southeastern United States have had many reports of Bigfoot sightings. The debate over the legitimacy of Bigfoot sightings reached a peak in the 1970s, and Bigfoot has been regarded as the first widely popularized example of pseudoscience in American culture.

Proposed explanations for sightings
Various types of creatures have been suggested to explain both the sightings and what type of creature Bigfoot would be. The scientific community typically attributes sightings to either hoaxes or misidentification of known animals and their tracks, particularly black bears.

Misidentification


In 2007, the Pennsylvania Game Commission said that the photos that the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization said showed a juvenile Bigfoot were of a bear with mange. Anthropologist Jeffrey Meldrum, on the other hand, said that the limb proportions of the suspected juvenile in question were not bear-like, and stated that he felt they were "more like a chimpanzee."

Hoaxes
Both Bigfoot believers and non-believers agree that many of the reported sightings are hoaxes or misidentified animals.

Bigfoot sightings or footprints have, in some cases, been shown to be hoaxes. Author Jerome Clark argues that the Jacko Affair, involving an 1884 newspaper report of an apelike creature captured in British Columbia, was a hoax. Citing research by John Green, who found that several contemporary British Columbia newspapers regarded the alleged capture as very dubious, Clark notes that the Mainland Guardian of New Westminster, British Columbia, wrote, "Absurdity is written on the face of it."

On July 14, 2005, Tom Biscardi, a long-time Bigfoot enthusiast and CEO of Searching for Bigfoot Inc., appeared on the Coast to Coast AM paranormal radio show and announced that he was "98% sure that his group will be able to capture a Bigfoot which they have been tracking in the Happy Camp, California area." A month later, Biscardi announced on the same radio show that he had access to a captured Bigfoot and was arranging a pay-per-view event for people to see it. Biscardi appeared on Coast to Coast AM again a few days later to announce that there was no captive Bigfoot. Biscardi blamed an unnamed woman for misleading him and the show's audience for being gullible.

On July 9, 2008, Rick Dyer and Matthew Whitton posted a video to YouTube claiming that they had discovered the body of a dead Sasquatch in a forest in northern Georgia. Tom Biscardi was contacted to investigate. Dyer and Whitton received $50,000 from Searching for Bigfoot, Inc. as a good faith gesture. The story of the men claims was covered by many major news networks, including BBC, CNN, ABC News, and Fox News. Soon after a press conference, the alleged Bigfoot body arrived in a block of ice in a freezer with the Searching for Bigfoot team. When the contents were thawed, it was discovered that the hair was not real, the head was hollow, and the feet were rubber. Dyer and Whitton subsequently admitted it was a hoax after being confronted by Steve Kulls, executive director of SquatchDetective.com.

In August 2012, a man in Montana was killed by a car while perpetrating a Bigfoot hoax using a ghillie suit.

In January 2014, Rick Dyer, perpetrator of a previous Bigfoot hoax, said he had killed a Bigfoot creature in September 2012 outside of San Antonio, Texas. He said he had scientific tests performed on the body, "from DNA tests to 3D optical scans to body scans. It is the real deal. It's Bigfoot, and Bigfoot's here, and I shot it, and now I'm proving it to the world." He stated that he intended to take the body, which he had kept in a hidden location, on tour across North America in 2014. He released photos of the body and a video showing a few individuals' reactions to seeing it, but never released any of the tests or scans. He refused to disclose the test results or provide biological samples, although he stated that the DNA results, which were done by an undisclosed lab, could not identify any known animal. Dyer stated he would reveal the body and tests on February 9 at a news conference at Washington University, but the test results were never made available. After the Phoenix tour, the body traveled to Houston. On March 28, 2014, Dyer admitted on his Facebook page that his "Bigfoot corpse" was another hoax. He had paid Chris Russel of Twisted Toy Box to manufacture the prop, which he nicknamed "Hank", from latex, foam, and camel hair. Dyer earned approximately US$60,000 from the tour of this second fake Bigfoot corpse. He maintains that he did kill a Bigfoot, but states that he did not take the real body on tour for fear that it would be stolen.

Gigantopithecus
Bigfoot proponents Grover Krantz and Geoffrey H. Bourne believed that Bigfoot could be a relict population of Gigantopithecus. According to Bourne, all Gigantopithecus fossils were found in Asia, and, as many species of animals migrated across the Bering land bridge, it is not unreasonable to assume that Gigantopithecus might have as well.

Gigantopithecus fossils have not been found in the Americas. The only recovered fossils are of mandibles and teeth, leaving uncertainty about Gigantopithecus's locomotion. Krantz has argued, based on his extrapolation of the shape of its mandible, that Gigantopithecus blacki could have been bipedal. However, the relevant part of the mandible is not present in any fossils. An alternative view is that Gigantopithecus was quadrupedal, and it has been said that Gigantopithecus's enormous mass would have made it difficult for it to adopt a bipedal gait.

Matt Cartmill presents another view regarding the Gigantopithecus hypothesis: "The trouble with this account is that Gigantopithecus was not a hominin and maybe not even a crown group hominoid; yet the physical evidence implies that Bigfoot is an upright biped with buttocks and a long, stout, permanently adducted hallux. These are hominin autapomorphies, not found in other mammals or other bipeds. It seems unlikely that Gigantopithecus would have evolved these uniquely hominin traits in parallel."

Bernard G. Campbell wrote: "That Gigantopithecus is in fact extinct has been questioned by those who believe it survives as the Yeti of the Himalayas and the Sasquatch of the north-west American coast. But the evidence for these creatures is not convincing."

Extinct hominidae
A species of Paranthropus, such as Paranthropus robustus, with its crested skull and bipedal gait, was suggested by primatologist John R. Napier and anthropologist Gordon Strasenburg as a possible candidate for Bigfoot's identity, despite the fact that fossils of Paranthropus are found only in Africa.

Michael Rugg, of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum, presented a comparison between human, Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus skulls (reconstructions made by Grover Krantz) in episodes 131 and 132 of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum Show. He favorably compares a modern tooth suspected of coming from a Bigfoot to the Meganthropus fossil teeth, noting the worn enamel on the occlusal surface. The Meganthropus fossils originated from Asia, and the tooth was found near Santa Cruz, California.

Some suggest Neanderthal, Homo erectus, or Homo heidelbergensis to be the creature, but no remains of any of those species have been found in the Americas.

Scientific view
The evidence that does exist supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature has been attributed to hoaxes or delusion rather than to sightings of a genuine creature. In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented." In addition, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia.

Mainstream scientists do not consider the subject of Bigfoot an area of credible science and there have been a limited number of formal scientific studies of Bigfoot.

Evidence such as the 1967 Patterson–Gimlin film has provided "no supportive data of any scientific value".

As with other similar beings, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely. Great apes have not been found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains are known to have been found. Phillips Stevens, a cultural anthropologist at the University at Buffalo, summarized the scientific consensus as follows:

In the 1970s, when Bigfoot experts were frequently given high-profile media coverage, Mcleod writes that the scientific community generally avoided lending credence to the theories by debating them.

Researchers
Ivan T. Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans have spent parts of their career searching for Bigfoot. Later scientists who researched the topic included Carleton S. Coon, George Allen Agogino and William Charles Osman Hill, although they came to no definite conclusions and later drifted from this research.

Anthropologist Jeffrey Meldrum has said that the fossil remains of an ancient giant ape called Gigantopithecus could turn out to be ancestors of today's commonly known Bigfoot. John Napier asserts that the scientific community's attitude towards Bigfoot stems primarily from insufficient evidence. Other scientists who have shown varying degrees of interest in the creature are David J. Daegling, George Schaller, Russell Mittermeier, Daris Swindler, Esteban Sarmiento, and Carleton S. Coon.

Formal studies
The first scientific study of available evidence was conducted by John Napier and published in his book, Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality, in 1973. Napier wrote that if a conclusion is to be reached based on scant extant "'hard' evidence," science must declare "Bigfoot does not exist." However, he found it difficult to entirely reject thousands of alleged tracks, "scattered over 125,000 square miles" (325,000 km²) or to dismiss all "the many hundreds" of eyewitness accounts. Napier concluded, "I am convinced that Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be something in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints."

In 1974, the National Wildlife Federation funded a field study seeking Bigfoot evidence. No formal federation members were involved and the study made no notable discoveries.

Beginning in the late 1970s, physical anthropologist Grover Krantz published several articles and four book-length treatments of Sasquatch. However, his work was found to contain multiple scientific failings including falling for hoaxes.

A study published in the Journal of Biogeography in 2009 by J.D. Lozier et al. used ecological niche modeling on reported sightings of Bigfoot, using their locations to infer Bigfoot's preferred ecological parameters. They found a very close match with the ecological parameters of the American black bear, Ursus americanus. They also note that an upright bear looks much like Bigfoot's purported appearance and consider it highly improbable that two species should have very similar ecological preferences, concluding that Bigfoot sightings are likely sightings of black bears.

In the first systematic genetic analysis of 30 hair samples that were suspected to be from bigfoot, yeti, sasquatch, almasty or other anomalous primates, only one was found to be primate in origin, and that was identified as human. A joint study by the University of Oxford and Lausanne's Cantonal Museum of Zoology and published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B in 2014, the team used a previously published cleaning method to remove all surface contamination and the ribosomal mitochondrial DNA 12S fragment of the sample was sequenced and then compared to GenBank to identify the species origin. The samples submitted were from different parts of the world, including the United States, Russia, the Himalayas, and Sumatra. Other than one sample of human origin, all but two are from common animals. Black and brown bear accounted for most of the samples, other animals include cow, horse, dog/wolf/coyote, sheep, goat, raccoon, porcupine, deer and tapir. The last two samples were thought to match a fossilized genetic sample of a 40,000 year old polar bear of the Pleistocene epoch; however, a later study disputes this finding. In the second paper, tests identified the hairs as being from a rare type of brown bear.

Bigfoot claims
After what The Huffington Post described as "a five-year study of purported Bigfoot (also known as Sasquatch) DNA samples," but prior to peer review of the work, on November 24, 2012, DNA Diagnostics, a veterinary laboratory headed by veterinarian Melba Ketchum, issued a press release claiming that they had found proof that the Sasquatch "is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species." Ketchum called for this to be recognized officially, saying that "Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a 'license' to hunt, trap, or kill them."

Failing to find a scientific journal that would publish their results, Ketchum announced on February 13, 2013 that their research had been published in the DeNovo Journal of Science. The Huffington Post discovered that the journal's domain had been registered anonymously only nine days before the announcement. This was the only edition of DeNovo and was listed as Volume 1, Issue 1, with its only content being the Ketchum paper.

Shortly after publication, the paper was analyzed and outlined by Sharon Hill of Doubtfull News for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Hill reported on the questionable journal, mismanaged DNA testing and poor quality paper, stating that "The few experienced geneticists who viewed the paper reported a dismal opinion of it noting it made little sense."

The Scientist magazine also analyzed the paper, reporting that:

Bigfoot organizations
There are several organizations dedicated to the research and investigation of Bigfoot sightings in the United States. The oldest and largest is the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO). The BFRO also provides a free database to individuals and other organizations. Their website includes reports from across North America that have been investigated by researchers to determine credibility.

In February 2016, the University of New Mexico at Gallup held a two-day Bigfoot conference, at a cost of $7,000 in university funds.

In his pursuit of Bigfoot, David Paulides, author of two self-published books on the subject, created the research group "North America Bigfoot Search" for which he serves as director, and which Paulides says was instrumental  in the genesis of the Ketchum paper published in 2013 claiming Bigfoot was real.

In popular culture
Bigfoot has had a demonstrable impact as a popular culture phenomenon. It has "become entrenched in American popular culture and it is as viable an icon as Michael Jordan" with more than forty-five years having passed since reported sightings in California, and neither an animal nor "a satisfying explanation as to why folks see giant hairy men that don't exist".

When asked for her opinion of Bigfoot in a September 27, 2002, interview on National Public Radio's "Science Friday", Jane Goodall said "I'm sure they exist", and later said, chuckling, "Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist", and finally, "You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to." In 2012, when asked again by the Huffington Post, Goodall said "I'm fascinated and would actually love them to exist," adding, "Of course, it's strange that there has never been a single authentic hide or hair of the Bigfoot, but I've read all the accounts."

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017
I think Bigfoot deserves a proper name; simply referring to the kind and majestic beast know as Bigfoot is disgraceful. I would like to suggest that you add that Bigfoot's name is Jefferson, a name that I feel truly resonates with his personality. Zoelake (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌, no source given for name change. It seems like something you made up. MB298 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this mythical creature doesn't exist, a more proper name would be " ain't. "

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bigfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129061319/http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunting.html to http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunting.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/clayton/stories/2008/08/20/bigfoot_hoax_lawsuit.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/clayton/stories/2008/08/19/bigfoot_hoax.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral opening edit request
The page states that "Scientists" belief Bigfoot is a hoax, but the link says "Most scientists". It is likely that there are at least a few that don't discount Bigfoot's existence (in many cases, likely because they haven't bothered to personally study the situation enough to even form a meaningful opinion), and the more neutral (and accurate) term 'Most' would make the page seem more neutral and be more appropriate.


 * The section of the article under Scientific view is currently written in such a way as to justify the lack of weasel wording with "Most".  Wikipedia is going to stick with the mainstream view.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk)  (contribs)  03:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"physical evidence"
doesn't mean what you think it does.

t should be reworded to more accurately describe whatever the author is talking about, like physical remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4200:D8A1:693A:74D:9380:1C6B (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggested improvements
Having read the article, there are some noticeable sections missing information which I believe could improve this article if included. First, from a standpoint of cryptozoology, the fact that the Mountain gorilla was not discovered until 1902, and the Coelacanth, a prehistoric species of fish once thought to be extinct, was "rediscovered" in 1938. Many new species continue to be identified by scientists on an annual basis (and many become critically endangered or extinct as well). Secondly, Jane Goodall, a noted primatologist, has publicly stated with regard to the Bigfoot, "I would like to believe that they exist" (paraphrased). Third, a discussion of Bigfoot would not be complete with the gait analysis performed by the University of Minnesota of the Patterson-Gimlin film or the Minnesota Iceman, formerly displayed at the Minnesota State Fair prior to its analysis by Ivan Sanderson and his determination that it was "probably genuine". Additional discussion should also include the analysis of Ivan Marx (know to hoax his research), but also others more credible than him of the alleged "Cripplefoot" Bigfoot tracks cast and obtained in Bossburg, Washington. I agree that video clip of at least the Patterson-Gimlin film should be included with this article (an easy argument could be made for Fair Use status) DrGregMN (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cryptozoology is extreme fringe (WP:FRINGE). As discussed in the talk page archive, what we really need is an article rewritten with solid secondary sources, specifically from folklorists above all else. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly, MOST strongly, agree with :bloodofox:. The quickest response to all of this - as shown in the lead of the article - is the necessity of a breeding population large enough to support their existence, which in this modern age would be impossible to not have been discovered.50.111.59.83 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While I agree that Cryptozoology ideology is extreme fringe and should not be included on articles. I completely disagree with the removal of "Cryptozoology terminology", as terminology is not "pseudoscience fringe view[points]".  For example, I disagree with the complete removal of the word "Cryptozoology" from this article, and it being completely replaced as simply vague "pseudoscience".  The exact pseudoscience should be mentioned with a description to provide context, otherwise it is just a vague reference that is unclear and unexplained to the readers.  "Pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views" (WP:FRINGE).  I'm in favor of including a brief description of how the pseudoscientific influences (Cryptozoology) the folklore of Bigfoot instead of the current inside references that are unclear and ultimately meaningless to the average reader. The Soldier of Peace (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, "from a standpoint of cryptozoology" is a pseudoscientific viewpoint, and not to be treated as actual science. There is no credible scientific evidence that "Bigfoot" exists. The "suggested improvements" would destroy the article's credibility unless presented as examples of pseudoscientific speculation. An encyclopedia is no place for fringe enthusiasts' crotchets. Carlstak (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just had to pull a bunch of cryptozoology creep from the article yet again. We badly need a rewrite on this article with a solid foundation in academic material to discourage this sort of stuff from growing back every time it's snipped. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I applaud your recent changes to the article,, and agree that it needs a rewrite. Would you possibly be able to do the rewriting? You've certainly demonstrated your competence. I would do it myself if I had the time. Carlstak (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In general, I approve of the changes, especially the cleansing of fringe sources, and removal of primary sources dropped into the article without benefit of analysis of secondary sources. I think you may run into some problems with WP:LEAD by having such a short intro that doesn't adequately summarize the most important parts of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I'll proceed with the rewrite. I'll need to review some more in-depth material on the subject before launching into it (which I'm doing now). And I understand your concerns, . I don't intend the lead as it stands for the long-term. Instead, I've placed it there as a stand-in for what would otherwise just be a stub. This is a unique situation where the rest of the body needs to go yet, without a rewrite ready to go, deletion of it would likely yield a pointless revert war. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Great news, Bloodofox. I'll rest easy knowing the rewrite is in good hands. I agree it's a unique situation with potential for an edit war, and I think you've followed the best course. I will be happy to assist in any way I can. Carlstak (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Article lead
Re this edit: I don't think it's inappropriate to briefly summarize the scientific consensus about Bigfoot in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, its an important aspect of the topic. There are several good sources in the body of the article we can use. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there isn't a "scientific consensus" about bigfoot. At the end of the day, this is an entity from the folklore record, and therefore we should be treating it just like an article we'd be writing about, say, a dragon. Deferring to individuals outside of relevant disciplines seems to just leads to a guide to monster hunting. Right now the lead is the way it is because we're waiting on a rewrite, which I'm preparing. If it wouldn't result in an edit war, I'd simply stubify the article to what we have in the lead until that is done. However, since this is a highly visible article, the approach to the rewrite is going to have to be non-conventional: either altogether at once or in large chunks. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, I forgot about the discussion above this one where you mentioned you'd be in the process of revamping the article. True, Bigfoot is largely a cultural phenomenon. But unlike some legendary dragon, it has actually drawn comment from mainstream scientists, and a majority have dismissed it. This consensus has even been referred to in publications by UNESCO, which, as an international scientific body, is a great example. No, we don't want to clog the lead with opinions from monster hunters, I'm proposing a sentence at most that mentions mainstream scientific opinion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a pretty unusual move and we definitely need a section on it. In the mean time, do you want to add a line about that into the lead? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Added it. I think UNESCO and Brian Regal are pretty good sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That new lead sentence works for me. Note that this is not at all like dragons. People have recently sued California for denying Bigfoot exists, and someone (who has named other living species) has now filed papers with the organization which officially names species (forgot the name), to name Bigfoot with an official scientific name. No one does this with dragons! RobP (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I found Regal's book to be excellent, he dives into the history of the few accredited scientists associated with Bigfoot claims, and how and why they were rejected by the mainstream. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Much improved. I’ll have to dig into that one next (currently reading Buhs’s book on the subject). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hancock House spamlinks
The recent addition of a list of publications from a single publisher, Hancock House (with each entry linked to an external url sales page) appears to be promotional spam. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's definitely promotional spam, so I've removed it. Carlstak (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I also removed it (again). Even without embedded saleslinks, it was positioned as an advert for Hancock House promoting its "many out of print versions now popular collector items". I could understand one or two titles added to the Further Reading section and correctly formatted as per MOS:FURTHER, but the entire catalog of one publisher having its own promotional section in the article text is not appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * this list of books is not spam, they are relevant titles to the topic of Bigfoot and sasquatch. They were recently moved into further reading in the requested format and just deleted by Bloodofox with no explanation. Hancock House happens to be the largest publisher of bigfoot titles so they obviously will have strong representation given they have published over 50 books on the topic. Please provide a valid reason for removing this content. Galliforme (talk)


 * "Further reading" sections are subject to the same guidelines as external links. That means no WP:BOOKSPAM, no undue weight on the fringe cryptozoology POV, and no use of the article to promote a single publisher to the exclusion of others. Also bear in mind, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, i.e. the encyclopedia's mission is not to catalog every item ever published on a subject. Finally, understand that Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS; discussion by editors whether material is suitable for inclusion is part of the community process. There are any number of non-notable books that could be said to be "relevant", but mere relevance doesn't automatically guarantee inclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Currently the article is locked with the spam in place. This may be due to an admin misunderstanding. See ongoing discussion here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Spam appears to be removed now. I think 6 attempts to insert the linkfarm or its book titles is enough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Discovering Bigfoot
Has anyone seen 'Discovering Bigfoot' on Netflix? Is any of that evidence real? RyanDanielst (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How can there be 'real' evidence on something that doesn't exist? 104.169.18.4 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong friendo, you have to disprove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4200:D8A1:B4E6:B606:9458:7227 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

FBI Files on Bigfoot
I thought the editors of the Bigfoot page might want to know the FBI has released files on Bigfoot. You will also find a 1974 Washington State Atlas, created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that mentions an FBI test of Bigfoot hair that did not match any animal or human cataloged at that time. The FBI has since claimed to have "lost" or "can't find" this study. The files can be found here: http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/fbi-files-bigfoot-sasquatch/

--Avidresearcher9999 (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, they don't give a shit; the people that edit wikipedia live in the mothers basements, and feel euphoric about thinking they know better than everyone else.
 * Anything that even slightly hints it could be real, is to be destroyed on site by those retards.


 * What benefits would these "retards" have covering up such evidence? There is a thing in any encyclopedia about reliable sources. Anybody can come along with "real evidence" but it won't go into any encyclopedia. Slight Smile 16:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
I rolled back to a version prior to the poorly-explained deletion by an IP of a large part of the History section. Note: I haven't looked too closely at that section, but it appears to summarize sources that cover key claims establishing the Bigfoot legend. The "Discuss" phase of WP:BRD can commence if the IP wishes to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Bindernagel
In this article about bigfoot or sasquatch John A. Bindernagel isn't even mentioned. I will not write inside of the article myself, but just say that an article without Dr. Bindernagel is not completed yet. Edwin Duesiester (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Charles Hill-Tout source
The reference of Sqaktktquaclt, or Benign Faced can be found here among other places https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Folk-Lore/Volume_10/Sqaktktquaclt,_or_the_Benign-Faced,_the_Oannes_of_the_Ntlaka-pamuq Charles Hill-Tout work is in the public domain now. It would be good to use the name "Sqaktktquaclt". The article seems to want the idea to come from much broader original sources than a misunderstanding or great elaboration of the folklorists who studied the stories of the people of the Pacific Northwest.--73.66.142.147 (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Bigfoot
LL: Your paragraph regarding bear tracks - even castings - being mistaken for sasquatch tracks HAS NO REFERENCE in fact. YOU assert the information and then reference a source of what bear tracks look like - NOT who, when or where any authoritative person has mistaken a track - and more especially A CASTING (which you claim) - for a BLACK bear track. Dr. Jeff Meldrum has a collection of HUNDREDS of sasquatch track castings - NOT ONE is that of a bear. You fail to recognize that BLACK BEAR TRACKS (there ARE NO GRIZZLIES in most of the areas castings and tracks are made/found, and NONE in the Pacific Northwest for over 100 years) AREN'T LARGE AT ALL! The hind foot of a black bear IS NO MORE THAN 8"!! So ANY well defined track larger than 9 inches AIN'T A BLACK BEAR TRACK.  Regardless - your assertion and reference are MISPLACED and out of order. Cowboycorvette (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The existing article content doesn't belong to me, so I'm not sure what you mean by "my" paragraph. Anyway, on Wikipedia, we follow WP:FRINGE, which directs us to give primary weight to mainstream scientific views, and less (if any) weight to fringe views. Proponents of Bigfoot's existence like Meldrum, fall under our fringe guideline, so when describing the subject, we use WP:FRIND sources (i.e. sources that are independent of the view that Bigfoot exists). The paragraph I believe you may be talking about is cited to a high quality WP:FRIND source, Joe Nickell. Hope this clarifies things for you. Regards, LuckyLouie (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My "editorializing" discusses the issues David Thompson mentioned in 1811, WHICH ARE STILL ASSERTED BY ANTHROPOLOGISTS TODAY: 1) That Sasquatches are merely folklore  2) That they are based in "the fondness of mankind for the marvellous" and not FACT BASIS - while THEY IGNORE THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE of the species' existence, AND DON'T STUDY IT. You discuss all the BS proffered by the EXTREMELY UNSCIENTIFIC Melba Ketchum et al.  We all understand that there are wackos - even educated wackos - who "latch on to the sasquatch phenomenon.  You want to discuss this - but NOT discuss CREDIBLE FACTUAL INFORMATION while adding YOUR assertions with no references??  Not happenin boss.  PS - I am a Doctoral scientist and STRICTLY ADHERE to The Scientific Method.  I don't sit all day at a computer and pretend I own articles and make my own assumptions regarding bear tracks - which you've probably never even seen before.  So let's stop the pissing contest here boss.  Your bear tracks paragraph IS OUT OF ORDER and YOUR OWN assertion.  Even of referenced to an anthropologist claiming bear tracks are mistaken as sasquatch tracks - especially castings - REFERENCE BY WHOM, WHEN AND WHERE - which you can't do.  Otherwise - IT STAYS OUT.  If you want to discuss tracks - DISCUSS FACTUAL INFORMATION Cowboycorvette (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "while THEY IGNORE THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE" Who are they? Are you talking about someone specifically? Dimadick (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Per WP:FRINGE, I've removed number of paragraphs in the "Recognition" section that promote Melba Ketchum's registration of a name for Bigfoot with Zoobank.org as WP:UNDUE weight and non-WP:FRIND sourcing. I've summarized the coverage of her registration using an independent source, and relocated it to the appropriate section discussing Ketchum's various claims and activities. In addition, I've removed statements by Jane Goodall that duplicate those already contained in the Popular culture section. Finally, I've removed lengthy hyperbolic claims about Bigfoot cited to a non-notable paperback book by cryptozoologist Dmitri Bayanov. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Gast wtf hahah david en tijn gaan bigfoot kopen #sick
kom 1v1 bigfoot dan apenharenwasserman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A212:2103:B100:C088:BC52:561:5066 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2020
{{subst:trim|1= First off, i had to look up up what "UNAMBIGUOUSLY" meant, ha-ha, but I believe that there may be more information that could be covered on the bigfoot page, like more recent info, for example, recently the Patterson-Gimlin film (circa 1967) has been proven to not be a hoax- that said it'snot like i'm gonna go into the article and say "well oh bigfoot is real" but,I just believe there is a little more information out there that could stand to be put truthfully into the article. Oh, and thanks for at least considering my edit request.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  JTP {{sup|(talk • contribs)}} 01:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Add Infobox mythical creature
I added this infobox but it was undid two times. Really I do not know because was undid: I think if any data is erroneous, can be fixed or removed from infobox instead of remove whole infobox.Davidhs0 (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Name, Other name(s), Country, Region and Habitat: are information from this article.
 * Image and Caption: is a drawing of bigfoot.
 * Mythology: I wrote "indigenous", but perhaps other word is better.
 * Grouping and Sub grouping: are data according article Cryptid.
 * Similar creatures: are data from this and other articles.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020
Unknowable, a paranormal and true crime podcast, did their 22nd episode on Bigfoot. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unknowable/id1439947356 Crownofstorms (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your edits amount to spam.  Rob van  vee  21:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

" 2007 photo of skunk ape misidentified as a juvenile bigfoot"
The problem with this photo caption: skunk apes are *also* mythological/ folkloric creatures! in other words, the article is claiming that one mythological beast in a photo was misidentified as another mythical beast. this must be either a prank or an error Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Plural
Either Bigfeet or Bigfoots is acceptable according to Merriam Webster

Would like to suggest that a group be called a 'Rumble'. Suggestion comes from the interactions from some sports teams. Chadlupkes (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021
Typo on 3rd paragraph: "North America and throughout the word" should be changed to "world". BooWriter21 (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

History Section Totally Irrelevant
This is my first Talk page post so apologies if it is not formatted correctly, but I feel like this article was horribly gutted, and what was used to replace the gutted material in the history section is mostly irrelevant to the legend of bigfoot. The section focuses on two Native Americans who were known as "Big Foot" historically, it draws on a singular source that suggests this possibly inspired the name of several bears that were dubbed "Big Foot" in the decades of the 1890's and 1900's. While all this is true, and definitely relevant to the history of the word Bigfoot, it seems completely disconnected from the modern idea of Bigfoot. The modern idea of Bigfoot began with an article in the Humboldt Times on loggers finding large humanoid tracks near their vandalized equipment, the article ran in 1958 and featured a famous picture of a worker holding up one of the large casts, ostensibly the name coming directly from the large footprints. The current article mentions this in one sentence after a paragraph about the bears 50 years before this named Bigfoot, and the singular source mentions that this "may have" caused confusion in this time, but this seems like speculations entirely as there's no evidence provided of any confusion in the actual skeptical inquirer article. I also find it telling that the Patterson-Gimlin film, the film which cemented the legend of Bigfoot in the modern consciousness is not even mentioned once in the entire History section, which focuses on events that occurred almost entirely before the term "Bigfoot" came to refer to a legendary primate.

In conclusion I think at best most of the material in the History section is irrelevant to the "ape-like creature that is said to inhabit the forests of North America" that this article is supposed to be about, and at worst it's muddying the waters on the origins of the legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.255.65 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅, cleaned it up. Thanks! Bloodyboppa (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021
Tyner York (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC) You spell like this "Bigfoot" when it should be spelled like "Parker"
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That's not a simple spelling error.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 13:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021 (2)
Change Bigfoot to Parker Tyner York (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 13:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"American and Canadian folklore"
I would like to discuss the edit disagreement User:RiverCityRelay and myself are having regarding the following sentence within the intro paragraph. Broken down -

1. "Tales of wild humanoids exist throughout the world" - the source is McClelland, John (October 2011). "Tracking the Legend of Bigfoot". statemuseum.arizona.edu. Arizona State Museum. In the article, the author specifically states, "Legends of wild humanoid creatures are as old as human history and span the globe. Names and other details vary, but common traits of these undocumented animals are bipedalism, gigantic size, hair-covered bodies, and a potential to cause harm. A Native American tradition in the Pacific Northwest tells of a giant hair-covered ogre named Tsonoqua who steals children and food. This is likely the origin of the Sasquatch or Bigfoot legend."

2. "and creatures resembling contemporary descriptions of Bigfoot appear in American and Canadian folklore" - the source is McNeill, Lynne (March 8, 2012). "Using Folklore to Tackle Bigfoot: 'Animal Planet' Comes to USU". usu.edu. Utah State University. The article which discusses a folklore professors take on Bigfoot states, "McNeill was interviewed about how principles folklorists use in their analyses in the field could apply to Sasquatch sightings. Because reports of Bigfoot have been documented across cultures and continents, just using different names to describe an animal with very similar characteristics, it forces one to consider that Bigfoot sightings should not be dismissed."

3. "as well as within the mythologies of indigenous people." - the source is Munro, Kate (May 14, 2019). "North America's Sasquatch: finding fact within the fable". sbs.com. NITV. This is a news article that specifically discusses the influence of Bigfoot on indigenous peoples".

I would like to discuss any potential issues with said sources to avoid continued edit wars. If we can find superior sources, I'm all for it. Thank you.
 * Bloodyboppa (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update - I have reworded said sentence and added a more reliable source.Bloodyboppa (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

are apes extinct?
sorry, dumb question, but why do all these claims talk about creatures "resembling apes" to begin with? how is the conclusion not then "i saw an ape in the woods"?

if bigfoot/yeti/etc looked significantly diff from apes, that'd be one thing. but much of the article talks about creatures looking and acting "just like apes". so, um, you saw an ape, then. move along. 2601:19C:5280:5BA7:A58D:A9B9:8013:6F85 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not follow. A bear standing upright resembles an ape if it is dark enough, and a human wearing an ape costume resembles an ape in any light. (On the other hand, a human wearing an ape costume is still technically an ape because humans are apes.) Even if those obvious cases did not exist, the "resembling" language could be the writer being cautious.
 * The essential point is that if reliable sources say "resembling", Wikipedia cannot just go straight to "saw an ape". That would be WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Humans are not apes. Both apes and humans are primates, if that's what you meant.50.111.36.47 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With a minimum amount of thinking, you could have deduced from the context that the word "ape" in a human wearing an ape costume resembles an ape in any light is meant to be "non-human ape". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * got it, but why does someone report something "like an ape" in the first place? is it somehow impossible to witness AN APE?  sure a bear COULD look like an ape or a human COULD look like an ape or an animatronic statue COULD look like an ape, but first things first.  why aren't people starting at "i think i just saw an ape"?
 * specualting some unproven creature which RESEMBLES one seems like a blatant violation of occam's razor. is it WP:OR to presume my dog is still my dog and not an alien doppelganger passing for same? 2601:19C:5280:5BA7:A58D:A9B9:8013:6F85 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are in the wrong place. You should take this up with the people who wrote the source, not with the people who quote it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the current scientific understanding states that there are no native great ape/primate species in the North American continent (besides humans of course), you don't go into the woods expecting to see such animals. As such, that is probably why they say "resembling apes," as they are just attempting to describe something that does not match what the eyewitness expects to see in the North American wilderness. That or they are just adding words to fill out a hoaxed encounter. Works both ways. That's my two cents to the conversation.TNstingray (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

only a complete fool would lock a page about Cryptozoology animals; whomever did so; shame on you. New information that effectively disproves or (very rarely) proves such creatures occurs regularly, and with no clear process to add that information, you're just shutting off the scientific process from happening. Again, shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.114.63 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not locked. It is under semi-protection, so that only auto0confirmed users can edit it. This typically happens to pages which attract vandals regularly. Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not to run the scientific process. But if you have a source to recommend please post it here, it may allow an editor who can edit the article to improve it.  Edit requests may also be useful, — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Bigfoot
Is Bigfoot real yes or no 76.169.104.55 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rear me. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"The masked being" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The masked being and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Bigfoot the bigfooted" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bigfoot the bigfooted and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Rickmat" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rickmat and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Bigsquatch" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bigsquatch and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"The Sasquatch" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Sasquatch and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Goofball statues of the imaginary creature "Bigfoot"
The two statues of the imaginary "Bigfoot" in the pictures that I recently removed from the article are comically bad, and they degrade the article. The one in the Garden of the Gods Wilderness is hilarious with its depiction of a gorilla (lazy sculptor, and look at the nose) with a massive 60s French-girl hairdo, and the one at the Crystal Creek Reservoir does not depict anyone's description of a creature they think they saw, or pretend that they saw, but rather, it depicts a bald-headed 60s hippie with a beard, a Fu Manchu moustache, and size 36 feet. Personally, I believe they were done as satire or spoofs, and anyone who takes them seriously is the victim of a joke, or perhaps the perpetrator of one. Sorry, but they are garbage as art and as depictions of this ridiculous imaginary creature. There are actually much better ones out there, made by actual artists. These goofy joke creations don't belong in the article. Carlstak (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For the reader's delectation:

The carvings and statues currently in the article showcase Bigfoot's relation to popular culture; specifically with tourism. The "Shawnee Bigfoot" for example, is a roadside attraction and public art piece. Your A.I. generated image is another "artistic depiction", but realistically we must leave personal opinions out of this and focus on the question, "Does this contribute to the article as a whole?" That's the question we must ask here.Bloodyboppa (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I actually think the AI images are a unique way to flesh out some of these more abstract cryptid/supernatural/mystery articles, especially with all of the advances in that technology. We have other artistic depictions, and as long as we are specifying that it is an artistic depiction (as it currently is), I am voting in favor of its usage. There may need to be broader Wikipedia consensus for this concept of AI art as a whole though, but I think it is important for Wikipedia as a company to be versatile and adaptive. It helps with the public domain/licensing issue for images if users freely upload them here. TNstingray (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, I couldn't have said it better. Carlstak (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I feel as though the AI image does not add anything to the article, and should be removed 136.167.84.128 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a more "realistic" depiction of claimed descriptions of the imaginary creature compared to the hokey goofball images. Carlstak (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe hokey goofball images do a better job of making clear that believing in Bigfoot is a hokey goofball idea, and your gorgeous picture of a Nick-Nolte-like Bigfoot, looking annoyed because people pester him to pose for the camera all the time, makes the idea of a hairy American humanoid look more professional and less silly? Just a thought, not necessarily true or helpful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well then, the true believers who seem to be the ones who dislike the AI image should like an image that is truer to descriptions in reported 'sightings'. I suspect they don't like the joking commentary I wrote on its description page in Creative Commons. By the way, my friend Jack looks nothing like Nick Nolte, and he is very insulted by the comparison to that washed-up crook. Carlstak (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Hob Gadling, I did appreciate your comment and the compliment, with its humor. I was trying to be funny, didn't succeed, I can see. My apologies, everyone, for going off the rails with the jokes. Carlstak (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023
Hi, I've just got a wiki account to note that neither the current or archived article linked to footnote 37 actually include the cited information. That said, it can be found in the primary source on page 20 of this citation:



Thanks! OffBrandEnergy (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅: thank you for traking down that source! I've kept [37] alongside in case it's just misplaced. – small jars 17:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's a source
"Miller pointed to interesting tidbits from Bigfoot culture that do not appear on the subject’s Wikipedia page. For instance, some religious Mormons assert that Bigfoot is Cain from the biblical story of Cain and Abel, cursed to walk the Earth with the “mark” of a hideous ape. Also not included on the Wikipedia entry? The bitter and long-lasting feud between Bigfoot hunters based on the West Coast vs. the East Coast."

I just though I'd mention it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean, but the Slate article itself is not a valid source for this very fringe information from some members of a religious organization. Susan Gerbic's comment, ..."it is sometimes challenging to find sufficiently high-quality sources to use for covering these fringe topics" is exactly the reason per WP policy that such topics shouldn't be treated as possibly true or non-pseudo-scientific. And so what, if, as Harrison says, "...the Bigfoot article, which is sprinkled with descriptors like pseudoscience, hoax, folklore, and wishful thinking.... ....these words infuriate serious Bigfoot believers...." Those are the most suitable words to describe pseudoscience, hoaxes, folklore, and wishful thinking. Carlstak (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's valid, though on these two points it may fail WP:PROPORTION. I would, for example, not add the Bigfoot thing to Cain and Abel or Cain based on it, but it makes more sense here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

AI Rendering
I question the use of an AI rendering under the Claims section. It doesn't fit with the section or add to the content. Bunny.the.bookworm (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just as relevant as a random artist's amateurish impression of the imaginary creature that depicts it as having a chimpanzee's body with a sourpuss anthropomorphic head stuck on in that section. We also have a poorly rendered depiction of Bigfoot at a roadside attraction in the Garden of the Gods Wilderness in the "Description" section and a badly carved statue at the Crystal Creek Reservoir in the "Regional and other names" section. So why the focus on the AI image? At least it depicts a creature that actually matches reported sightings. Carlstak (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, and think that there are two things we might make a note of.
 * First, this AI interpretation is just as valid as literally any other for something all current evidence points to as being mythical.
 * Second, and this is the point to make a note of, AI is becoming much more prominent and will only continue to be incorporated into our everyday lives. Like it or not, this is the trajectory we are on. The use of AI to depict Big Foot is harmless but allows us to start working out how to incorporate this technology into Wikipedia and other human endeavors.
 * I vote for it to stay, as in 50 years, early use of AI art on Wikipedia may be a very important contribution to someone's research.
 * GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 20:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the double reply.
 * As this is a new technology, we should start working on how to properly cite it. I would recommend including what AI used, what date it was generated, and exactly what prompt it was given. This will help future people understand a bit more and allow those who understand what goes on under the hood of an AI to understand why the image looks the way it does.
 * GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 20:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, GeogSage. As the editor who created the image and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, I've been meaning to do just that. I'm taking a day off my project tomorrow and will do so. Thanks for the nudge.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! I am excited to see how this technology moves forward. In a perfect world, I foresee a dedicated Wikimedia AI, that is only fed data from Wikimedia, and can be used on any page on Wikipedia. This may be a few years from now, or few decades, but it is the direction I hope we are going. I'm glad to see earlier pioneers in the technology boldly using it in the edits.
 * GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 16:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a new description to the image's page on Wikimedia Commons:


 * This image was created on 4 September 2022 using the artificial intelligence program Midjourney with a short series of Discord bot prompts to imagine an image of Bigfoot. The image was one of several generated that I tweaked with further commands. The best result was rendered with a green screen background that I filled in using Adobe Photoshop Express to modify a photo I took with my phone of Florida scrubland.


 * I thought I had the few commands I issued in a data set saved on my server in Discord, but unfortunately they're not there. I'd seen this article An AI-Generated Artwork Won First Place at a State Fair Fine Arts Competition, and Artists Are Pissed on Vice's "Motherboard", and thought that Midjourney sounded like the tool I needed. The images in the Bigfoot subreddit were really crappy, most of them looking very apish, and I knew I could do better. Carlstak (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Regarding your remark about a dedicated Wikimedia AI, GeogSage, an opinion piece, "This Changes Everything" by Ezra Klein, was published in the New York Times today. He has a quote that may be prophetic:
 * "The broader intellectual world seems to wildly overestimate how long it will take A.I. systems to go from 'large impact on the world' to 'unrecognizably transformed world'," Paul Christiano, a key member of OpenAI who left to found the Alignment Research Center, wrote last year. "This is more likely to be years than decades, and there's a real chance that it's months." Carlstak (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Lose the hyphen
A small issue: "Less-menacing versions have been recorded" should be "Less menacing versions have been recorded" FreeStateCosmos (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing this out. Carlstak (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream science
There is no such thing as mainstream science, there is only science. Science is evidence based. Please fix that sentence. 2A02:A420:33:41E4:A9AF:511E:4A45:1CDE (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agreed. Bloodyboppa (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Why They Deny
Perhaps a section could be added to discuss the various alleged motivations that are said to be common amongst those claiming "hoax" or that otherwise doubt or deny Bigfoot existence. These might include: government cover-ups, academic peer derision, and creationism incongruity. MStettler (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * People who have no evidence for their beliefs all the time try to invent excuses for why their beliefs are not accepted. That is part of the core of all pseudosciences. No reason to add those excuses here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @MStettler To explore the motivations behind an action (denial) is very germane to the topic at hand. If the motivations are found to be indefensible, it may explain why mainstream academia does not take this topic seriously, or why the park ranger does not report what she saw overnight, or  why deniers are reluctant to even consider the possibility of new truths that start out as myths and folklore.  If the motivations are defensible, then refuting the allegations of dubious motives behind denials will be easy and understandable. 108.24.168.218 (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This page is for improving the article, not for your fantasies about why people do not agree with you. (Actually, they do not agree with you because your evidence is crap.)
 * You can only improve the article using reliable sources. See WP:RS to identify those. I don't expect you will find any reliable source which calls Bigfoot non-believers "deniers". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that information on why people still choose to believe in Bigfoot despite a lack of evidence would be highly relevant to an article on Bigfoot. "The government covering up evidence of Bigfoot" and "academia just doesn't want to listen" are indeed exceedingly popular reasons Bigfoot believers cite as to why they choose to believe in the existence of Bigfoot.
 * https://www.wsj.com/story/more-scientists-dip-their-toes-into-the-bigfoot-world-0e31e4c3 is a reliable source that talks about scientist/academics having trouble coming out as 'believers in Bigfoot'. So despite what the other commenter has stated, it does appear to be easy to find articles complying with WP:RS that do indeed mention these topics. https://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/outdoors/a23622082/bigfoot-history/ is another citation that discusses how academics feel about Bigfoot. 73.134.83.73 (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither Wall Street Journal nor Popular Mechanics are known for serious treatment of pseudosciences. They are both usually sympathetic to them (with the constraint that the WSJ rejects pseudosciences if they hurt the free market and embraces them harder when the science they contradict hurts the free market). --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked into this for a cryptozoolgical project recently, the government coverup angle and creationist coverup angle have no real evidence and certainly nothing wikipedia source worthy KanyeWestDropout (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

DeNovo: Journal of Science article discussion
I undid the good faith edit by User: Originalcola so we could discuss it here. It is my view that this article is important to the topic of Big foot from a historical perspective. While the article is certainly either a predatory journal or a vanity publication, it was employed by bigfoot believers to validate their claim and has entered the public conscience. I don't follow Big Foot much, but have heard of this article discussed on YouTube channels, and I believe at least one discovery channel episode but am not sure. The section does put serious skepticism toward the article. I would argue we should move it into a section on "Controversy." We could place the hoax section under a controversy section as well, and create a "scientific controversy" section to organize the page a bit better.

Fully expecting the possibility of my edits being either reverted or heavily modified, I have gone ahead and done my reorganization to serve as an example of how that might look. I'm open to debate, and if consensus is the article should be removed, or the section reduced in size, after discussion here I will not cause further disruption. I appreciate the desire to keep only highest quality scientific literature on this, unfortunately to give "both sides" we have to include junk science, and contextualize it, especially when the article is used prominently. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 16:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and I believe your "Controversy" section edit is a better solution than simply removing content as I did earlier. I'm also not well versed in any of the junk science arguments for Bigfoot nor have I ever really followed Bigfoot so I initially thought that the content should've been removed for being pseudoscience instead of science. Originalcola (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CSECTION, Controversy sections should be avoided. Criticism needs to be incorporated throughout the article, not walled off into a particular subsection. Organizing articles with controversy sections inevitably creates neutrality problems. It is also not necessary to cover "both sides" - WP:NPOV does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Without covering the pseudoscientific side in a balanced way that does not give undue weight to the claims there would be nothing to discuss yet reverting the edit leaves the original problem undue weight to a specific fake article. Would you be opposed to removing the " "DeNovo: Journal of Science" article" sub-section? Originalcola (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * While it is not necessary to cover "both sides" in terms of giving balance to a topic, on a page involving cryptids not mentioning the bad science is really important to understanding the cultural phenomena. If we are only going to give credit to the scientific view, we just need to say "Big foot is not real" and end the article.
 * While "Controversy" might not be the best name for a section, we could just as easily move the exact reorganization I did under the "Claims" section, and get the same impact as all the claims are controversy.
 * Not trying to edit war, so please revert this back if you still don't agree, but I have undid the revert and changed the title of the section. Instead of this being a new "controversy" section, it is just moving stuff under the previous existing "claims" section. I think this better places the list of known hoaxes, and the super famous junk article. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 03:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have looked through the page a bit, and there is a lot of sections that were in very odd places. I tried to consolidate them in a more meaningful way that goes a bit beyond just reverting a revert. Again, not trying to edit war, but I would argue that rather then completely reverting the edits, some of the section moves are now in a more logical organization for the page. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 04:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no requirement to cover "both sides" i.e. WP:FALSEBALANCE. The Denovo section is a bit hazy regarding whether the Ketchum paper is legitimate or illegitimate. Per WP:FRINGE, it needs a trimming and clarification. We have plenty of WP:FRIND sources cited that make it clear this is a junk article, e.g. "A Texas Geneticist Apparently Invented a Science Journal to Publish Her DNA Proof of Bigfoot". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed: much clearer after repetitive sections combined and zoobank name registry and rebuttal removed, which is lacking any non-primary sources to show it is notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Article plagued by WP:PROFRINGE injections
I've repeatedly altered the introduction here to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:PROFRINGE, but I'm seeing the word "cryptid" (coined and used by cryptozoologists to imply a monstr is just 'hiding and waiting to be found' but obscure to the vast majority of others) and an intense emphasis on the subculture cryptozoology subculture/pseudoscience. Cryptid is not a term used by experts on this topic, like folklorists, nor related quality sources. For example:


 * "A large, hairy, manlike creature supposedly inhabiting the north-western United States and western Canada." (Oxford English Dictionary)


 * "Bigfoot is a large and mysterious humanoid creature purported to inhabit the wild and forested areas of Oregon and the West Coast of North America" (Oregon Encyclopedia)


 * (Bigfoot redirected to Sasquatch) "A hairy creature like a human being reported to exist in the northwestern U.S. and western Canada and said to be a primate between 6 and 15 feet (1.8 and 4.6 meters) tal." (Mirriam-Webster online)


 * "A very large, hairy, humanlike creature purported to inhabit the Pacific Northwest and Canada. Also called Sasquatch." (American Heritage Dictionary)


 * "Sasquatch, also called Bigfoot, (from Salish se’sxac: “wild men”) a large, hairy, humanlike creature believed by some people to exist in the northwestern United States and western Canada." (Britannica)

Again, cryptozoology is very much a WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE in line with—and often aligned with—Young Earth creationism and, despite its quasi-science-y name, is by no means an academic field. We need more eyes on this article to keep it WP:NPOV. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Cryptid is a term that has entered the public lexicon. While the cryptozoologists are pseudoscience, the History Channel and Discovery Channel has pushed their beliefs to the forefront of the public conscious. As much as I dislike that, this page is on a pseudoscience topic. Regardless of the meaning cryptozoologists ascribe to cryptid, the definition is more complex. Bigfoot is not only the subject of "experts," as most don't waste much time discussing it. Calling bigfoot a "cryptid" is not an endorsement of it. For example:
 * Cryptid is defined on the Wikipedia page List of cryptids as, "Cryptids are animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated by science."
 * Mirriam-Webster defines cryptid as "an animal (such as Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster) that has been claimed to exist but never proven to exist." (Mirriam-Webster)
 * Using these definitions, especially the "disputed or unsubstantiated by science" and "never proven to exist" work better then calling it a "creature." The word "creature" is a word which can include both real and imaginary animals. While I prefer the word cryptid in this case, based on the definition on Wikipedia or Mirriam-Webster if the word "mythical" or some other disclaimer is placed before creature, I won't argue definitions further. However, as it is literally one of the two examples given by the dictionary to define the term, I really think "cryptid" is more appropriate. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 00:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Folklore does not equal pseudoscience. The reception by the subculture of cryptozoology is specifically pseudoscience. However, the reception by the general public is not, who often do not treat it as 'real' or just entertain the possibility with the pretend science of movements like cryptozoology or Young Earth creationism. Additionally, the term cryptid is indeed obscure to most readers and is a pro-fringe gloss for what anyone else would call a "monster" or "creature": Perform an ngram check and you'll find the term is vastly overrepresented online, particularly by cryptozoology, whereas the majority of people will have no idea what it means outside of sounding more 'science' than the colloquial 'monster'. Additionally, "creature" is used by every single one of the above WP:RS, none of which give so much as a nod to what remains of the very online subculture of cryptozoology. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition of Cryptid from Mirriam-Webster literally uses bigfoot as an example. I understand you don't like the term, but I still think that it is a perfectly accurate word to mean "an animal (such as Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster) that has been claimed to exist but never proven to exist." The Cryptozoology page uses the Oxford English Dictionary to define cryptid as "an animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist." I see you are the number 1 editor of all time on that page, so I assume you agree with that definition. From a neutral and dictionary standpoint, it is superior to the word creature in my opinion, as that word can mean both existing and mythical animals, and doesn't have the sinister undertone of 'monster', as a tiny harmless bug species could technically be a 'cryptid,' and most people would not think its a monster. As it has been defined by two dictionaries as a word, I don't see any reason not to use it as a descriptor when appropriate.
 * Again, as long as a qualifier comes before the word "creature" to separate it from the realm of the scientifically documented creatures, I won't argue with the term. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 02:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've written a lot about cryptozoology and related topics and I am very familiar with its history, development, and contemporary existence. I've written most of our articles on the subculture. However, this isn't a page about cryptozoology and its terms, like cryptid. Bigfoot is and always has been a much broader topic than that tiny, nearly defunct subculture's fixation on it. Bigfoot is a motif used widely in especially Pacific Northwest culture, appearing in everything from business logos to television series, who use everyday terms like creature or monster to describe it. That's why the above five definitions don't carve out some exception to mention cryptozoology and its pseudoscientific terms. Emphasizing the subculture and its terminology over all that here is deep into WP:UNDUE territory. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out on FT/N, where you brought this dispute, cryptid is no longer a word only used in that specific subculture. It has seen much broader use in recent years as a term describing any kind of folkloric creature. I think Horse Eye Black was probably spot on when they said there may be a generational or cultural divide at play here. In summary, let's call it a neologism, rather than an explicit fringe violation.
 * Having said that, I think this argument is largely academic. It's still a fairly new word, so let's play it safe and use an older descriptor like the one we now have in the lead. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: "I think Horse Eye Black was probably spot on when they said there may be a generational or cultural divide at play here. In summary, let's call it a neologism, rather than an explicit fringe violation." - You'll need a source for this claim. This term has a long history of representation in media, where it has waxed and waned in popularity outside of it. Google Book's NGram Viewer shows cryptid to be such an ultra obscure term today that it may not even exist next to creature or monster. This sort of thing is why supporting data is necessary: Don't be misled by being on Wikipedia. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to look up a source for something I'm not going to be putting in an article ;) --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Google Ngram Viewer only shows occurrence of words in works published in printed sources. It is not really representative of normal language or online media, and from what I can tell, it is only Google's scanned books. Cryptid is a word that has been taken by others outside cryptozoology to describe exactly what bigfoot is, and it is literally the best word in the dictionary for it. As it is, I don't think that it is quite a neologism, as it is quite well established.
 * While I again am fine as long as the word creature doesn't stand alone here, I will argue that the reliance on the Google Ngram Viewer is silly, and the word is perfectly valid. I will also point out that the hostility to a word that is used in Several publications indexed on Google Scholar and in two dictionaries to describe this exact topic because of perceived connotations doesn't seem like a neutral point of view. A word is a word, and cryptid is no longer exclusive to the "subculture." I'm the one who prefers the word over creature and am insisting that "mythological" be added if we are using something else because I think "creature" is more validating to the pseudoscientists than "cryptid", and that is based on my experience with native language speakers using both words (When my former boss at a National Wildlife Refuge used the term "cryptid," it was not an endorsement of the fringe ideas lol, but dismissing them as unsubstantiated by science), and with the dictionary definitions. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 04:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Google's NGram viewer covers publications up until very recently. That said, we simply stick to WP:RS here. Those publications are discussing the subculture (well, those that are actual academic publications, and not stuff indexed by Google like "Biblical Cryptozoology Revealed Cryptids of The Bible") and bigfoot is far more expansive a topic than the fringe group. There's extensive discussion from academics over at cryptozoology. Honestly, we've had more than enough attempts to insert WP:PROFRINGE in this article. Without WP:RS, it's not worth discussing, and we have no less than five solid definitions to work with here. We've had more than enough attempts to place WP:UNDUE emphasis on WP:PROFRINGE material here and now five supporting WP:RS-compliant definitions to draw from without the need to rope in and emphasize this little subculture. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Google's NGram viewer covers publications up until very recently. That said, we simply stick to WP:RS here. Those publications are discussing the subculture (well, those that are actual academic publications, and not stuff indexed by Google like "Biblical Cryptozoology Revealed Cryptids of The Bible") and bigfoot is far more expansive a topic than the fringe group. There's extensive discussion from academics over at cryptozoology. Honestly, we've had more than enough attempts to insert WP:PROFRINGE in this article. Without WP:RS, it's not worth discussing, and we have no less than five solid definitions to work with here. We've had more than enough attempts to place WP:UNDUE emphasis on WP:PROFRINGE material here and now five supporting WP:RS-compliant definitions to draw from without the need to rope in and emphasize this little subculture. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Section About Bigfoot Hunting Laws
I was thinking about possibly creating an article about the Bigfoot hunting laws in every US State, and it was suggested that adding a section to the existing Bigfoot article might be better. The problem is that there aren't very many sources about the laws in most states, so I or someone else might need to contact each state's hunting department to inquire about such laws. Do you think that this would be a worthwhile endeavour, or would it just be pointless? Also, do you have any suggestions about possibly where to find information about these laws? HarmfulHurdle91 (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is something a reliable source would have to do, not a Wikipedia editor. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @HarmfulHurdle91@Hob Gadling
 * I agree that a reputable source would have to hunt through to find what the exact situation is for each state, however a quick search tells me that Washington State and Oklahoma both have laws on the topic. A simple line siting any number of articles on the topic could be: "Some states have proposed laws on hunting bigfoot, including _________ and _________.[citation][citation] Provisions in these laws include __________ and __________.[citation][citation]" If further information is found, then a table of laws by state might be nice. If HarmfulHurdle91 wants to contact EVERY state, they need to be pointed to the relevant laws as published on the topic by the individual they contact, as an interview conducted by a Wikipedia editor citing these people is not a reliable source. I don't think there is enough content for a full article OR table at this point personally, but if ever more then say 1/3 of states had laws on the books, then a table with a column for "Has specific hunting law (Y/N)" might make a meaningful contribution. At this point though, I think one or two sentences would be enough.  GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 15:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Momo...
Can something about this thing be added to this article? There are police reports on this thing. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * By the way, MOMO means "
 * Missouri Monster. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you read Bigfoot, you'll see that it's already mentioned. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. I'm in the general area that this (alleged) creature is at, and you wouldn't believe what people say about it.😘 216.247.72.142 (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You have killed Bigfoot
A serious makeover is urgently needed. Skepticism has taken over this article and it has become opinionated leaving no hope for Bigfoot’s existence. Many scientists support its possibility there is no head count of the majority that supposedly denies Bigfoots existence as the article now implies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editdone (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:!VOTE, WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not required to leave hope for something to exist because WP:NPOV is WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can not prove a negative, it is impossible to prove something does not exist. The burden of proof for bigfoots existence lies on those who believe in its existence. No such proof exists. To quote a book review of Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry into the Reality of Sasquatch, "Krantz begins his book with a reasonable observation. He concedes that the burden of proof rests with those who believe in Bigfoot—Krantz prefers to use the term "Sasquatch"— and says the scientific community has no obligation to accept the creature's existence without a body, live or dead."
 * The opinion of "Many scientists" on the matter is only their personal speculation without evidence, and "majority that supposedly denies Bigfoots existence" are not the ones who need to defend their position.  GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 19:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

File
Since 2010 Wikipedia has used a fair-use file of the Patterson-Gimlin film, presumably under the assumption that the film is copyrighted. The film is not copyrighted, because American copyright law states that works published between 1964 and 1977 required a copyright notice or else they would enter the public domain (see this page for more info). The original Patterson-Gimlin film did not have a copyright notice. As such, I have WP:BOLDly replaced the file with one on Wikimedia Commons per WP:FREER. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"Homo sapiens cognatus" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_sapiens_cognatus&redirect=no Homo sapiens cognatus] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on if IPAc-en template text should be included in the lead sentence
In the lead, MarcopoloParadiso1050  recently added the IPAc- en pronunciation of Sasquatch based on Template:IPAc-en. @Magitroopa reverted the edit without including a summary. Opening this talk conversation to discuss if this should be included.

Personally, I am in favor of the inclusion, which is why I started this topic. I did not want to revert the revert of Magitroopa without due discussion though. As Sasquatch is an unusual word, its pronunciation may be useful for non-English native speakers reading the article. Below is the lead sentence with the pronunciation that was reverted:

"Bigfoot, also commonly referred to as Sasquatch (/ˈsæskwætʃ/ or /ˈsæskwɒtʃ/), is a large and hairy human-like mythical creature purported to inhabit forests in North America, particularly in the Pacific Northwest"

GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 18:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The user in question is a sockpuppet. Hasn't been blocked yet, but it is very clear that it is a sock- Sockpuppet investigations/Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan. Magitroopa (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what a user being a sock puppet has to do with the pronunciation of sasquatch being included. It seemed to me like a relevant/useful inclusion. Was the revert based on the user, or the content? GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023
Change contents section name from citations to footnotes and change contents section name from general and cited references to sources 213.202.138.17 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:REFERENCES allows either. Personally, I'd choose "References" for the first title, and "General references" for the second title. A majority of articles use these titles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Yellow Top" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow_Top&redirect=no Yellow Top] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

AI-generated bigfoot image
Does the image of bigfoot described as being "created using Midjourney" have any place on this page? What does it actually do for the article? TheKevsterWiki (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed here, now in the archives. It does at least as much as an artist's impression (that is, imaginary) that looks like a gorilla with an anthropomorphic head and with no genitals. Carlstak (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only does this image show what the description of bigfoot looks like when rendered through an AI, rather then a more biased human artists attempt at replicating what they have seen other artists do, the image is a demonstration of a practical application for image generating AI's. This should be encouraged, and is in this way more significant to our civilization as a whole then an artist impression of it. This page is a great place to experiment with AI generated images, as it is a page for an entirely fictitious mythical creature. If this was a page for an existing species with well sourced high resolution images, this would potentially be an issue.   GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 05:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The input to AI image generating program is other people's art. Any biases from the input will be present in the output, so putting it through an AI first won't do anything to fix bias. Further, we are not the right place to be carrying out experiments, we are an encyclopedia. We are also not the right place to demonstrate the practical applications for AI's. I don't think this image adds anything useful, and the long explanation of how it was made certainly doesn't. The page also has plenty images available, so I wouldn't worry. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The AI image generating program is taking a diverse number of input images, and then taking the prompt to output an image. The images it uses are not necessarily artist images of bigfoot. The AI image is as useful as any artist interpretation of a fictional creature, and perhaps more so, as the AI is taking a different approach then a human to generate the image from a prompt.
 * The practical applications of AI don't need to be demonstrated globally, this has already been done. AI generated images are incredibly useful, and here to stay. Wikipedia is not needed as a laboratory, or to advertise the technology, in a global context as the technology is here. The demonstration I'm referring to is of the practical application AI images can have within Wikipedia. Outside of Wikipedia, demonstrating how we can use the technology here can help other organizations know how to apply it. As this is already happening all over the world, and needs to happen on Wikipedia eventually, incorporating this image does have greater impacts to civilization overall.
 * Refusing to use this new technology to include Wikipedia is just Technophobia. Wikipedia is not a battleground. The technology exists, and we will inevitably start using it to improve Wikipedia articles. Many articles do not have public domain images available, and creating them is a huge cost. Use of AI images can therefore dramatically improve the encyclopedia overall, especially if the images are documented as coming from an AI, with the AI used noted, and the prompt given to the AI included. As bigfoot is a fictitious creature, and the image was added in good faith, it is as good a place as any to start working out how to include such images.  GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 17:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Talk:Bigfoot/Archive_13 the previous discussion that Carlstak mentions above, and which GeogSage has just invoked as "heavy discussion" when restoring the image? Beyond Carlstak saying the image is "just as relevant" as the amateur drawing in the article, and that they don't like the roadside carvings either, the discussion is mostly just Carlstak (the image's creator) and GeogSage being excited about the future of AI art.

It's a strange image, and I don't know if it's meant to show the reader what Carlstak thinks a Florida Bigfoot looks like (if it was created from a very detailed prompt), or what a 2023 AI thinks a Florida Bigfoot looks like (if you just type  and hit the button). Commons recommends specifying the prompt for good reason.

I think it's less useful than the various human-created depictions that are already in the article. --Belbury (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In that archived discussion to which you allude, I wrote, "This image was created on 4 September 2022 using the artificial intelligence program Midjourney with a short series of Discord bot prompts to imagine an image of Bigfoot. The image was one of several generated that I tweaked with further commands. The best result was rendered with a green screen background that I filled in using Adobe Photoshop Express to modify a photo I took with my phone of Florida scrubland...".


 * I further wrote, "I thought I had the few commands I issued in a data set saved on my server in Discord, but unfortunately they're not there", so you're implying that I lied, which I don't appreciate. The prompts I used were on a non-static page, which I didn't realize at the time. I don't remember the exact sequence of prompts I used, but I started with a generalized description similar to the Merriam-Webster entry for "Sasquatch" cited in the article, and refined the resulting iterations with further prompts.


 * I'd like to know how you think the "Sassy the Sasquatch" image of a black-colored ape with a bouffant hairdo, a rough carving of a bearded hippie with a bear's body, or "an artist's impression of Bigfoot" that depicts a modified gorilla or chimpanzee's body with an anthropomorphic head stuck on and no genitals are more useful to the article. And even granting your unjustified "what Carlstak thinks a Florida Bigfoot looks like", why would that be less allowable than a random "artist's impression of Bigfoot"? Carlstak (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what implication you're reading into what I've said, but I'm not suggesting that you're lying about the prompt.
 * I meant it wasn't clear to me whether the image from is an AI being asked to draw  (maybe with some iterations to change the framing or lighting but not the underlying creature), or being asked to draw  . It's still not really clear to me, from what you're saying here.
 * I guess my general take on AI-vs-human art for cultural stuff is that actual human art is more useful because it shows us what somebody consciously thought something looked like, in a specific part of the world at a particular moment in history. Bouffant Sasquatch tells us that the sculpture was made like that and installed with the blessing of a national park. Questions like "why does it look so much like an ape?" and "what's with the hairdo?" have potential answers to them. We know that the artist deliberately made those decisions. If I wanted to I could go away and research when that statue was installed, who made it, whether there was any local response to it, maybe even contact the artist to ask what they meant by the hairstyle.
 * The same questions may have no answers for an AI image. Is Florida Bigfoot's hair yellow and strawlike because you as a human artist consciously decided that it should be, or did the AI make that call on its own? If the AI did choose it, is there a chance it worked in some unrelated but adjacent concepts (Florida surfer hair colour, camouflage ghillie suit texture) without us realising?
 * In an article about a cultural phenomenon like Bigfoot, I'd get more as a reader or researcher from a photo of a bad national park sculpture than I would from a high-quality AI artwork. Comparing an amateur sketch to an AI artwork is a closer call, but I think there's probably still more cultural value in the sketch. Belbury (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While you think it is less useful than the various human-created depictions that are already in the article, I think that it is at least as valuable, and is perfectly fine. There are several artist created images on the page, an AI generated image is an interesting approach to showing what mythical creatures look. The inclusion of one AI generated image adds something that an additional artist generated one does not. Having one AI image is worth the small amount of space it takes in terms of storage and page space.  GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 16:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First, flooding the site with poor quality Midjourney experiments based on who knows what prompt isn't helping anyone and is simply not going to happen. Second, this article already has plenty of dubious imagery and itself remains in a dubious state, focused on "sightings" instead of academic analysis. Adding some random user's Midjourney prompt experiment to the article based on text found wherever is not helpful and clearly against consensus here. I've removed the image along another, non-AI-generated image based on who-knows-what. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground in the fight against AI assisted artwork. The statement "flooding the site with poor quality Midjourney experiments simply is not going to happen" is a bit extreme in reference to a single image, not a flood. The technology is here, and it will inevitably be included in Wikipedia and other projects. Currently, there is a lot of Technophobia surrounding the concept, however AI is not going anywhere, and offers significant utility. The image is as good as any of the many more traditional art pieces of the mythical creature, and offers some unique utility in being computer generated (I'd rather remove several of the other art works and include one AI work in this case). Consensus has not been reached as far as I can tell, this discussion is ongoing, and there has been previous discussion on this topic that was archived months ago. Consensus: "an editor who knows a suggested change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion." Declaring consensus and reverting my revert after a previous discussion is a bit bold. I reinserted the image, we can continue to discuss it and perhaps bring in third party arbitration. If the image quality itself is the problem, perhaps a better quality one could be generated using prompts based on consensus here as a compromise. AI generated media is something that we will have to address going forward, the discussion on this talk page can possibly help shape how to integrate them into the project.
 * I won't be reverting/restoring this any further to avoid edit wars, but suggest it be left until we have a clearer compromise/consensus on the issue.
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:AI-generated_media#How_should_AI-generated_media_be_handled? GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 00:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This terrible image based on who-knows-what adds nothing whatsoever to this article. Take your manifestos elsewhere, this isn't the place for it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The change to the article is removing the image. The discussion here is on if it should be removed, undoing my edit before consensus is reached is . When working on creating consensus, my understanding is to avoid edit wars the general custom is to "not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed."
 * The image adds as much to the article as any of the other images of a fake creature, and using an AI shows how prompts based on oral descriptions are interpreted in AI results. As an editor defending the status quo, it is my obligation to provide an explanation here to avoid stonewalling, hence the longer reply, or as you call it, "manifesto".
 * With your reverts, it seems like you are taking the new version as the status quo ante bellum, and stonewalling without providing such a manifesto. Statements like "flooding the site with poor quality Midjourney experiments simply is not going to happen" sound like ownership behavior. Your responses/edit summaries are generally coming off to me as hostile, and dismissive. This makes it hard to have a discussion on the topic. If you have a civil response to my "manifesto" besides "terrible image," and telling me to take my opinion "elsewhere," then please write a manifesto of your own. This IS the place for it.
 * I suggested a compromise, such as creating an image based on an agreed upon prompt. Using the first sentence of the article for an example can return a really interesting image, for example. Including an AI image in the article can add as much as the artist interpretations, and a good faith attempt was made by an editor to include one. Rather then outright dismissing it and assuming consensus on your opinion, propose a compromise or solution. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 04:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out before that showing how AI works is a task for the article about AI, and not for this article, so you can't really use that as an argument for inclusion here. We're not an advertising platform. --Licks-rocks (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * AI in itself is a tool. The tool itself here offers a utility different from human made art by converting a text description into an image without the same artistic human bias in the process (people trying to make the depiction look like others depictions). Over time, as people get over the squeamishness, we will inevitably use them quite a bit on articles. Starting the shakedown process on an article about a mythical creature is a safe place to start the introduction. Playing with image generating tools to explore this, I found that using the Wikipedia description (with the words "bigfoot" and such removed) from the lead makes really interesting images. If the image in question is inadequate based on its quality, I would propose using the talk page here to come up with a prompt create a better quality image. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 08:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For a depiction of a cultural phenomenon such as Bigfoot, "artistic human bias" is a good thing rather than something we should try to eliminate! We want a picture that reflects (consciously or subconsciously) the human culture that the artist exists in. The equivalent "subconscious" biases of an AI, such as novel coloration secretly inspired by some unrelated source that the AI can't articulate, do not tell us anything about Bigfoot.
 * There's potential to use AI as a tool to create an image where every meaningful aspect of the image has been provided in advance by the human prompt, so that it becomes a similar process to drawing with a pencil or brush. But any process that allows the AI to introduce unanticipated concepts that wouldn't have occurred to the human prompter is taking us away from the concept of Bigfoot, rather than towards it. Belbury (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to rescind my previous statements supporting the usage of AI-generated images on Wikipedia, specifically referring to the archived conversations from this particular talk page in which I took part. This talk page is not a forum for the ethical discussion regarding AI usage, but my personal conviction is that such content, text or visual, belongs neither on this page nor in any other article on the encyclopedia. TNstingray (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Basilisk is watching, and I want to note I welcome our future AI overlords. In all seriousness, rejecting the tool of AI generated images is very odd. The tool exists, and while AI probably won't replace people, people who use AI will replace those who don't. Wherever it can improve the quality of Wikipedia, especially on articles without images or on topics that aren't grounded in reality, there is no reason I can see not to use them that didn't apply to countless other inventions we now take for granted in the past. Assuming this Conversation is closed at this point with the decision not to include the image. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 03:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would counter to say that every article on the encyclopedia is absolutely grounded in reality, whether that is science or story. Even if the article is about a myth/hoax/folk tale such as Bigfoot, the primary supporting images should first and foremost be grounded in real images such as the ones already present in the article. Beyond that, genuine original artistic depictions are the next level of priority, but I personally see more of a use for these on abstract subjects. But within this context, AI theft (excuse me... "art") should not be established as a precedent for visual content on the encyclopedia. TNstingray (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A genuine original artistic depiction can be fed into an AI image generator to create an image based on that description, where one previously did not exist. In this way it serves like a police sketch artist. The bias against AI employing training data is anti-progress. Humans are inspired by other humans work, however no human can ever digest all the work ever created. An AI can make connections between things that would otherwise never have been made. AI art can be thought of as a collaboration between the AI developers, the source material, and the prompt writers.
 * Collage "is a technique of art creation, primarily used in the visual arts, but in music too, by which art results from an assemblage of different forms, thus creating a new whole." AI is at least as legitimate as a collage, I'd argue more so as it creates a derivative project that is unique from the training data. As such, an AI image generated using prompts describing a mythical creature should be encouraged. Ultimately, as people become more comfortable with AI technology, it will be inevitable, and opposing it is like trying to stop the tide. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 18:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would not construct an argument based on perceived inevitability. In the specific context of this article, as well as across the encyclopedia, my position is that artists and writers should be the ones creating the visual content. Sure, AI usage could have lots of tech/research-based applications to speed up processes such as coding, data management/organization, etc. But art and language are inherently defined by a factor that AI will never be able to replicate: humanity. Anything it steals from these sectors is entirely emotionless and void. To compare and even elevate AI "art" above human artistic techniques such as collage deals such a blow to creativity and imagination, which are desperately needed on projects such as this encyclopedia.
 * For this article on Bigfoot, artists should be the ones to develop depictions of the legend if necessary, rather than a soulless algorithm that would manufacture an image stolen from the work of talented creators without attribution. The AI process is not the same thing as human inspiration in the slightest. TNstingray (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * AI isn't sentient, it does not steal. The AI is itself a collaborative work between the data fed into it, the programmer, and the individual creating the prompt. The person who creates the prompt can adjust it, generate multiple outputs, and select one that suites their vision. This result can be either the final product, or the foundation for additional work. An AI is many times more advanced then a collage, and everything the AI does IS human artistic techniques, as the AI is fundamentally made by, fed by, used by, and ultimately understood by humans in an artistic collaboration exceeding anything in human history. With all the information we have compiled on the internet, only advanced algorithms can properly sort through and make any practical use of it. A human is unlikely to make an obvious, spontaneous, connection between something from an obscure work no one has read in a century from 1702 and a sitcom from 1986, but a computer AI might. We have so much information collecting digital dust in Wikipedia alone, AI is the only way for any of us to leverage it.
 * "Never" is a strong word that is best avoided when discussing computer progress on a virtual Library of Alexandria compiled by the general public over a few decades using world spanning networks of computers that have only been available to humanity for less then a century... Your arguments are all the exact same ones from "real" artists about graphic design. They are the same that digital photographers heard from analog photographers. They are the same that photographers heard from "real" artists over the years. They are the same that those operating the printing press heard from scribes. The product and process of AI is as much art as video games, CGI movies, and graphic design. AI as it currently exists will not replace artists, but artists who use AI will replace those who don't. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 05:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, AI has practical uses in its background lane as a tech-based application. The ethical issue comes in when it attempts to cross barriers into human expressions of culture and creativity. In and of itself the technology is of course not sentient, but AI "artists" use it to steal from actual creators (mostly unintentionally, to generally assume good faith).
 * This is coming from someone who out of curiosity started an account on NightCafe to experiment with AI "art". At first this new tool is really cool and exciting! But I quickly realized that my "creations" were not something I accomplished. They were devoid of emotional depth and meaning, and I found myself wishing I could learn how to actually draw, paint, and design my own works of art. And that was before realizing that the technology was bastardizing the works who were pursuing the latter. After recognizing element used in pieces of authentic digital art I had seen previously, I deleted my account and sought to learn about what I had been getting myself into, and I haven't gone back.
 * This is not a vague conspiratorial argument that "new technology = bad". This is the rational argument that "new technology needs appropriate boundaries and limitations". We have done this with every single development in human history, ranging anywhere from copyright laws to the mandate of seatbelts and safety lights in vehicles.
 * To bring this back to the proper discussion relevant to Bigfoot, the best course of action is to pull actual cultural depictions as we already have present in the article: blurry photos, roadside attractions, petroglyphs, carvings, signs, bones, footprints etc. Only if these are not satisfactory should we move towards supplementing with unique artistic depictions. Within this secondary context, the priority should first be given to the only artists that actually exist: humans. This way, Wikipedia can expand to include a greater segment of talented creators who might not otherwise be interested in copy-editing the encyclopedic text, but may have other skills and passions through photography or art. TNstingray (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * AI doesn't cross barriers into human expressions of culture and creativity, humans use AI to further their expressions. In this message, I did not design the font I'm using to type. AI is guided by a person to express a creative vision, and enabling people to use it in this way is only a benefit. Copyright laws need to be balanced with the public domain and fair use doctrine (if you post your art on the internet, an AI should be able to use it for training data in the same way any other artist can use it for a collage), and we didn't need to stop the internet to protect music from piracy.
 * The Wikipedia page for Collaboration states "The romanticized notion of a lone, genius artist has existed since the time of Giorgio Vasari’s Lives of the Artists, published in 1568. Vasari promulgated the idea that artistic skill was endowed upon chosen individuals by gods, which created an enduring and largely false popular misunderstanding of many artistic processes. Artists have used collaboration to complete large scale works for centuries, but the myth of the lone artist was not widely questioned until the 1960s and 1970s."
 * AI is a collaboration between the collective works, those who have created the hardware and software to run computers, the team programming and training the AI, and the end user who prompts it. This is what art always was, the idea of a "lone, genius artist" is not quite as mythical as bigfoot, but it is counterintuitive to expressing ourselves. It is one thing for you to make your own decision, the ethical issue comes in when you try to control others decisions and limit their access and use of the technology.
 * Most people are not formally trained artists. Putting an account of the mythical creature into an AI is no different then using a police sketch artist. The AI has a utility in turning these accounts into a visual medium, and can be thought of as similar to data visualizations in science. As the users of AI are humans, and gatekeeping what it means to be an artist has never ended well, there is no reason not to prioritize other forms of artistic expression. By allowing AI artists to post their work, Wikipedia can included a greater segment of talented creators who might not otherwise be interested in copy-editing the encylopedic text, but may have other skills and passions through the use of AI prompts. Gatekeeping images to only more traditional arts, like CGI and photography, will only exclude wide segments of potential editors who would like to help by inserting AI images they generate. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 16:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say that your arguments are convincing. I just find myself empathizing with the plight of artists such as Kelly McKernan. To be able to replicate an image in their exact style in a fraction of the time is technically impressive, but ethically? It is concerning to me that the so-called collaboration lacks the informed consent of those creating the source material. In my mind, the sheer scale of the AI issue makes this a different conversation than any other historical step in technological advancement.
 * When I say my priority is promoting actual artists, I am not meaning "formally trained". Instead, I'm emphasizing that my vote for this page (and for the encyclopedia at large if it ever comes to that point) is to utilize the artistic creativity of people, primary sourcing if you will, as opposed to a prompt outsourced to an algorithm which would derive an image pieced together from existing depictions of Bigfoot anyway. One is art, one is technology. Aspects of each category can learn from each other (ex. upgrading online tools used to make digital art, or making coding more aesthetically accessible), but the two should not entirely cross lanes to envelop the other. Why not utilize the artists making the source material? The introduction of generative AI for the encyclopedia would itself be the biggest gatekeeper of them all. TNstingray (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot" article question
It occurred to me that we could use the Slate article to discuss the discourse surround this topic on this talk page on the article. For example, controversy surrounding the use of the word "cryptid."

To on the nose? GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 05:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I mean Including information from this article within the main text. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 06:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Such as? What part of it is relevant to Bigfoot? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * answering even though clear consensus against.
 * I was thinking in the Popular culture section. The example sentence I gave is below, but is "The big foot Wikipedia page has been subject to intense debate, with one notable point of contentions being the use of the word "cryptid" to describe it. The Wikipedia talk page has been the subject of an opinion piece within the magazine "Slate"." GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 21:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, the Slate article is an opinion piece that quotes one Wikipedia editor, Susan Gerbic of "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia", and Cristina Van Epps and "her friend Chelsea Miller"; from this exhaustive research its author, Stephen Harrison, deduces that the WP article is lacking in its coverage of the subject, and presumes to advise WP editors that they should make "concessions". Not a chance of that happening, and not a suitable source. Carlstak (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I Definity get that it is an opinion piece with quotes from only Wikipedia editor.
 * To elaborate on what I was thinking, I just thought that within the "in Popular culture" section we could include a single sentence that says something like "The big foot Wikipedia page has been subject to intense debate within Wikipedia, with one notable point of contentions being the use of the word "cryptid" to describe it. It has been the subject of an opinion piece within the magazine "Slate"."
 * This is something I like, but I know it is a bit odd and might not be the most popular. That is all my cards on this concept, if you and others still don't like the idea, no problem. Thought it was a cool feedback of Wikipedia being noted by outside sources, which could be noted in Wikipedia. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 17:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Slate article mentions Bigfoot in its title, yet it's largely about how NPOV affects topics like cryptozoology and cryptids. It's a one-off opinion piece, so can't be given WP:WEIGHT in those topic articles. Criticism of Wikipedia might be a possible fit, but even that might be iffy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lucky Louie—it might fit at "Criticism of Wikipedia"; you could try proposing it at that article's talk page, and see how invested editors there respond. Carlstak (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Carlstak and @LuckyLouie, I'll do that on that page! Thanks for the feedback, while I really like idea of the loop created by citing an article discussing the Wiki page in the page, it is probably best elsewhere. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 21:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Related page needs cleanup: Yowie
Just noticed that the Yowie is kinda a mess and thought that some of the editors watching the talk page here might be interested in taking a look at it. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 18:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Bigfoot in Popculture
While cryptozoologists are a fringe group in academia, they have been given a large platform with TV shows like Finding Bigfoot. "Finding Bigfoot ranked among Animal Planet's top rated programs throughout its run," and as this show is in the category "Cryptozoological television series," it seems that while the subculture may be "moribund" in terms of mainstream academia, the general public has a lot of interest in the topic. Bigfoot is a pop culture phenomena and of interest as a piece of folklore as far as scientific consensus is concerned. The enthusiasts for bigfoot are the ones driving the conversation, as academics really aren't that interested. I would wager that many of the views on this page are from people who are interested in Bigfoot because they heard about it on one of these shows. I think that it is therefore appropriate to address this group and their claims directly and clearly, and that it is not inappropriate emphasis to do so. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 23:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing to add more content to the "In popular culture" section? Where else would you want to add such information, if otherwise? If you have something substantial in mind, you could write up a draft in your sandbox and link to it, so that other editors can read it and offer feedback. I can hear the incels stirring already.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear. Not preposing more content, I'm justifying my revert to the format of the lead. Status quo is fine. I thought I put a note for "see talk section" on its edit summary, but forgot. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Your revert was justified. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis on cryptozoologists over academics
We've recently had editors play the reception of this article's subject before discussion of it from academics. This reads as if all notions of the folklore surrounding Bigfoot stems from cryptozoologists, who are a tiny subculture. Most individuals who believe Bigfoot may be out there somewhere are not aware that the subculture exists. Belief in Bigfoot does not make one a cryptozoologist. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the above talk section, and in my edit summary, moving the sentence to the end is not a logical flow. The sentence does not indicate belief in bigfoot, but is discussing presenting evidence for its existence. As my previous edit summary had gone into, the first sentence is on those presenting the evidence. It is then followed by expert claims. Moving the line on cryptozoologists to the end of the paragraph does nothing but sandwich the expert consensus between mention of Enthusiasts, and cryptozoologists.
 * As a significant amount of media on Bigfoot that the public is exposed to is from the Cable network programs, the term "cryptozoologist" is likely to be much more well known then you may think, especially among people who believe in the folklore. However, statements either way would need substantial research, we don't know the percentage of people who are aware of the subculture.
 * The change I made should satisfy your criticism that not all who believe in the folklore are cryptozoologists, while maintaining the logical ordering of ideas within the paragraph. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 07:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)