![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This archive page covers approximately January 2006 through early February 2006.
1) I archived the page. It was huge again, and most of the discussion was complaints by an editor and his sockpuppets who are now banned from Wikipedia for a year. All that should no longer be relevant to future work on the article.
2) Beckjord is banned, per the decision of ArbCom... That means if he or some anon IP or some new sockpuppet of his comes along, don't waste your time trying to improve it, remove it completely, because it's already been shown that he is POV-pushing and spamming, and trying to edit it to make it better means making the article worse. Reverting back to the last good version is the only reasonable option. DreamGuy 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy, I think you prematurely reverted the Bigfoot article. The only problem is you didn't take the time to see the numerous good edits present that were also removed when you reverted to an earlier version, thus the article suffers a good deal of collateral damage that can be avoided. Many of the good edits are minor but are scattered throughout the article, so reinstating them would be a very tedious task.
Therefore, I think it’s best to just remove the blatant Beckjord advertising and nonesense from the current version rather than revert.
Secondly, a lot of the "Beckjord" stuff was written by MONGO, see edits. You two should discuss whether or not to keep the material rather than you simply jumping the gun and just removing it. -- Every1blowz 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a serious problem with this revert. Those are really Beckjord's edits that Mongo merely tried to clean up... they don't need to stay in any form. android 79 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Since MONGO has no problems then we can remove it. -- Every1blowz 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse...but I am thinking this matter over at this time. I have attempted to make contact with Tom Moore who is now retired to see if anything else about the hair diagnosis was published. Bear in mind that nothing I put in the article offered proof of bigfoot...it was just a summary of events as detailed in the published work.-- MONGO 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Bigfoot: Food, hostile encounters. Is this link any good ? Martial Law 06:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I found it while examining rumors of Bigfoot attacking people. The movie The Legend of Boggy Creek is about some people who has had a run-in w/ this thing, it attacks them, sending one to the hospital. Martial Law 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Some claim that this thing shies away from people, instead of attacking them. The link above appearantly supports reports that this thing will attack people. Martial Law 06:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
On the link, see RE.:Are They Dangerous ? Martial Law 06:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the Latin American designation for Bigfoot, sasquatch ?
Keypad acted up. Martial Law 09:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm certain that there is a creature like this in the Latin American nations. Martial Law 09:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm only referring to a geographical area that is from the US/Mexican border towards the South Pole, no more, no less. Did'nt mean to offend any one, just asking about the possibility of a creature that is in that area of the world. Martial Law 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article needs more pictures of a Bigfoot? I mean there's an awfull lot of text but only one photo. I'm worried this may keep some readers thoroughly bored, maybe even those interested in the subject. I think the epitome of a good article is one which is both well written (we've got that part nailed) but also a well illustarted article. We're obviously lacking in the latter department.
I have noticed that we've removed two other pictures so far. One from NIMBA creations (a model sasquatch or something) and another from Beckjord. That's good. The former was blatant advertising and the other wasn't even very good; basically what we already had except a blown-up, crappier, and gray-scaled version of it.
Anyway, I think if someone stumbles upon an excellent or noteworthy picture which we can use I don't see any problems with adding it to the current article.
Opinions anyone? -- Every1blowz 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Go this Gallery of Bigfoot Pixes to see pixes of Bigfoot. Martial Law 10:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is it when a photo of this thing is taken, it looks like the camera, even a $10,000 camera, one w/ "infinity" focus is out of focus ? I've seen the pixes all over the place, incl. the Coast To Coast AM website, Jeff Rense's website, and all of the pixes are blurry. Why is this so ? Martial Law 10:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This may also be attributable to too much moonshine.-- MONGO 21:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This link has some real shockers on it, incl. what appears to be Bigfoot feces that was allegedly found, and it has more links than the Mysteries Megasite website. Is this link for real, and if it is credible, can it be placed ? Martial Law 11:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
One is the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization, the other is the Oregon Bigfoot Research Organization. Both are mentioned above as persuant to a request for Bigfoot pics. Each state may have one or more of these Bigfoot Organizations. The former was www.gcbro.com and the latter was www.oregonbigfoot.com . Am checking the Gulf Coast site. Stand by. Martial Law 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Is it OK to insert these links ? Martial Law 20:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This thing says that all suggestions are to be brought HERE.
2nd Sentence, in the one w/ the padlock in it. Martial Law 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I recognize that the evidence that Beckjord provided me on blood and hair may be a conflict of interest for inclusion based on other actions by Beckjord. However, I feel they deserve mention. These hair samples were all reviewed by three known specialists and they all concluded that the hairs came from an unknown mammal with possible primate origins. Is there a NPOV way of incorporating this information in the article? I also believe that the blood sample analyized by Sarich is worth mentioning. None of the evidence provides facts that either support or deny the existence of bigfoot, but that well known specialists in their fields did look the evidence over is important...and at least makes Grover Krantz look less like a rogue anthropologist. Thoughts?-- MONGO 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What about this link ? Martial Law 09:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Should it be stated that readers can use the External Links: The links for the Bigfoot Organizations to report their own encounters ? Some of these organizations send out personnel who will investigate the incident in a similar manner as that of a police investigation. Only that NO crime has been committed. User:Beckjord did raise some points about Wikipedia being a "how to" reference - such as First Aid and some war protocol for civilians. Martial Law 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Actually, you don't have to go to beckjord's website for that. you can read about it at www.bigfootforums.com. but the point is, no organization is without its scandals, probably not even beckjord's, dare i say. this doesn't take away from the fact that bfro is still one of, if not the most reputable org. on the subject.-- Every1blowz 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Any wikipedians seen/encountered this thing ? Your encounter may help solve this mystery once and for all. Martial Law 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Each state has a Bigfoot Research Organization in them, since all 50 states have reported encounters with them and other bizarre creatures, such as the Mothman and/or the Chupacabra, Champ. Where can this statement be placed w/o messing up the article ? Martial Law 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Go to this link. It discribes what Bigfoot allegedly smells like. More to follow. Martial Law 23:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Another link that discusses the thing's smelly nature. Martial Law 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Still more to follow. Only in compliance to WP:CITE request in article itself. Martial Law 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Got two more links that may comply w/ the citation request. These two links are Why Bigfoot Stinks and This may explain why Bigfoot stinks. Hope these help. Martial Law 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
User:BunchofGrapes is a Admin. Martial Law 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This link is about the recent CNN report of one seen in Malaysia. Done a Google Search: Bigfoot, and got a graphic of a newspaper showing the latest Bigfoot reports. Is that OK ? Will comply. Martial Law 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=181090
bernama is the "official" news agency of malaysia.
This link says that PBS has investigated some Bigfoot Reports. Should I place this one ? Martial Law 04:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Its one of the "state" Bigfoot agencies mentioned in a reference about each state having a Bigfoot Investigative Agency, just like the GCBRO or the Texas Bigfoot Research Agency. Martial Law 04:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What about this link: Sasquatch Research Organization ? Martial Law 04:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Its got a bunch of skull photos in it, some reputedly those of early Man, some look like Bigfoot skulls. Martial Law 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC) It even has a pix of Dr. Krantz here. Martial Law 07:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :o
This link is about a magazine concerned with paranormal matters, here, it is bigfoot. Martial Law 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This link will take you to this organization: Bigfoot Research Organization. Martial Law 09:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This is an original source, so it can't be quoted, but it is an interesting site comparing "bigfoot" tracks to bear tracks. http://www.spiritone.com/~brucem/bigf1.htm
Artiemishi 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Artiemishi
I live in a neighboring county. Skamania's "sasquatch" ordinances were jokes. They were never codified. See http://www.skamaniacounty.org/bpc/html/index.htm
Artiemishi 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)artiemishi
Bigfoot tracks and WHAT appears to be Bigfoot feces: From the GCBRO. Martial Law 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC) :)
I am monitoring a ice storm that could take down a sizable chunk of the US down. Martial Law 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Can this be used ? Martial Law 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This link purports to explain everything about Bigfoot. Martial Law 05:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC) :D
Is this one any good ? Martial Law 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This seems to be incredibly, well, wrong. The article describes tracks, but the tracks being described are clearly the hoaxed tracks created by Ray Wallace. Actual tracks do not have this.
Enormous human-like footprints attributed to this creature gave rise to the name "Bigfoot". Ecologist Robert Michael Pyle describes them as follows: "Tracks commonly measure fifteen to twenty inches or more in length. They have five toes, a double-muscle ball, and a wide arch" (Pyle, 3).
Cryptomundo has recent articles on this and images that compare fake prints made by Wallace to others that are believed to be genuine. With this in mind, it seems like it would be very bad to leave this in the article.
Freshyill 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
These are Strange Magazine and Bigfoot in the Newspapers. Martial Law 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC) And this link Martial Law 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What of this one: Bigfoot here too Martial Law 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Got two more. these are Bigfoot here and More Bigfoot Martial Law 22:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one: Bigfoot featured here as well Martial Law 22:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This one says that Bigfoot to be CAPTURED. Martial Law 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Just came back from monitoring a ice storm(still watching it), checked the "history" section on this page. What is this "Edit Committee" ? For affected Wikipedians, go to The Weather Channel Website and/or to The Accuweather Website, other weather related websites, your local TV and/radio news outlets. So far, there has been no appreciable activity with this storm at all. Martial Law 06:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
What is this "Edit Committee" ? Martial Law 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Both are Bigfoot Encyclopedia One, incl. experts Global Sasquatch Encyclopedia link two Martial Law 08:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
One or both of these mention a reference called "The Global Sasquatch Encyclopedia" and/or "The Global Bigfoot Encyclopedia". Martial Law 08:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
One of these has a link to a Matt Moneymaker as well. Martial Law 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the International Bigfoot Society. Martial Law 08:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Worldsearch > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot
Are any of these any good ? Martial Law 09:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This one mirrors Wikipedia, except for the new info. in this link: Nationmaster > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot
There are some subheadings for the reader to click on, such as sighting reports, what the creature is, etc. , but it has info. that Wikipedia does'nt have at all, such as a body cast taken in a area that a Bigfoot was spotted in by researchers. Is this link any good ? Martial Law 09:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
The subheadings are in a Table of Contents. This is a bombshell. Martial Law 09:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This encyclopedia even reports a videotape that someone had shot in 2005. This encyclopedia link is: This Encyclopedia reports a videotaped sighting of a Bigfoot. Martial Law 09:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Are these six links any good ?
Martial Law 09:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This link is Another Encyclopedia reporting Bigfoot, incl. some recent incident reports Martial Law 05:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
What about this link: Factbites Encyclopedia Martial Law 05:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Matial Law, what is the point in posting all of these links? I don't get it.-- Firsfron 07:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I would've placed them in the article itself, but to be courteous, I brought them here instead, and to comply with a "s-protect" template initiated due to vandalisim. Some report sightings, some agree with Wikipedia, some even mirror Wikipedia. I have investigated a Bigfoot incident myself, but due to Wikipedia protocol, mainly, WP:NOR, I am not stating what I've found here. Martial Law 09:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Someone had thrown this link out of the Bigfoot article. It is about Bigfoot reports made in the early 19th Century to the present. Martial Law 09:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Some of the incident reports mention people shooting at this thing. Martial Law 09:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
One of these is this: In 1901, raccoon hunters spot a Bigfoot, and had shot at it, with no effect upon the creature. Martial Law 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Should this be returned ? Martial Law 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)
According to this link The current Bigfoot pix here is a HOAX . Martial Law 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :o
Found this while hunting around the place. Should this link be added ? Martial Law 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Does this mean that Wikipedia needs a replacement pix ? Martial Law 10:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Just being courteous. Rather bring it here than place it in the article, only to have it tossed out in some revert later for being "unencyclopedic". I've came accross a few links in whick people has reported hostile encounters, "heroic" encounters, people shooting at them with guns as well as cameras, people feeding these things, some links claim that the fundamentalist religious people insist they're demons or the Devil himself, while the New Agers claim they're spirit guides. Should I state in the article that some people believe they're demons while others insist they're spirit guides ? I have even found a weird article in which someone made the claim that Bigfoot had written a book called, "Me Bigfoot". I thought I had seen it all until I had seen that. Can this topic get any weirder ? Martial Law 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
By the way, the four ~ s will auto sign your designation for you. Martial Law 01:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This magazine is Bigfoot Times. Can this be used ? Martial Law 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Religion: Re.: Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 2nd paragraph, 13th word in italics the RED word is se' irim, which in Hebrew, means Hairy Beings. THAT can be interpreted that the ancient Hebrews had seen a Bigfoot, and thought of the creature as a demon. Martial Law 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This organization is called I.B.A.G.. Not much is known about it. All contact info is in the "Home" section. Martial Law 08:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :D
KNOWN E-mail is: bigfoot46555@earthlink.net
Is this a good link ? Martial Law 08:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
They claim to be a NO kill organization. Martial Law 08:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :o
The USA Today has ran this article about a Bigfoot, and this is a HIGHLY regarded newspaper. Martial Law 08:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
If this link will not function, go offsite and go to this website:
It had reported a Bigfoot. Do a Google Search:Bigfoot reports, then go to No.#3, then find, all in blue: USATODAY.com-Bigfoot's indelible imprint. That should take you to the USATODAY article. As for User:65.223.249.151, I am NO troll, nor vandal. Martial Law 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
It is best to bring what I find here to the discussion page than it is to have what I find tossed out for being "unencyclopediac", etc. after placing what I find directly into the article itself. After all, this is a discussion page. This is the 3rd time explaining this. Martial Law 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
CNN article on Malaysia's Bigfoot Martial Law 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
MONGO went ahead and readded a lot of details on various old hair "tests" mentioned in old pro-Bigfoot sources that I believe originally came from the now banned editor. The problem here is that devoting a lot of space to meaningless opinions of what people claim to have found with tests before DNA testing were used (and I note that that very important fact that they were not DNA tests was removed in the edit) only to have much later a section saying some DNA tests showed Bison hair and other known animals give undue weight to less reliable claims. This happens both by leaving out important info, dedicating much more space to pro-Bigfoot claims, and then not even getting the negative claims in until much later. I am once again reverting back to the older version for more balance.
The mere claim statment that "it is cited information, do not remove it" alone does not say anything about whether it fits within the NPOV policy. Adding lots of cited facts from old outdated publications with clear agendas on one side of the debate while removing an important note and not balancing the section simply in unacceptable.
Now, if you would like to shorten that (the article is too long as it is) and try for real balance, and include the info that it was NOT at all DNA testing and thus much more subjective (looking at hair samples and guessing) and also expland the skeptical section about it, then maybe it can be used, but really we need a good neutral summary.
And furthermore the entire structure of the article -- giving whole sections of one side arguing one way and then later having another side argue -- is highly problematic, as it makes the pro and con difficult to follow and for most people gives a distorted view by focusing on the first (pro) section. There should not be separate sections, it should all be incorporated together, so that when we talk about hair evidence, for example, all the relevant info is in one place, and not so that DNA testing shows real animals is hidden further down in the article. DreamGuy 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't say much, as there are many ways hairs can be compared. To simply say they didn't "match" with no reference to the comparison criteria makes kind of an empty statement. Animal/nonanimal is kinda poor. For all we know, he may have just smelled them and went by what Granny Hawkins' told him when he was nine about the difference between the smell of a boy and a puppydog tail. Not real scientific. -- SpeedyCar 01:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
How the hell can they even say this if they don't have a DNA comparison? At the very least, it's not introduction material (IMHO). The intro should be confined to verifiable aspeccts that define the subject at hand. This doesn't define, it confuses. Sure they, believe it, but let them believe it lower down in the article. Just MHO. Just trying to help make possible improvements. Take it or leave it and move on. -- SpeedyCar 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently people did not even read my comments above, because the replies did not even address the main points and we had some people put the highly slanted info back in. NPOV is about BALANCE and OBJRCTIVITY. Adding more pro-Bigfoot hair claims back in from highly biased, outdated and unscientific sources while conspicuously not devoting the same or more space to the science side is a major violation of NPOV. Could you people at least read the policy and the points brought up instead of ignoring them and putting bad, slanted info back in? DreamGuy 06:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This edit war is becoming ridiculous. My God...
For the record, I support MONGO’s version of the article. Just because someone found a little more evidence "for" the existence of Bigfoot doesn’t mean we need to remove it because now the "sides" are unbalanced. That’s defeating the point. Most of us here agree Bigfoot does not exist, including myself, and with time then more evidence will pile up making the existence of Bigfoot less and less plausible, correct? Will we deny that evidence because we want the article to be "neutral"? Of course not, but the Bigfoot supporters will argue the article isn’t balanced since more space is dedicated to the conservative view. You see how ridiculous this argument is?
This hair evidence really proves nothing and can be taken both ways by an unbiased reader. You'll either believe it supports Bigfoot or it will prove to you that a majority of pro-Bigfoot research is BS.
The simple truth is, an article like this will NEVER be balanced. There are two sides with credible scientists supporting either. If we don’t keep this hair "evidence" in the article, someone down the line will eventually reinstate it because in their minds it is valid research and there is no reason to remove it. If you really feel so deeply about balance DreamGuy, then you shouldn’t have any trouble finding something to rebalance the article. Most scholarly work flat-out rejects the possibility of the creature's existence, right?
Secondly, there’s no point in "shortening" the article. Like I argued a while back, this article WILL need to be split up eventually as more Wikipedians contribute. Why are you holding back that fact, DreamGuy? -- Every1blowz 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have been contributing to talk unlike your latest revert's edit summary declares, DreamGuy...why haven't you? Your revert continuously adds a mispelled word and retitles one section with "feces" and there is nothing in that section about feces.-- MONGO 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I would also like an explantion why this Roy Pinker character is more notable than Ellis R. Kerley and Dr. Vincent Sarich.-- MONGO 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do the sightings STOP at 1967 ? The incident in Malaysia had taken place last year. Google Search:"Bigfoot News", and you get sightings that happened since 1967, and some of these things have been videotaped. I do apologise if I've been in error. Martial Law 06:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :)
I've talked to some people about bigfoot, mainly in Fouke, as persuant to a investigation, which will not be placed here, due to WP:NOR. The last known report was in 2004. Martial Law 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)
This Bigfoot Sightings Database has reports made from the '60s to the present. Is this link usable for placing in the "Alleged Sightings" catagory ? Martial Law 08:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :)
I have been trying to estabish a working paragraph that is supported by the evidence in cited material.
Bringing this to a simple (but voting is evil I think) vote:
How many prefer Dreamguy's edit [3]
How many prefer MONGO's edit [4]
Abstaining for now, need to review both versions:
Sorry, MONGO's edit violates NPOV for the reasons cited above. He/sjhe/it has made absolutely no attempt to try to take any of that into account and instead adds extremely outdated info from biased sources quite extensively and tries to claim a minor section much later in the article supposedly "balances" things... if he even bothered to try to explain anything,mostly he just ignores it and claims citing sources automatically makes it neutral despite the fact that the sources are old and outdated and giving much more space comkpared to more recent, more scholarly and far more important ones.NPOV policy is quite clear on this, and I am disturbed that three people above no so little about the rules that they think they can vote on it. Newsflash: you can't vote to ignore a policy that's the foundation of this encyclopedia. This "trying to estabish" thing just means "reverting back to his bad version and ignoring the clear explanation of why it's bad" -- there's no attempt to even follow policy or listen to the reasons, simply declaring himself right. Frankly, the fact that Martial Law agrees with him alone should be more than enough proof that the changes are biased and do not follow encyclopedic guidelines. DreamGuy 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The Discovery Channel has aired this: Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science on 3-2-06 at 11pm EST/EDT. This was about Bigfoot. Thought you guys might want to know about this matter. Martial Law 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Is that useful in any way ? Martial Law 06:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The intro is a quagmire.
How can you say specifically and then go on to relist practically the entire continent? -- DanielCD 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Occam's Razor would safely let us assume such creatures likely are those other "nocturnal animals".
This needs a reference and needs to be firmly couched in "Bigfoot proponents believe, think, etc... however there is no evidence for this... " kind of language. We can't imply that this material is from reports of "confirmed" sightings of any sort. -- DanielCD 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've placed a cleanup tag on this as it is quite below standard. There is simply too much garbage flowing into it. When you are not conservative with articles like this, they become garbage quickly, because people read it, and question claims like "smells are associated with bigfoot" and wonder if we know WTF we are talking about. Then they don't trust anything written in the article and just move on. Wish-washy stuff needs to stick to firm material and facts with the scientific commuity's outlook providing a grounding to work from. It's not perfect, but nothing you can find will be better. If we are liberal with it, it becomes just another Internet cesspool of speculation packaged as factual info. Readers sense this kind of deception and immediately distrust the material and Wikipedia. -- DanielCD 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
(reduce) I'm sorry, I'm not sure which links you are talking about? Please post them here, thanks much. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
IF a sasquatch is brought in, who or what gets it, and will this be publicized or "hushed up" ? Martial Law 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)
After all, the skeptics WANT a dead body for DNA, other bio samples. Martial Law 05:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)
I redid some of the section headers to make (what I feel is) a firmer outline. The "Conclusion" section is kind of disorganized and needs sorting.
The article is very big, but there's nothing wrong with that. If old sources are used, just make it plain to the reader that this is coming from a source that is old/dated or whatever, and say why you are using it. (Why are we citing dated material? Are we?).
Just to recap: Organization and "prettifying" the article can allow for more info to be added without ppl getting upetty (pretty = more forgiving). Just make sure that the organization stays firm. Perhaps someone can improve on what I've done there with the outline. ..? -- DanielCD 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The History Channel has aired a show called: Decoding the Past:Monsters on 3-9-06 at 21:00 hrs EST/EDT. Bigfoot, aka, the yeti was featured. Is this useful ? Martial Law 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The Loch Ness Monster was also featured. Martial Law 02:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
On 3-10-06, the History Channel has aired at 18:00 hrs EDT/EST a series called Historiy's Mysteries:Bigfoot and Other Monsters Go to the
History Channel link for more information. This was part of a larger airing of the whole series History's Mysteries.
Martial Law
21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
A search on the History Channel website reveals that these shows referenced here are on DVD. Martial Law 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Can the info. presented on these channels be used ? Martial Law 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Yea, as long as you can cite the episode. -- DanielCD 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
See above for the History Channel. Martial Law 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The cited shows are on DVD. Martial Law 05:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The Sci-Fi Channel has aired a movie called Sasquatch. The spoiler is that rescuers encounter the monster while searching for survivors of a plane crash. Can this be inserted in the Movies section ? It aired on 3-11-06 @ 11pm EST/EDT on the Sci-Fi Channel. Martial Law 00:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Where do I place this link ? This is the latest news concerning the monster. Martial Law 08:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Their govt. is to get a plaster cast of a Bigfoot print. Martial Law 08:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Where can this be placed, in the External Links section ? Martial Law 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Please sign your statements. Martial Law 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Could this be stated:"To report one, use the external links.", and where at ? The First Aid article has protocol that advises people how to treat injuries, gunshot wounds and the like. Martial Law 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)
I've heard that people who see these monsters are looking for a place to report these things without someone accusing them of lying or being crazy, a idiot or worse. Martial Law 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)
I am in a rural area in which people will shoot any and all intruders, including these things. This is how it goes down: 1. You smell it, hear it, even see it. 2. You draw your weapon and attempt to take it down, since you automatically believe it is a threat to YOU, only that ammo has no known effect on it (I have seen a report in which one was killed by hunters who thought it was a bear ). 3. It runs from you. 4. You report it, only to have Dispatch ridicule you, especially about your sanity, intelligence, and your sobriety. So, where do you report this thing without that kind of hassle ? Martial Law 00:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)
This is why I'm asking if the external links could be used to report these things, especially if a reader has seen one. Martial Law 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Might I diffidently suggest that some of you read this book and edit the section dealing with the Patterson film acordingly? Enjoy!
Long, Greg (2004). The making of Bigfoot: the inside story. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-591-02139-1.
As you all know, Roger Patterson died in 1972, but Long was able to track down his confederates and eventually obtained a complete confession. The monkey suit turns out to have been a hand modified version of a commmercially available gorilla suit. Long also obtained much information on the possible motivation of the "ringleader" of the hoax, Roger Patterson.--- CH 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is much too lengthy, fails to take proper account of the Long book (which I think any unbiased reader will regard as definitively debunking the Patterson hoax), and reports too credulously unverified claims, e.g. Krantz said he gave casts to 40 experts and they mostly said they thought gotta be real, but apparently we only have Krantz's word for this. --- CH 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is fine, but could be reduced if some material was moved to linked sub-articles. For example, the lengthy evidence-section might be moved to a new article linked from this article, and replaced with a concise section summarizing the evidence and criticism of it -- Danielos2 22:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC) .
Long deserves a mention, but his work is not the final word on the subject. See my comments at the Patterson-Gimlin film talk page. Zagalejo 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The organization is Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers which is set up by Wikipedians for Wikipedians who have had bizarre encounters with the paranormal, incl. Bigfoot. This is a invite to you all. Martial Law 08:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)
The organization is also open to those that investigate these matters. Martial Law 08:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)
Where can it be stated,"that when some people see this thing, they'll draw their weapon, say out of their truck and/or on their person, and shoot at it."? I am currently in a rural area and the people I'm close to will shoot at anything - or anyone. In the Fouke Incident, it is mentioned that people has shot at this thing and even set dogs on it. Martial Law 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :)
How can this be stated and where at ? - "If you believe that you have encountered one or more of these creatures, the external links may be used to report the encounter(s) with this thing. Be advised that some of these organizations that created the links presented here will send out investigators and investigate the incident in the SAME manner as that of a police investigation, only that no known crime has been committed."
The First Aid article advises people to do certain things, contrary to WP:Not states, such as handling burns, fractures and the like. Martial Law 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :)
User:Gabeshaughnessy added the following to the article -- "It is possible the bigfoot is not a physical being but rather a forest spirit, Banjankri, unavailable to the rational mind and only accessible through intuitive pursuit.". It lasted half an hour before being skittled. It was probably a windup by Gabeshaughnessy who hadn't made any previous edits. But boy oh boy, did it ever demonstrate one of the serious problems of Wikipedia. This article is stock full of absolute nonsense. But yet, when someone adds something similar it gets axed and the screed of existing nonsense remains. Move over Lucky69, and RickK and all the other seasoned editors who left Wikipedia in disgust, I'm getting closer to joining you every day. Moriori 08:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC).
As this talk page seems busy I thought I'd start the ball rolling on this over on the Yeti Talk page ( Emperor 13:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Who is "Lcoleman@maine.rr.com"?
Is the famous cryptozoologist himself here on Wikipedia? Anyway, this Wikipedians "contributions" so far seems to be shameless self-promotion, sensationalism and a greedy desire to sell books. Shouldn´t this guy be reported to the administrators of this site? He gives cryptozoology and Wikipedia a bad name, and is incredibly annoying! :(
-- Danielos2 13:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course it has that template because it is a mysterious creature. General Eisenhower • ( at war or at peace ☢✍☎☺) 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This archive page covers approximately January 2006 through early February 2006.
1) I archived the page. It was huge again, and most of the discussion was complaints by an editor and his sockpuppets who are now banned from Wikipedia for a year. All that should no longer be relevant to future work on the article.
2) Beckjord is banned, per the decision of ArbCom... That means if he or some anon IP or some new sockpuppet of his comes along, don't waste your time trying to improve it, remove it completely, because it's already been shown that he is POV-pushing and spamming, and trying to edit it to make it better means making the article worse. Reverting back to the last good version is the only reasonable option. DreamGuy 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy, I think you prematurely reverted the Bigfoot article. The only problem is you didn't take the time to see the numerous good edits present that were also removed when you reverted to an earlier version, thus the article suffers a good deal of collateral damage that can be avoided. Many of the good edits are minor but are scattered throughout the article, so reinstating them would be a very tedious task.
Therefore, I think it’s best to just remove the blatant Beckjord advertising and nonesense from the current version rather than revert.
Secondly, a lot of the "Beckjord" stuff was written by MONGO, see edits. You two should discuss whether or not to keep the material rather than you simply jumping the gun and just removing it. -- Every1blowz 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a serious problem with this revert. Those are really Beckjord's edits that Mongo merely tried to clean up... they don't need to stay in any form. android 79 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Since MONGO has no problems then we can remove it. -- Every1blowz 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse...but I am thinking this matter over at this time. I have attempted to make contact with Tom Moore who is now retired to see if anything else about the hair diagnosis was published. Bear in mind that nothing I put in the article offered proof of bigfoot...it was just a summary of events as detailed in the published work.-- MONGO 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Bigfoot: Food, hostile encounters. Is this link any good ? Martial Law 06:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I found it while examining rumors of Bigfoot attacking people. The movie The Legend of Boggy Creek is about some people who has had a run-in w/ this thing, it attacks them, sending one to the hospital. Martial Law 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Some claim that this thing shies away from people, instead of attacking them. The link above appearantly supports reports that this thing will attack people. Martial Law 06:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
On the link, see RE.:Are They Dangerous ? Martial Law 06:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the Latin American designation for Bigfoot, sasquatch ?
Keypad acted up. Martial Law 09:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm certain that there is a creature like this in the Latin American nations. Martial Law 09:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm only referring to a geographical area that is from the US/Mexican border towards the South Pole, no more, no less. Did'nt mean to offend any one, just asking about the possibility of a creature that is in that area of the world. Martial Law 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this article needs more pictures of a Bigfoot? I mean there's an awfull lot of text but only one photo. I'm worried this may keep some readers thoroughly bored, maybe even those interested in the subject. I think the epitome of a good article is one which is both well written (we've got that part nailed) but also a well illustarted article. We're obviously lacking in the latter department.
I have noticed that we've removed two other pictures so far. One from NIMBA creations (a model sasquatch or something) and another from Beckjord. That's good. The former was blatant advertising and the other wasn't even very good; basically what we already had except a blown-up, crappier, and gray-scaled version of it.
Anyway, I think if someone stumbles upon an excellent or noteworthy picture which we can use I don't see any problems with adding it to the current article.
Opinions anyone? -- Every1blowz 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Go this Gallery of Bigfoot Pixes to see pixes of Bigfoot. Martial Law 10:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is it when a photo of this thing is taken, it looks like the camera, even a $10,000 camera, one w/ "infinity" focus is out of focus ? I've seen the pixes all over the place, incl. the Coast To Coast AM website, Jeff Rense's website, and all of the pixes are blurry. Why is this so ? Martial Law 10:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This may also be attributable to too much moonshine.-- MONGO 21:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This link has some real shockers on it, incl. what appears to be Bigfoot feces that was allegedly found, and it has more links than the Mysteries Megasite website. Is this link for real, and if it is credible, can it be placed ? Martial Law 11:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
One is the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization, the other is the Oregon Bigfoot Research Organization. Both are mentioned above as persuant to a request for Bigfoot pics. Each state may have one or more of these Bigfoot Organizations. The former was www.gcbro.com and the latter was www.oregonbigfoot.com . Am checking the Gulf Coast site. Stand by. Martial Law 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Is it OK to insert these links ? Martial Law 20:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This thing says that all suggestions are to be brought HERE.
2nd Sentence, in the one w/ the padlock in it. Martial Law 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I recognize that the evidence that Beckjord provided me on blood and hair may be a conflict of interest for inclusion based on other actions by Beckjord. However, I feel they deserve mention. These hair samples were all reviewed by three known specialists and they all concluded that the hairs came from an unknown mammal with possible primate origins. Is there a NPOV way of incorporating this information in the article? I also believe that the blood sample analyized by Sarich is worth mentioning. None of the evidence provides facts that either support or deny the existence of bigfoot, but that well known specialists in their fields did look the evidence over is important...and at least makes Grover Krantz look less like a rogue anthropologist. Thoughts?-- MONGO 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What about this link ? Martial Law 09:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Should it be stated that readers can use the External Links: The links for the Bigfoot Organizations to report their own encounters ? Some of these organizations send out personnel who will investigate the incident in a similar manner as that of a police investigation. Only that NO crime has been committed. User:Beckjord did raise some points about Wikipedia being a "how to" reference - such as First Aid and some war protocol for civilians. Martial Law 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Actually, you don't have to go to beckjord's website for that. you can read about it at www.bigfootforums.com. but the point is, no organization is without its scandals, probably not even beckjord's, dare i say. this doesn't take away from the fact that bfro is still one of, if not the most reputable org. on the subject.-- Every1blowz 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Any wikipedians seen/encountered this thing ? Your encounter may help solve this mystery once and for all. Martial Law 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Each state has a Bigfoot Research Organization in them, since all 50 states have reported encounters with them and other bizarre creatures, such as the Mothman and/or the Chupacabra, Champ. Where can this statement be placed w/o messing up the article ? Martial Law 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Go to this link. It discribes what Bigfoot allegedly smells like. More to follow. Martial Law 23:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Another link that discusses the thing's smelly nature. Martial Law 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Still more to follow. Only in compliance to WP:CITE request in article itself. Martial Law 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Got two more links that may comply w/ the citation request. These two links are Why Bigfoot Stinks and This may explain why Bigfoot stinks. Hope these help. Martial Law 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)
User:BunchofGrapes is a Admin. Martial Law 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This link is about the recent CNN report of one seen in Malaysia. Done a Google Search: Bigfoot, and got a graphic of a newspaper showing the latest Bigfoot reports. Is that OK ? Will comply. Martial Law 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=181090
bernama is the "official" news agency of malaysia.
This link says that PBS has investigated some Bigfoot Reports. Should I place this one ? Martial Law 04:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Its one of the "state" Bigfoot agencies mentioned in a reference about each state having a Bigfoot Investigative Agency, just like the GCBRO or the Texas Bigfoot Research Agency. Martial Law 04:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What about this link: Sasquatch Research Organization ? Martial Law 04:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Its got a bunch of skull photos in it, some reputedly those of early Man, some look like Bigfoot skulls. Martial Law 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC) It even has a pix of Dr. Krantz here. Martial Law 07:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :o
This link is about a magazine concerned with paranormal matters, here, it is bigfoot. Martial Law 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This link will take you to this organization: Bigfoot Research Organization. Martial Law 09:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This is an original source, so it can't be quoted, but it is an interesting site comparing "bigfoot" tracks to bear tracks. http://www.spiritone.com/~brucem/bigf1.htm
Artiemishi 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Artiemishi
I live in a neighboring county. Skamania's "sasquatch" ordinances were jokes. They were never codified. See http://www.skamaniacounty.org/bpc/html/index.htm
Artiemishi 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)artiemishi
Bigfoot tracks and WHAT appears to be Bigfoot feces: From the GCBRO. Martial Law 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC) :)
I am monitoring a ice storm that could take down a sizable chunk of the US down. Martial Law 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Can this be used ? Martial Law 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This link purports to explain everything about Bigfoot. Martial Law 05:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC) :D
Is this one any good ? Martial Law 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This seems to be incredibly, well, wrong. The article describes tracks, but the tracks being described are clearly the hoaxed tracks created by Ray Wallace. Actual tracks do not have this.
Enormous human-like footprints attributed to this creature gave rise to the name "Bigfoot". Ecologist Robert Michael Pyle describes them as follows: "Tracks commonly measure fifteen to twenty inches or more in length. They have five toes, a double-muscle ball, and a wide arch" (Pyle, 3).
Cryptomundo has recent articles on this and images that compare fake prints made by Wallace to others that are believed to be genuine. With this in mind, it seems like it would be very bad to leave this in the article.
Freshyill 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
These are Strange Magazine and Bigfoot in the Newspapers. Martial Law 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC) And this link Martial Law 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What of this one: Bigfoot here too Martial Law 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Got two more. these are Bigfoot here and More Bigfoot Martial Law 22:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one: Bigfoot featured here as well Martial Law 22:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This one says that Bigfoot to be CAPTURED. Martial Law 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Just came back from monitoring a ice storm(still watching it), checked the "history" section on this page. What is this "Edit Committee" ? For affected Wikipedians, go to The Weather Channel Website and/or to The Accuweather Website, other weather related websites, your local TV and/radio news outlets. So far, there has been no appreciable activity with this storm at all. Martial Law 06:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
What is this "Edit Committee" ? Martial Law 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Both are Bigfoot Encyclopedia One, incl. experts Global Sasquatch Encyclopedia link two Martial Law 08:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
One or both of these mention a reference called "The Global Sasquatch Encyclopedia" and/or "The Global Bigfoot Encyclopedia". Martial Law 08:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
One of these has a link to a Matt Moneymaker as well. Martial Law 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the International Bigfoot Society. Martial Law 08:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Worldsearch > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot
Are any of these any good ? Martial Law 09:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This one mirrors Wikipedia, except for the new info. in this link: Nationmaster > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot
There are some subheadings for the reader to click on, such as sighting reports, what the creature is, etc. , but it has info. that Wikipedia does'nt have at all, such as a body cast taken in a area that a Bigfoot was spotted in by researchers. Is this link any good ? Martial Law 09:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
The subheadings are in a Table of Contents. This is a bombshell. Martial Law 09:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This encyclopedia even reports a videotape that someone had shot in 2005. This encyclopedia link is: This Encyclopedia reports a videotaped sighting of a Bigfoot. Martial Law 09:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Are these six links any good ?
Martial Law 09:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This link is Another Encyclopedia reporting Bigfoot, incl. some recent incident reports Martial Law 05:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
What about this link: Factbites Encyclopedia Martial Law 05:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Matial Law, what is the point in posting all of these links? I don't get it.-- Firsfron 07:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I would've placed them in the article itself, but to be courteous, I brought them here instead, and to comply with a "s-protect" template initiated due to vandalisim. Some report sightings, some agree with Wikipedia, some even mirror Wikipedia. I have investigated a Bigfoot incident myself, but due to Wikipedia protocol, mainly, WP:NOR, I am not stating what I've found here. Martial Law 09:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Someone had thrown this link out of the Bigfoot article. It is about Bigfoot reports made in the early 19th Century to the present. Martial Law 09:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Some of the incident reports mention people shooting at this thing. Martial Law 09:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
One of these is this: In 1901, raccoon hunters spot a Bigfoot, and had shot at it, with no effect upon the creature. Martial Law 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Should this be returned ? Martial Law 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)
According to this link The current Bigfoot pix here is a HOAX . Martial Law 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :o
Found this while hunting around the place. Should this link be added ? Martial Law 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Does this mean that Wikipedia needs a replacement pix ? Martial Law 10:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Just being courteous. Rather bring it here than place it in the article, only to have it tossed out in some revert later for being "unencyclopedic". I've came accross a few links in whick people has reported hostile encounters, "heroic" encounters, people shooting at them with guns as well as cameras, people feeding these things, some links claim that the fundamentalist religious people insist they're demons or the Devil himself, while the New Agers claim they're spirit guides. Should I state in the article that some people believe they're demons while others insist they're spirit guides ? I have even found a weird article in which someone made the claim that Bigfoot had written a book called, "Me Bigfoot". I thought I had seen it all until I had seen that. Can this topic get any weirder ? Martial Law 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
By the way, the four ~ s will auto sign your designation for you. Martial Law 01:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This magazine is Bigfoot Times. Can this be used ? Martial Law 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Religion: Re.: Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 2nd paragraph, 13th word in italics the RED word is se' irim, which in Hebrew, means Hairy Beings. THAT can be interpreted that the ancient Hebrews had seen a Bigfoot, and thought of the creature as a demon. Martial Law 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
This organization is called I.B.A.G.. Not much is known about it. All contact info is in the "Home" section. Martial Law 08:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :D
KNOWN E-mail is: bigfoot46555@earthlink.net
Is this a good link ? Martial Law 08:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
They claim to be a NO kill organization. Martial Law 08:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :o
The USA Today has ran this article about a Bigfoot, and this is a HIGHLY regarded newspaper. Martial Law 08:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
If this link will not function, go offsite and go to this website:
It had reported a Bigfoot. Do a Google Search:Bigfoot reports, then go to No.#3, then find, all in blue: USATODAY.com-Bigfoot's indelible imprint. That should take you to the USATODAY article. As for User:65.223.249.151, I am NO troll, nor vandal. Martial Law 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
It is best to bring what I find here to the discussion page than it is to have what I find tossed out for being "unencyclopediac", etc. after placing what I find directly into the article itself. After all, this is a discussion page. This is the 3rd time explaining this. Martial Law 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
CNN article on Malaysia's Bigfoot Martial Law 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)
MONGO went ahead and readded a lot of details on various old hair "tests" mentioned in old pro-Bigfoot sources that I believe originally came from the now banned editor. The problem here is that devoting a lot of space to meaningless opinions of what people claim to have found with tests before DNA testing were used (and I note that that very important fact that they were not DNA tests was removed in the edit) only to have much later a section saying some DNA tests showed Bison hair and other known animals give undue weight to less reliable claims. This happens both by leaving out important info, dedicating much more space to pro-Bigfoot claims, and then not even getting the negative claims in until much later. I am once again reverting back to the older version for more balance.
The mere claim statment that "it is cited information, do not remove it" alone does not say anything about whether it fits within the NPOV policy. Adding lots of cited facts from old outdated publications with clear agendas on one side of the debate while removing an important note and not balancing the section simply in unacceptable.
Now, if you would like to shorten that (the article is too long as it is) and try for real balance, and include the info that it was NOT at all DNA testing and thus much more subjective (looking at hair samples and guessing) and also expland the skeptical section about it, then maybe it can be used, but really we need a good neutral summary.
And furthermore the entire structure of the article -- giving whole sections of one side arguing one way and then later having another side argue -- is highly problematic, as it makes the pro and con difficult to follow and for most people gives a distorted view by focusing on the first (pro) section. There should not be separate sections, it should all be incorporated together, so that when we talk about hair evidence, for example, all the relevant info is in one place, and not so that DNA testing shows real animals is hidden further down in the article. DreamGuy 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't say much, as there are many ways hairs can be compared. To simply say they didn't "match" with no reference to the comparison criteria makes kind of an empty statement. Animal/nonanimal is kinda poor. For all we know, he may have just smelled them and went by what Granny Hawkins' told him when he was nine about the difference between the smell of a boy and a puppydog tail. Not real scientific. -- SpeedyCar 01:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
How the hell can they even say this if they don't have a DNA comparison? At the very least, it's not introduction material (IMHO). The intro should be confined to verifiable aspeccts that define the subject at hand. This doesn't define, it confuses. Sure they, believe it, but let them believe it lower down in the article. Just MHO. Just trying to help make possible improvements. Take it or leave it and move on. -- SpeedyCar 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently people did not even read my comments above, because the replies did not even address the main points and we had some people put the highly slanted info back in. NPOV is about BALANCE and OBJRCTIVITY. Adding more pro-Bigfoot hair claims back in from highly biased, outdated and unscientific sources while conspicuously not devoting the same or more space to the science side is a major violation of NPOV. Could you people at least read the policy and the points brought up instead of ignoring them and putting bad, slanted info back in? DreamGuy 06:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This edit war is becoming ridiculous. My God...
For the record, I support MONGO’s version of the article. Just because someone found a little more evidence "for" the existence of Bigfoot doesn’t mean we need to remove it because now the "sides" are unbalanced. That’s defeating the point. Most of us here agree Bigfoot does not exist, including myself, and with time then more evidence will pile up making the existence of Bigfoot less and less plausible, correct? Will we deny that evidence because we want the article to be "neutral"? Of course not, but the Bigfoot supporters will argue the article isn’t balanced since more space is dedicated to the conservative view. You see how ridiculous this argument is?
This hair evidence really proves nothing and can be taken both ways by an unbiased reader. You'll either believe it supports Bigfoot or it will prove to you that a majority of pro-Bigfoot research is BS.
The simple truth is, an article like this will NEVER be balanced. There are two sides with credible scientists supporting either. If we don’t keep this hair "evidence" in the article, someone down the line will eventually reinstate it because in their minds it is valid research and there is no reason to remove it. If you really feel so deeply about balance DreamGuy, then you shouldn’t have any trouble finding something to rebalance the article. Most scholarly work flat-out rejects the possibility of the creature's existence, right?
Secondly, there’s no point in "shortening" the article. Like I argued a while back, this article WILL need to be split up eventually as more Wikipedians contribute. Why are you holding back that fact, DreamGuy? -- Every1blowz 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have been contributing to talk unlike your latest revert's edit summary declares, DreamGuy...why haven't you? Your revert continuously adds a mispelled word and retitles one section with "feces" and there is nothing in that section about feces.-- MONGO 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I would also like an explantion why this Roy Pinker character is more notable than Ellis R. Kerley and Dr. Vincent Sarich.-- MONGO 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do the sightings STOP at 1967 ? The incident in Malaysia had taken place last year. Google Search:"Bigfoot News", and you get sightings that happened since 1967, and some of these things have been videotaped. I do apologise if I've been in error. Martial Law 06:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :)
I've talked to some people about bigfoot, mainly in Fouke, as persuant to a investigation, which will not be placed here, due to WP:NOR. The last known report was in 2004. Martial Law 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)
This Bigfoot Sightings Database has reports made from the '60s to the present. Is this link usable for placing in the "Alleged Sightings" catagory ? Martial Law 08:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :)
I have been trying to estabish a working paragraph that is supported by the evidence in cited material.
Bringing this to a simple (but voting is evil I think) vote:
How many prefer Dreamguy's edit [3]
How many prefer MONGO's edit [4]
Abstaining for now, need to review both versions:
Sorry, MONGO's edit violates NPOV for the reasons cited above. He/sjhe/it has made absolutely no attempt to try to take any of that into account and instead adds extremely outdated info from biased sources quite extensively and tries to claim a minor section much later in the article supposedly "balances" things... if he even bothered to try to explain anything,mostly he just ignores it and claims citing sources automatically makes it neutral despite the fact that the sources are old and outdated and giving much more space comkpared to more recent, more scholarly and far more important ones.NPOV policy is quite clear on this, and I am disturbed that three people above no so little about the rules that they think they can vote on it. Newsflash: you can't vote to ignore a policy that's the foundation of this encyclopedia. This "trying to estabish" thing just means "reverting back to his bad version and ignoring the clear explanation of why it's bad" -- there's no attempt to even follow policy or listen to the reasons, simply declaring himself right. Frankly, the fact that Martial Law agrees with him alone should be more than enough proof that the changes are biased and do not follow encyclopedic guidelines. DreamGuy 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The Discovery Channel has aired this: Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science on 3-2-06 at 11pm EST/EDT. This was about Bigfoot. Thought you guys might want to know about this matter. Martial Law 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Is that useful in any way ? Martial Law 06:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The intro is a quagmire.
How can you say specifically and then go on to relist practically the entire continent? -- DanielCD 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Occam's Razor would safely let us assume such creatures likely are those other "nocturnal animals".
This needs a reference and needs to be firmly couched in "Bigfoot proponents believe, think, etc... however there is no evidence for this... " kind of language. We can't imply that this material is from reports of "confirmed" sightings of any sort. -- DanielCD 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've placed a cleanup tag on this as it is quite below standard. There is simply too much garbage flowing into it. When you are not conservative with articles like this, they become garbage quickly, because people read it, and question claims like "smells are associated with bigfoot" and wonder if we know WTF we are talking about. Then they don't trust anything written in the article and just move on. Wish-washy stuff needs to stick to firm material and facts with the scientific commuity's outlook providing a grounding to work from. It's not perfect, but nothing you can find will be better. If we are liberal with it, it becomes just another Internet cesspool of speculation packaged as factual info. Readers sense this kind of deception and immediately distrust the material and Wikipedia. -- DanielCD 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
(reduce) I'm sorry, I'm not sure which links you are talking about? Please post them here, thanks much. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
IF a sasquatch is brought in, who or what gets it, and will this be publicized or "hushed up" ? Martial Law 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)
After all, the skeptics WANT a dead body for DNA, other bio samples. Martial Law 05:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)
I redid some of the section headers to make (what I feel is) a firmer outline. The "Conclusion" section is kind of disorganized and needs sorting.
The article is very big, but there's nothing wrong with that. If old sources are used, just make it plain to the reader that this is coming from a source that is old/dated or whatever, and say why you are using it. (Why are we citing dated material? Are we?).
Just to recap: Organization and "prettifying" the article can allow for more info to be added without ppl getting upetty (pretty = more forgiving). Just make sure that the organization stays firm. Perhaps someone can improve on what I've done there with the outline. ..? -- DanielCD 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The History Channel has aired a show called: Decoding the Past:Monsters on 3-9-06 at 21:00 hrs EST/EDT. Bigfoot, aka, the yeti was featured. Is this useful ? Martial Law 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The Loch Ness Monster was also featured. Martial Law 02:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
On 3-10-06, the History Channel has aired at 18:00 hrs EDT/EST a series called Historiy's Mysteries:Bigfoot and Other Monsters Go to the
History Channel link for more information. This was part of a larger airing of the whole series History's Mysteries.
Martial Law
21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
A search on the History Channel website reveals that these shows referenced here are on DVD. Martial Law 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Can the info. presented on these channels be used ? Martial Law 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Yea, as long as you can cite the episode. -- DanielCD 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
See above for the History Channel. Martial Law 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The cited shows are on DVD. Martial Law 05:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC) :)
The Sci-Fi Channel has aired a movie called Sasquatch. The spoiler is that rescuers encounter the monster while searching for survivors of a plane crash. Can this be inserted in the Movies section ? It aired on 3-11-06 @ 11pm EST/EDT on the Sci-Fi Channel. Martial Law 00:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Where do I place this link ? This is the latest news concerning the monster. Martial Law 08:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Their govt. is to get a plaster cast of a Bigfoot print. Martial Law 08:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Where can this be placed, in the External Links section ? Martial Law 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Please sign your statements. Martial Law 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Could this be stated:"To report one, use the external links.", and where at ? The First Aid article has protocol that advises people how to treat injuries, gunshot wounds and the like. Martial Law 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)
I've heard that people who see these monsters are looking for a place to report these things without someone accusing them of lying or being crazy, a idiot or worse. Martial Law 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)
I am in a rural area in which people will shoot any and all intruders, including these things. This is how it goes down: 1. You smell it, hear it, even see it. 2. You draw your weapon and attempt to take it down, since you automatically believe it is a threat to YOU, only that ammo has no known effect on it (I have seen a report in which one was killed by hunters who thought it was a bear ). 3. It runs from you. 4. You report it, only to have Dispatch ridicule you, especially about your sanity, intelligence, and your sobriety. So, where do you report this thing without that kind of hassle ? Martial Law 00:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)
This is why I'm asking if the external links could be used to report these things, especially if a reader has seen one. Martial Law 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Might I diffidently suggest that some of you read this book and edit the section dealing with the Patterson film acordingly? Enjoy!
Long, Greg (2004). The making of Bigfoot: the inside story. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-591-02139-1.
As you all know, Roger Patterson died in 1972, but Long was able to track down his confederates and eventually obtained a complete confession. The monkey suit turns out to have been a hand modified version of a commmercially available gorilla suit. Long also obtained much information on the possible motivation of the "ringleader" of the hoax, Roger Patterson.--- CH 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is much too lengthy, fails to take proper account of the Long book (which I think any unbiased reader will regard as definitively debunking the Patterson hoax), and reports too credulously unverified claims, e.g. Krantz said he gave casts to 40 experts and they mostly said they thought gotta be real, but apparently we only have Krantz's word for this. --- CH 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is fine, but could be reduced if some material was moved to linked sub-articles. For example, the lengthy evidence-section might be moved to a new article linked from this article, and replaced with a concise section summarizing the evidence and criticism of it -- Danielos2 22:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC) .
Long deserves a mention, but his work is not the final word on the subject. See my comments at the Patterson-Gimlin film talk page. Zagalejo 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The organization is Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers which is set up by Wikipedians for Wikipedians who have had bizarre encounters with the paranormal, incl. Bigfoot. This is a invite to you all. Martial Law 08:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)
The organization is also open to those that investigate these matters. Martial Law 08:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)
Where can it be stated,"that when some people see this thing, they'll draw their weapon, say out of their truck and/or on their person, and shoot at it."? I am currently in a rural area and the people I'm close to will shoot at anything - or anyone. In the Fouke Incident, it is mentioned that people has shot at this thing and even set dogs on it. Martial Law 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :)
How can this be stated and where at ? - "If you believe that you have encountered one or more of these creatures, the external links may be used to report the encounter(s) with this thing. Be advised that some of these organizations that created the links presented here will send out investigators and investigate the incident in the SAME manner as that of a police investigation, only that no known crime has been committed."
The First Aid article advises people to do certain things, contrary to WP:Not states, such as handling burns, fractures and the like. Martial Law 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :)
User:Gabeshaughnessy added the following to the article -- "It is possible the bigfoot is not a physical being but rather a forest spirit, Banjankri, unavailable to the rational mind and only accessible through intuitive pursuit.". It lasted half an hour before being skittled. It was probably a windup by Gabeshaughnessy who hadn't made any previous edits. But boy oh boy, did it ever demonstrate one of the serious problems of Wikipedia. This article is stock full of absolute nonsense. But yet, when someone adds something similar it gets axed and the screed of existing nonsense remains. Move over Lucky69, and RickK and all the other seasoned editors who left Wikipedia in disgust, I'm getting closer to joining you every day. Moriori 08:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC).
As this talk page seems busy I thought I'd start the ball rolling on this over on the Yeti Talk page ( Emperor 13:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Who is "Lcoleman@maine.rr.com"?
Is the famous cryptozoologist himself here on Wikipedia? Anyway, this Wikipedians "contributions" so far seems to be shameless self-promotion, sensationalism and a greedy desire to sell books. Shouldn´t this guy be reported to the administrators of this site? He gives cryptozoology and Wikipedia a bad name, and is incredibly annoying! :(
-- Danielos2 13:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course it has that template because it is a mysterious creature. General Eisenhower • ( at war or at peace ☢✍☎☺) 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)