Talk:Bigfoot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:54, 17 November 2024

Bigfoot (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 April 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bigfoot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 3 months

Bigfoot is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 22, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Folklore High‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptozoology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paranormal High‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario / Manitoba / British Columbia / Saskatchewan / Alberta Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Saskatchewan.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Cascadia

This article is part of WikiProject Cascadia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Cascadia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CascadiaWikipedia:WikiProject CascadiaTemplate:WikiProject CascadiaCascadia

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primates Mid‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a video clip or video clips be included in this article to improve its quality.

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Stephen Harrison (February 13, 2023). "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot". Slate (magazine). Retrieved February 15, 2023. ...the Bigfoot article, which is sprinkled with descriptors like pseudoscience, hoax, folklore, and wishful thinking. But these words infuriate serious Bigfoot believers, who claim that Wikipedia should be softer and more neutral in its language.

Etymology of Sasquatch

This should probably be addressed in the article. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:7030:FD16:87D5:8432 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is: The name "Sasquatch" is the anglicized version of sasq'ets (sas-kets), roughly translating to "hairy man" in the Halq'emeylem language. --Belbury (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have source for that? If so we can slap that in the article and satisfy the IP users request. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it is addressed in the article. I'm quoting from the History section there. Belbury (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, so it is! I did not read the words "It is" in your reply and just saw green text. I've been skimming far to much text recently, and it shows. Thanks for your patience and time letting me know! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I ctrl-f'ed "etymology" but didn't find anything. Regards, 2804:14D:5C32:4673:5DBE:2F80:27B7:584 (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - It would nice to see a reference to the origin of the word Sasquatch. Here are two sources that trace the word origin to people of the Pacific Northwest.

https://languagehat.com/sasquatch/

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20220720-the-true-origin-of-sasquatch LilacGiraffe (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this for Featured/good Article status?

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

I've never initiated either process for any article, but I think I would support nominating this page. It has indeed made a lot of progress compared to where it was at previously. TNstingray (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ever initiated the process either, but am learning for a few other pages. We could start by putting the page on Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines to get some fresh eyes and suggestions on it. I currently have a page being reviewed, so I can't add another right now. If someone else wanted to add this there, mentioning that we want to get it to good or FA, we could get some momentum. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TNstingray (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could use some improvement before nominating. For example looking at the 2nd paragraph, it references 7-10 refer to scientists trying to disprove bigfoot. It would be good to include work of scientists Grover Krantz and Jeffrey Meldrum. Both earnestly studied the bigfoot phenomena. Especially since reference 8 mentions Krantz.

Perhaps remove the image of the black bear. :) LilacGiraffe (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible for science to "disprove" something. The null hypothesis is that bigfoot does not exist, to reject it we just need a living bigfoot, or a corpse. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states " Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." The article discussing Krantz is adequate for the lead, if you want to discuss his research agenda and the failure to produce evidence of bigfoot, that could be in the body. If a reference mentions Black bears are one of the many preposed explanations for the bigfoot sightings, a photo of one is appropriate. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these ethnic groups?

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

~~They are typically presented as proper nouns. TNstingray (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Actually I take that back, sourcing uses either the upper or lowercase. This should definitely be discussed, and the decision should be carried over to other pages like Yeti. TNstingray (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone making a survey of sources should distinguish contexts in which one of these terms serves as a name for what's being supposed to be a single anomaly, a unique creature like the Loch Ness monster, from contexts in which it's supposed that there are many of them, like leprechauns and elves. In other words, "A camper claims to have seen the Sasquatch last week" versus "A camper claims to have seen a sasquatch last week". Largoplazo (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It appears that there are contexts where Bigfoot singular is used as an individual cultural icon or advertising mascot. In the context of the wild, "Bigfoot" was the original proper name given to the singular culprit in the '50s, and this spelling seems to have carried over to interest in the alleged species. But we should go with the sources. Also, not that this is how we determine Wikipedia content, but the source editor underlines "bigfoot" and "sasquatch" in red indicating they are incorrect, haha. TNstingray (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redundant wording: Alleged by some

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

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

Yuck yes. Changed to "said". See what you think. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

changed to alleged. While "alleged by some" does seem redundant, "said" sounds more universal. Simply saying "alleged" seems to address the original concern and saying "said" goes beyond what @LilacGiraffe seems to have suggested. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's illiterate. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed the talk page when reverting GeogSage. "Said" is a more universal term and that seems like a good thing in this case, when the article is also covering tall tales and folklore. Belbury (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "mythical creature" covers folklore. People literally allege that it really exists as a flesh and blood animal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When people 'allege' they are making 'allegations'; it's the wrong word entirely as it has connotations of illegality, misconduct and/or accusation. Bon courage (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can also be read in a broader sense of a factual assertion made without evidence, but it does seem wrong to apply it to mythology. We would not say that "Christians allege that God created the world in seven days". Belbury (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, as MOS:ALLEGE says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". It's not as if Bigfoot has been accused of illegal camping or something. Bon courage (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Allege" is often used in legal contexts, but means "To assert without proof." Lawyers don't own the word. In the scholarly debate around bigfoot, people have asserted that it exists and have used fabricated evidence, which would be scientific misconduct. Bigfoot doesn't exist, and can't do anything, so the allegations are not against it. People allege that it exists based on dubious evidence (We previously worked to ensure "dubious" was cited). Two of the five definitions we use in the lead use the word "purported," one uses "supposedly," one uses "reported to exist," and another uses "believed by some people." "Alleged" is a synonym to "purported," which is likely where the word entered the lead. That said, a quick search on Google Scholar for "alleged" bigfoot returns several hits, including an article titlde "Is bigfoot dead?" from Skeptical Inquirer which uses the word "alleged" five times to describe the claims. Example:

"The most famous recording of an alleged Bigfoot was a 16mm film taken in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Shot in Bluff Creek, California, it allegedly shows a Bigfoot striding through a clearing."

Not sure what Wikipedia thinks of that source though, it's a Science magazine and not peer-reviewed. Would using "purported" in line with the two source definitions be more acceptable? We are implying that the view is inaccurate, in line with the scientific literature on the topic. In the case of bigfoot, the wording is to keep in line with Wikipedia:Fringe theories to avoid giving the fringe theory appearance of wide acceptance. While bigfoot is a mythological creature, the page also exists the very real set of pseudoscientists that assert it is a real animal. Based on sources, I think "said" is too neutral of a term. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tries not to have bad writing. You are now badly edit-warring, and have been warned. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not edit warring as I have only reverted twice in the past 24 hours by my count, the same number as you. Three times if you count my changing one word of your initial edit and bringing it to the talk page. As this page is currently being discussed on the talk page, the word "alleged" is the status quo and you are reverting to your preferred word use and then accusing me edit warring to shut down the discussion. You are "disregarding" repeatedly disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits on the talk page. More importantly, I've already asked you to be civil, but this is the second time you have used language I consider to be both belittling and rude. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dodging slightly one side of a 24hr boundary won't save you. There is no consensus for your bad wording. Maybe go to a noticeboard or start a RfC to seek a wider view, but I can tell you now it'd be a waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." I have only done three edits to this page, not more than three, since August 26th. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. 3 reversion is quick succession, for text which nobody agrees with you is apt. And on a WP:CTOP too. You have been warned, and further reversion will likely attract a sanction. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the article using "alleged" when referring to people making factual claims about sightings and research, certainly the word is used a lot throughout the article. But for the concise definition of the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, where Bigfoot is also the subject of indigenous folk tales and knowing jokes, "said" seems much more appropriate. Belbury (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is, as we say in sentence No 1, a "mythical creature". You can't make "allegations" applying to a mythical creature in any sense, even a strained one. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wording suggestions

The article reads "Enthusiasts of Bigfoot, such as those within the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, have offered various forms of dubious evidence to prove Bigfoot's existence, including anecdotal claims of sightings as well as alleged"

I suggest removing the word ‘dubious’ and changing it to “have offered unproven evidence…” or just to “have offered evidence…” as you go on to mention that the evidence is doubted and the word dubious is proceeded by pseudoscience.

Also change “anecdotal claims” to “claims”. Claims are unproven. Saying ‘Anecdotal claims’ seems repetitive.

My suggestions would read: "Enthusiasts of Bigfoot, such as those within the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, have offered various forms of evidence to prove Bigfoot's existence, including claims of sightings as well as alleged" LilacGiraffe (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]