![]() | 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. |
Bigfoot and Sasquatch are capitalized all throughout the Article. Would you capitalize Elephant or Dog? How about Trees and Rocks? I doubt It. Unless this Article is about one Sasquatch in specific named Sasquatch, It shouldn't be capitalized, because It's not a proper Noun. DallasOConner 16:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the Patterson-Gilmin film has been criticized for years, it should be treated with more realism. There is an inexplicable amount of evidence that supports the fact that the film isn't a hoax guys, lol.
Notable Morphological Features that cannot be denoted to a costume:
Flexation of the foot, which is difficult to attribute to "costumes" On MonsterQuest, they had found that around the frame in which the "figure" turns to the camera, the mouth opens. Clear flexation of the hand. Bodily Hair is not evenly distributed, which is uncommon in suits or costumes. Muscles in the leg are distinguished, are shown flexating Broad shoulders are present, if a costume was used, there would have to be an extension of the shoulderpads.
Other: The creature moves in a way that cannot possibly be human, as shown in multiple studies such as Monsterquest, the NASI report, etc.
If the framrate was 16 frames p.s., it would be impossible for a human to move in the way in which "Patty" moved =).
Over half the alledged "men in the suit" do not even know how to reach the bluff creak area, such as Bob H.
In 1990, a study of the bluff creek area that used tree height to determin the height of creature, showed that the figure was at least 7 feet tall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus96 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Whilst removing some vandalisation, I also deleted the unattributed made-up species name ""Simia Virbestia"". I've never heard it used before in cryptozoological circles, and the sole unique google hit I get is a lone mention in passing on a Bigfoot hunter site, with no attribution or background which would support its use here. DrJon ( talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently scientists are testing DNA of an alledged bigfoot cadaver from georgia. There's also photos of the bigfoot, but neither photos of it alive or its body have been published yet. There is a press conference for friday scheduled. (Georgia in USA, not Georgia the country.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.68.170 ( talk) 12:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the part about this in the beginning of the article. Currently, this belongs in Alleged sightings. It looks like the sighting for 2008 is the same as the material that I removed; however, there were some differences in what was written and I couldn't open one of the pages cited. Could someone please confirm that these are the same event and include the information I removed. — Fiziker t 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Everyone here has diluted the professionalism in this discussion. Again, lets reiterate, the discussion page of wikipedia articles and what to add, this is not to discuss if bigfoot is real OR not. This is not to mock skeptics or believers. This is just for facts. And facts only. And the pure fact is, all this speculation is ridiculous in this discussion, We will wait till friday with the press conference before we add ANY more info on the matter. Further more i propose we wait until independent labs solidify the validity of this claim. People will go to any lengths to get their 15 minutes of fame. So please, stop with the bantering, the speculating, and lets stick to the facts. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.68.170 ( talk) 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth it to redlink Tom Biscardi? Chadlupkes ( talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to put on a semi-protect. Bigfoot is getting a lot of press right now. fintler ( talk) 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've located a page with convincing evidence that the recent photo, from the July 2008 Rick Dyer claim, appears to be a hoax: Objective comparison between a theatrical "Sasquatch" costume, and the photo of the "corpse", reveals facial characteristics which appear substantially identical to each other. http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ga-gorilla-pic/ The article is locked, but I believe this is useful info which should be added to the July 2008 entry in the Alleged sightings section before the press conference. FireMouseHQ ( talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/14/bigfoot.body/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.20.55 ( talk) 00:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't it supposed to have started by now? searchingforbigfoot.com says FROM 12-1pm and its gone 12 now! Do they mean anytime FROM 12? Or are they just not gonna bother to show? At the moment they are talking about nothing, I would have thought they would have gone straight to this news...I know its almost certainly gonna be a hoax, but you know what IF it isn't? Even if that possibility is so remotely small it still exists! This waiting is driving me nuts! Christopedia ( talk) 07:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I got the times wrong. I feel so stupid...LOL I thought it was 12PM in the US when it was only 12AM. I forgot they are so far behind. Oh well it's a HOAX guys. There's nothing else it can be and these people are admitted hoaxers. Christopedia ( talk) 08:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have re-written a paragraph to remove direct copying of more than six words in a row, excluding quotes. Please check for any more incidences of plagarism. Also, please do not copy-paste online articles onto Wikipedia, but rather re-write it completely. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 15:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The infobox contains a field for when Bigfoot was supposedly last sighted. Recently the field was changed from just the year to a specific date. People claim to have seen Bigfoot all the time, so it is not practical to keep changing the date. How will we even know what was the last date? Is there some database where every new siting is added to? To include the date, would make it seem that we knew more than we did—specifically that we know when each new sighting happens. I propose that we keep the field to the year only. That way it does not need constant updating and we are sure (until the new year) that we have not missed a sighting. — Fiziker t 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing, as indicated in many reports, is extremely smelly. It smells like shit, rotten eggs, sewage, a corpse, rotten meat, carrion, worse. Why is this NOT mentioned at all ? 65.173.104.93 ( talk) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Preliminary reports say the thing found is a hoax. Tonight, on Coast To Coast AM, for the FIRST HOUR ONLY Loren Coleman will be on. Get a GOOD radio guys - only for those on the night shift, night owls. 65.173.104.93 ( talk) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Easy there with the promotion of Coast to Coast. Wikipedia is not a soap box. This is of some relevance to what is currently happening, but one post is enough. — Fiziker t 20:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article now says the DNA evidence "failed to prove its existence". Well, first of all, nobody ever said DNA analysis would prove anything as there's no Bigfoot DNA to compare it to. An inconclusive finding is the best we could expect to get from a real Bigfoot. So this is somewhat misleading. But the problem is, this Wikipedia conclusion cites a Reuters article. The Reuters article only claims two DNA tests: 1) Human 2) Possum. Other reliable sources are reporting three DNA tests. 1) Human 2) Possum 3) Inconclusive. Obviously the Reuters article (and any who syndicate Reuters) are ommitting the third DNA sample. I think this Reuters article is suspect. See this article for three DNA tests. Bigfoot Evidence-- Rrand ( talk) 00:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
...points to something unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 ( talk) 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
CNN just had a report on the thing, as of this timestamp, but they have no info as to what it is.
Loren Coleman will have a report on this matter tonight, but during the First Hour Only.
I know WP is no soapbox, just stating media sources only. 65.173.104.93 ( talk) 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that notice is mistaken. Chinhnt2k3 ( talk) 14:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Haha, this is an oddly humored joke in light of the recently found carcass of bigfoot. Though from the article I can't really tell if the world thinks there is only one or multiple bigfoots, so it might not even be a correct notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.123.162 ( talk) 14:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have listened to Coast To Coast, and the following is of interest. Also go to www.coasttocoast.am for more, go to RECAP:Friday as well.
There have been too many inconsistencies with the finders' stories as to how they found it. See Coast To Coast AM website. 65.173.104.93 ( talk) 17:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that might be worth adding is the link between the pictures and the costume. I saw an article on it before but I didn't think that it was worth it at the time. If you really think it's necessary at this point I'll try to find the article, which was from a more reliable source than the above link. — Fiziker t 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I edited the article and moved the Whitton and Dyer incident to Hoax, along with the information posted at Searchingforbigfoot.com. I cited it as well. I also added a link to the Youtube video of Fox 59's footage of the rubber costume in the freezer. I think I have it in pretty good shape. Please feel free to edit further if you see anything that could be improved. Artificial Silence ( talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got rid of the "some believe" and "sometimes described" and the "debate on whether it exists or not" from the lead section. And the creature's supposedly "uncertain" scientific status, too. Its status is not uncertain, it's at best dubious. The phrases I changed were classic violations of WP:UNDUE—"we should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view". Note that WP:UNDUE is official Wikipedia policy, and the wording of the intro needs to be sensitive to it. Please don't revert me unless you have a policy-compliant argument for it. These changes I've made are pretty conservative, actually. The fringe status of belief in Bigfoot should probably really be expressed a good deal more sharply. But it's a start. bishzilla ROARR!! 23:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC).
Despite recent improvements, this article still reads like it was written by Bigfoot proponents. People who believe Bigfoot is real are a tiny minority of anyone who could be experts on the animal type in question. Our WP:UNDUE weight section makes it clear that minority views should not be presented as if they were the major views, and here still much of this article is written like it presumes that Bigfoots are real. The Skeptics section shouldn't be a separate section, it should be worked into the whole article. Beyond just that, the vast majority of the Skeptics section isn't about Skeptics at all, it's believers in Bigfoot.
I've tried to do some fixes, but we still need a major overhaul. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to standardize some things on this page. These are all somewhat linked to each other. — Fiziker t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Bigfoot or bigfoot. See Grammar above.
The capitalization of bigfoot and sasquatch does not make any sense if we assume those terms refer to a species. If bigfoot was the name of an individual then it would be a proper noun, but it is not. We should not treat it as it is. — Fiziker t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The page often will switch between singular and plural. Sometimes it will say "bigfoot is" and then "they are". We should assume that we are talking about a species rather than a single creature. Therefore we should use the plural. Also, what the hell is the plural of bigfoot: bigfoots, bigfeet, or bigfoot (sic)? — Fiziker t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Sasquatch has been sometimes used in this article other in the actual text. We should stick with one and use it. I don't care which, bigfoot is used more often so it would make sense to use it, but sasquatch gets rid of the pluralization problems. — Fiziker t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Reference No. 47 named "coke machine glow" does not work, it is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneintraining ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent incident was just removed from the timeline with the rationale that it was a proven hoax... It sure looked hoaxy, but as yet I don't know of any proof. If it is a proven hoax, then, based upon world-wide publicity, I would suggest that instead of deleting it it should be moved to the hoax section earlier in the article (perhaps trimmed down a little). Removing the information entirely seems to serve no real purpose. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It currently is with Demonstrable hoaxes. I think Bigfoot#Alleged sightings should be trimmed down to just the most important cases as well as some recent ones people might be looking for. Then both sections should be merged into one. It does not make sense to have a separate section for hoaxes when there is almost always a contingent that disagrees on the veracity of a sighting (not just between proponents and skeptics but between pro-Bigfoot organizations). It is unreasonable to single out particular sightings. — Fiziker t c 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone properly space the Hoax incidents in the Bigfoot article? I'd do it, but the article is protected from idiots. 65.173.104.41 ( talk) 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a article about this hoaxer/huckster? 65.173.104.41 ( talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, come on. With all those alleged sightings of Bigfoot, all of them are hearsay, the pictures are quite fuzzy, and Bigfoot "corpses" have been ruled as hoaxes. Maybe it's time to write Bigfoot off as a fictional creature, like kappas and ogres and fairies and trolls. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we should classify the JFK Assassination as a Government Conspiracy because a majority of the public believes it to be so and that there is arguably evidence, despite not being official word? -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 08:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Why this cryptid is called "Bigfoot"? What is the etymology of the name? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
So I was reading the article and it says bigfoot is anywhere from 6-15 ft tall.
Most credible sites state that bigfoot could be anywhere between 6-10 feet tall, most likely in the 8 ft range. 15 feet is almost double that. What source is that from because it honestly doesn't line up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.10.247 ( talk) 22:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.10.247 ( talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There's been another alleged sighting in Canada, by two groups of independent witnesses. Will add brief details to page later if no one else does. Christopedia ( talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to get rid of all but the most prominent reports or Bigfoot in Bigfoot#Famous reported sightings. I removed ones that aren't (as far as I know) at the core of the Bigfoot canon. I did leave in the 2007 one for the time being because unlike the others there was a reference to someone other than Bigfoot researchers caring, but it probably shouldn't be in there. — Fiziker t c 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could start a new article "List of Bigfoot sightings" or whatever to include the more mundane/minor sightings that have been reported in the press. Christopedia ( talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
A map is important for this article. The main reason for DreamGuy's removal [1] is not correct. Showing where Bigfoot is reported to have been sighted does not give anything undue weight. Bigfoot originates in the Pacific Northwest, where many are still reported. But as the legend has spread throughout North America (sadly I couldn't find a map of both the US and Canada with states/provinces) sightings appear where ever there are forests and people that believe in Bigfoot. It is eccential to talking about Bigfoot to show how it has spread. More than any other image, a map of reported sightings demonstrates how it has spread.
I do however agree with DreamGuy's concern about an unreliable source. However, I know of nothing that would be a more reliable database for the locations of claimed sightings. I might not be willing to accept claims by Bigfoot advocates that some evidence for Bigfoot is real but I think the plausability of them distorting the numbers of reports of Bigfoot is low. They might have reason to increase the total number but except for regional groups, which I don't think BFRO is, I see no reason the relative numbers will be off.
I think that the caption or even the key on the map might use a change to make its meaning clearer, but the map itself should be kept—or replaced by an equivelent map that's better. — Fiziker t c 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Recently every single last external link was removed from the article with the claim that none of them meets WP:EL rules. As someone who frequently (check my edit history) removes sites as not meeting WP:EL rules, and who errs on the side of having fewer rather than more, I can't for the life of me figure out how any interepretation of the rules would justify removing all the links. The Skeptical Inquirer and Skepdic links, for example, are very highly respected sources with valuable encyclopedic information. We should also have at least a few links to pro-Bigfoot groups for those people interested in them (only the most well known and not geographically-dependent, however). The news article also clearly meets external links rules. I have added all links back. If you think some of them do not belong, please discuss them here first. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Even worse, is the following line in the article:
"The scientific community considers Bigfoot to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoaxes.[1] Despite its dubious status, Bigfoot is one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology and has become a popular symbol."
The scientific community never has one voice. The above sentence says so which is factually incorrect and is in direct contradiction to the citation of various scientific views lower down in the same article.
Not only that but such a sentence is a poor use of English since the Scientific Community is not one person and therefore can not have a single opinion.
Another inconsistency lies farther down in the article...
Sean7phil ( talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The scientific community cannot 'overwhelmingly' refute the existence of Bigfoot, while also 'mostly' ignoring the subject. The reality is one of disinterest, not adamant opposition to the existence of Bigfoot.
Sean7phil ( talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Another example: "Despite its dubious status" (referring to Bigfoot in the article opening) has no citation. It's also the use of a subjective opinion as a fact. This violates Wikipedia standards. It also reveals that the writer is trying to promote his own views rather than to studiously arrange cited facts.
Oh dear, this looks like another war between two groups with opposing views trying to make their point seem more truthful in the article. This could simply be viewed by changing the sentence in question to say
"A large majority, though not all, of the scientific community considers Bigfoot to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoaxes.[1] Despite its debated status, Bigfoot has become one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology and a popular symbol." ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC))
Thought I throw it here first. It appears to be either a British or Canadian news source. Powerzilla ( talk) 16:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I too wish to point out that the scientific community does not speak with one voice. The beginning of the second paragraph should be changed to read, "Many in the scientific community . . ." The fact is that several scientists trained in relevant fields are Bigfoot believers, e.g., Meldrum, Krantz, Napier, Sanderson and others.
The Patterson film has never been satisfactorily debunked. It is harder to believe that two amateur Bigfoot hunters staged what would have been a very expensive hoax in the wilderness, than it is to believe that an unknown, bipedal primate wanders that wilderness. The objective analysis of the film by trained scientists has always pointed towards authenticity (this is NOT to state that the film has been shown definitively to be legitimate).
The minor question of whether Bigfoot and Sasquatch should be capitalized has, I think, been decided in favor of capitalization. The overwhelming majority of the literature has always favored capitalization.
Jonvt ( talk) 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is there not a section suggesting that some Bigfoot sightings are misidentifications of actual people in low light conditions? Occam's razor please? Annoyed with fanboys ( talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I find the suggestion that research is required to suggest that a bigfoot resembles a human to be laughable. That would be like finding research to suggest that Elmer's glue resembles milk or that the moon resembles a giant tennis ball. There are some matters that are simply a matter of common sense. The fact that a mythical creature that resembles a large man could cause people to mistake a large man in the dark for said mythical creature would not seem to be something very "researchable". It sounds a lot to me like this person is implying that in order to suggest that a magical fairy could be a misidentified large bird, you would first have to catch a magical fairy in order to use a scientific analysis to compare the two. If I'm wrong, please someone offer some guidance. Annoyed with fanboys ( talk) 03:52, 15 December 2008 (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 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. |
Bigfoot and Sasquatch are capitalized all throughout the Article. Would you capitalize Elephant or Dog? How about Trees and Rocks? I doubt It. Unless this Article is about one Sasquatch in specific named Sasquatch, It shouldn't be capitalized, because It's not a proper Noun. DallasOConner 16:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the Patterson-Gilmin film has been criticized for years, it should be treated with more realism. There is an inexplicable amount of evidence that supports the fact that the film isn't a hoax guys, lol.
Notable Morphological Features that cannot be denoted to a costume:
Flexation of the foot, which is difficult to attribute to "costumes" On MonsterQuest, they had found that around the frame in which the "figure" turns to the camera, the mouth opens. Clear flexation of the hand. Bodily Hair is not evenly distributed, which is uncommon in suits or costumes. Muscles in the leg are distinguished, are shown flexating Broad shoulders are present, if a costume was used, there would have to be an extension of the shoulderpads.
Other: The creature moves in a way that cannot possibly be human, as shown in multiple studies such as Monsterquest, the NASI report, etc.
If the framrate was 16 frames p.s., it would be impossible for a human to move in the way in which "Patty" moved =).
Over half the alledged "men in the suit" do not even know how to reach the bluff creak area, such as Bob H.
In 1990, a study of the bluff creek area that used tree height to determin the height of creature, showed that the figure was at least 7 feet tall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus96 ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Whilst removing some vandalisation, I also deleted the unattributed made-up species name ""Simia Virbestia"". I've never heard it used before in cryptozoological circles, and the sole unique google hit I get is a lone mention in passing on a Bigfoot hunter site, with no attribution or background which would support its use here. DrJon ( talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently scientists are testing DNA of an alledged bigfoot cadaver from georgia. There's also photos of the bigfoot, but neither photos of it alive or its body have been published yet. There is a press conference for friday scheduled. (Georgia in USA, not Georgia the country.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.68.170 ( talk) 12:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the part about this in the beginning of the article. Currently, this belongs in Alleged sightings. It looks like the sighting for 2008 is the same as the material that I removed; however, there were some differences in what was written and I couldn't open one of the pages cited. Could someone please confirm that these are the same event and include the information I removed. — Fiziker t 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Everyone here has diluted the professionalism in this discussion. Again, lets reiterate, the discussion page of wikipedia articles and what to add, this is not to discuss if bigfoot is real OR not. This is not to mock skeptics or believers. This is just for facts. And facts only. And the pure fact is, all this speculation is ridiculous in this discussion, We will wait till friday with the press conference before we add ANY more info on the matter. Further more i propose we wait until independent labs solidify the validity of this claim. People will go to any lengths to get their 15 minutes of fame. So please, stop with the bantering, the speculating, and lets stick to the facts. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.68.170 ( talk) 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth it to redlink Tom Biscardi? Chadlupkes ( talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to put on a semi-protect. Bigfoot is getting a lot of press right now. fintler ( talk) 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've located a page with convincing evidence that the recent photo, from the July 2008 Rick Dyer claim, appears to be a hoax: Objective comparison between a theatrical "Sasquatch" costume, and the photo of the "corpse", reveals facial characteristics which appear substantially identical to each other. http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ga-gorilla-pic/ The article is locked, but I believe this is useful info which should be added to the July 2008 entry in the Alleged sightings section before the press conference. FireMouseHQ ( talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/14/bigfoot.body/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.20.55 ( talk) 00:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't it supposed to have started by now? searchingforbigfoot.com says FROM 12-1pm and its gone 12 now! Do they mean anytime FROM 12? Or are they just not gonna bother to show? At the moment they are talking about nothing, I would have thought they would have gone straight to this news...I know its almost certainly gonna be a hoax, but you know what IF it isn't? Even if that possibility is so remotely small it still exists! This waiting is driving me nuts! Christopedia ( talk) 07:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I got the times wrong. I feel so stupid...LOL I thought it was 12PM in the US when it was only 12AM. I forgot they are so far behind. Oh well it's a HOAX guys. There's nothing else it can be and these people are admitted hoaxers. Christopedia ( talk) 08:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have re-written a paragraph to remove direct copying of more than six words in a row, excluding quotes. Please check for any more incidences of plagarism. Also, please do not copy-paste online articles onto Wikipedia, but rather re-write it completely. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 15:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The infobox contains a field for when Bigfoot was supposedly last sighted. Recently the field was changed from just the year to a specific date. People claim to have seen Bigfoot all the time, so it is not practical to keep changing the date. How will we even know what was the last date? Is there some database where every new siting is added to? To include the date, would make it seem that we knew more than we did—specifically that we know when each new sighting happens. I propose that we keep the field to the year only. That way it does not need constant updating and we are sure (until the new year) that we have not missed a sighting. — Fiziker t 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing, as indicated in many reports, is extremely smelly. It smells like shit, rotten eggs, sewage, a corpse, rotten meat, carrion, worse. Why is this NOT mentioned at all ? 65.173.104.93 ( talk) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Preliminary reports say the thing found is a hoax. Tonight, on Coast To Coast AM, for the FIRST HOUR ONLY Loren Coleman will be on. Get a GOOD radio guys - only for those on the night shift, night owls. 65.173.104.93 ( talk) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Easy there with the promotion of Coast to Coast. Wikipedia is not a soap box. This is of some relevance to what is currently happening, but one post is enough. — Fiziker t 20:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article now says the DNA evidence "failed to prove its existence". Well, first of all, nobody ever said DNA analysis would prove anything as there's no Bigfoot DNA to compare it to. An inconclusive finding is the best we could expect to get from a real Bigfoot. So this is somewhat misleading. But the problem is, this Wikipedia conclusion cites a Reuters article. The Reuters article only claims two DNA tests: 1) Human 2) Possum. Other reliable sources are reporting three DNA tests. 1) Human 2) Possum 3) Inconclusive. Obviously the Reuters article (and any who syndicate Reuters) are ommitting the third DNA sample. I think this Reuters article is suspect. See this article for three DNA tests. Bigfoot Evidence-- Rrand ( talk) 00:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
...points to something unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 ( talk) 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
CNN just had a report on the thing, as of this timestamp, but they have no info as to what it is.
Loren Coleman will have a report on this matter tonight, but during the First Hour Only.
I know WP is no soapbox, just stating media sources only. 65.173.104.93 ( talk) 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that notice is mistaken. Chinhnt2k3 ( talk) 14:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Haha, this is an oddly humored joke in light of the recently found carcass of bigfoot. Though from the article I can't really tell if the world thinks there is only one or multiple bigfoots, so it might not even be a correct notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.123.162 ( talk) 14:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have listened to Coast To Coast, and the following is of interest. Also go to www.coasttocoast.am for more, go to RECAP:Friday as well.
There have been too many inconsistencies with the finders' stories as to how they found it. See Coast To Coast AM website. 65.173.104.93 ( talk) 17:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that might be worth adding is the link between the pictures and the costume. I saw an article on it before but I didn't think that it was worth it at the time. If you really think it's necessary at this point I'll try to find the article, which was from a more reliable source than the above link. — Fiziker t 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I edited the article and moved the Whitton and Dyer incident to Hoax, along with the information posted at Searchingforbigfoot.com. I cited it as well. I also added a link to the Youtube video of Fox 59's footage of the rubber costume in the freezer. I think I have it in pretty good shape. Please feel free to edit further if you see anything that could be improved. Artificial Silence ( talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got rid of the "some believe" and "sometimes described" and the "debate on whether it exists or not" from the lead section. And the creature's supposedly "uncertain" scientific status, too. Its status is not uncertain, it's at best dubious. The phrases I changed were classic violations of WP:UNDUE—"we should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view". Note that WP:UNDUE is official Wikipedia policy, and the wording of the intro needs to be sensitive to it. Please don't revert me unless you have a policy-compliant argument for it. These changes I've made are pretty conservative, actually. The fringe status of belief in Bigfoot should probably really be expressed a good deal more sharply. But it's a start. bishzilla ROARR!! 23:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC).
Despite recent improvements, this article still reads like it was written by Bigfoot proponents. People who believe Bigfoot is real are a tiny minority of anyone who could be experts on the animal type in question. Our WP:UNDUE weight section makes it clear that minority views should not be presented as if they were the major views, and here still much of this article is written like it presumes that Bigfoots are real. The Skeptics section shouldn't be a separate section, it should be worked into the whole article. Beyond just that, the vast majority of the Skeptics section isn't about Skeptics at all, it's believers in Bigfoot.
I've tried to do some fixes, but we still need a major overhaul. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to standardize some things on this page. These are all somewhat linked to each other. — Fiziker t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Bigfoot or bigfoot. See Grammar above.
The capitalization of bigfoot and sasquatch does not make any sense if we assume those terms refer to a species. If bigfoot was the name of an individual then it would be a proper noun, but it is not. We should not treat it as it is. — Fiziker t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The page often will switch between singular and plural. Sometimes it will say "bigfoot is" and then "they are". We should assume that we are talking about a species rather than a single creature. Therefore we should use the plural. Also, what the hell is the plural of bigfoot: bigfoots, bigfeet, or bigfoot (sic)? — Fiziker t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Sasquatch has been sometimes used in this article other in the actual text. We should stick with one and use it. I don't care which, bigfoot is used more often so it would make sense to use it, but sasquatch gets rid of the pluralization problems. — Fiziker t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Reference No. 47 named "coke machine glow" does not work, it is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneintraining ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent incident was just removed from the timeline with the rationale that it was a proven hoax... It sure looked hoaxy, but as yet I don't know of any proof. If it is a proven hoax, then, based upon world-wide publicity, I would suggest that instead of deleting it it should be moved to the hoax section earlier in the article (perhaps trimmed down a little). Removing the information entirely seems to serve no real purpose. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It currently is with Demonstrable hoaxes. I think Bigfoot#Alleged sightings should be trimmed down to just the most important cases as well as some recent ones people might be looking for. Then both sections should be merged into one. It does not make sense to have a separate section for hoaxes when there is almost always a contingent that disagrees on the veracity of a sighting (not just between proponents and skeptics but between pro-Bigfoot organizations). It is unreasonable to single out particular sightings. — Fiziker t c 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone properly space the Hoax incidents in the Bigfoot article? I'd do it, but the article is protected from idiots. 65.173.104.41 ( talk) 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a article about this hoaxer/huckster? 65.173.104.41 ( talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, come on. With all those alleged sightings of Bigfoot, all of them are hearsay, the pictures are quite fuzzy, and Bigfoot "corpses" have been ruled as hoaxes. Maybe it's time to write Bigfoot off as a fictional creature, like kappas and ogres and fairies and trolls. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we should classify the JFK Assassination as a Government Conspiracy because a majority of the public believes it to be so and that there is arguably evidence, despite not being official word? -- JohnVMaster ( talk) 08:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Why this cryptid is called "Bigfoot"? What is the etymology of the name? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
So I was reading the article and it says bigfoot is anywhere from 6-15 ft tall.
Most credible sites state that bigfoot could be anywhere between 6-10 feet tall, most likely in the 8 ft range. 15 feet is almost double that. What source is that from because it honestly doesn't line up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.10.247 ( talk) 22:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.10.247 ( talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There's been another alleged sighting in Canada, by two groups of independent witnesses. Will add brief details to page later if no one else does. Christopedia ( talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to get rid of all but the most prominent reports or Bigfoot in Bigfoot#Famous reported sightings. I removed ones that aren't (as far as I know) at the core of the Bigfoot canon. I did leave in the 2007 one for the time being because unlike the others there was a reference to someone other than Bigfoot researchers caring, but it probably shouldn't be in there. — Fiziker t c 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could start a new article "List of Bigfoot sightings" or whatever to include the more mundane/minor sightings that have been reported in the press. Christopedia ( talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
A map is important for this article. The main reason for DreamGuy's removal [1] is not correct. Showing where Bigfoot is reported to have been sighted does not give anything undue weight. Bigfoot originates in the Pacific Northwest, where many are still reported. But as the legend has spread throughout North America (sadly I couldn't find a map of both the US and Canada with states/provinces) sightings appear where ever there are forests and people that believe in Bigfoot. It is eccential to talking about Bigfoot to show how it has spread. More than any other image, a map of reported sightings demonstrates how it has spread.
I do however agree with DreamGuy's concern about an unreliable source. However, I know of nothing that would be a more reliable database for the locations of claimed sightings. I might not be willing to accept claims by Bigfoot advocates that some evidence for Bigfoot is real but I think the plausability of them distorting the numbers of reports of Bigfoot is low. They might have reason to increase the total number but except for regional groups, which I don't think BFRO is, I see no reason the relative numbers will be off.
I think that the caption or even the key on the map might use a change to make its meaning clearer, but the map itself should be kept—or replaced by an equivelent map that's better. — Fiziker t c 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Recently every single last external link was removed from the article with the claim that none of them meets WP:EL rules. As someone who frequently (check my edit history) removes sites as not meeting WP:EL rules, and who errs on the side of having fewer rather than more, I can't for the life of me figure out how any interepretation of the rules would justify removing all the links. The Skeptical Inquirer and Skepdic links, for example, are very highly respected sources with valuable encyclopedic information. We should also have at least a few links to pro-Bigfoot groups for those people interested in them (only the most well known and not geographically-dependent, however). The news article also clearly meets external links rules. I have added all links back. If you think some of them do not belong, please discuss them here first. DreamGuy ( talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Even worse, is the following line in the article:
"The scientific community considers Bigfoot to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoaxes.[1] Despite its dubious status, Bigfoot is one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology and has become a popular symbol."
The scientific community never has one voice. The above sentence says so which is factually incorrect and is in direct contradiction to the citation of various scientific views lower down in the same article.
Not only that but such a sentence is a poor use of English since the Scientific Community is not one person and therefore can not have a single opinion.
Another inconsistency lies farther down in the article...
Sean7phil ( talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The scientific community cannot 'overwhelmingly' refute the existence of Bigfoot, while also 'mostly' ignoring the subject. The reality is one of disinterest, not adamant opposition to the existence of Bigfoot.
Sean7phil ( talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Another example: "Despite its dubious status" (referring to Bigfoot in the article opening) has no citation. It's also the use of a subjective opinion as a fact. This violates Wikipedia standards. It also reveals that the writer is trying to promote his own views rather than to studiously arrange cited facts.
Oh dear, this looks like another war between two groups with opposing views trying to make their point seem more truthful in the article. This could simply be viewed by changing the sentence in question to say
"A large majority, though not all, of the scientific community considers Bigfoot to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoaxes.[1] Despite its debated status, Bigfoot has become one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology and a popular symbol." ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC))
Thought I throw it here first. It appears to be either a British or Canadian news source. Powerzilla ( talk) 16:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I too wish to point out that the scientific community does not speak with one voice. The beginning of the second paragraph should be changed to read, "Many in the scientific community . . ." The fact is that several scientists trained in relevant fields are Bigfoot believers, e.g., Meldrum, Krantz, Napier, Sanderson and others.
The Patterson film has never been satisfactorily debunked. It is harder to believe that two amateur Bigfoot hunters staged what would have been a very expensive hoax in the wilderness, than it is to believe that an unknown, bipedal primate wanders that wilderness. The objective analysis of the film by trained scientists has always pointed towards authenticity (this is NOT to state that the film has been shown definitively to be legitimate).
The minor question of whether Bigfoot and Sasquatch should be capitalized has, I think, been decided in favor of capitalization. The overwhelming majority of the literature has always favored capitalization.
Jonvt ( talk) 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is there not a section suggesting that some Bigfoot sightings are misidentifications of actual people in low light conditions? Occam's razor please? Annoyed with fanboys ( talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I find the suggestion that research is required to suggest that a bigfoot resembles a human to be laughable. That would be like finding research to suggest that Elmer's glue resembles milk or that the moon resembles a giant tennis ball. There are some matters that are simply a matter of common sense. The fact that a mythical creature that resembles a large man could cause people to mistake a large man in the dark for said mythical creature would not seem to be something very "researchable". It sounds a lot to me like this person is implying that in order to suggest that a magical fairy could be a misidentified large bird, you would first have to catch a magical fairy in order to use a scientific analysis to compare the two. If I'm wrong, please someone offer some guidance. Annoyed with fanboys ( talk) 03:52, 15 December 2008 (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. |