Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 11

Image

I was looking for a place to put this orphaned image before it was deleted when I found this article referring to it. Is everyone OK with it?--ChubsterII (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The administrations result was to keep it here if not then take it back to FFD. Deletion was already stopped twice there by the administration.--ChubsterII (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you clearly do not understand how Wikipedia works. A single admin there decided not to delete the image completely from Wikipedia. That in no way means that the photo has to be here. Admins do not get to overrule other editors when it comes to article content. You are either extremely ignorant about our processes or purposefully trying to mislead people about what was said in order to wikilawyer your way into getting what you want. It won't work. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the television news interview presented on the image’s citation page and elsewhere there’s some strong public disagreements with it being a bear. I found a small scientific consensus among the only investigating scientists: Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Vanessa Woods and biologist Lynn Rogers that it is possible that it might not be a bear due to the extreme limb to torso proportions. I was only able to find one opposing biologist that works for the Pennsylvania Game Commission. I also found it was listed in Field and Stream (major nature magazine) September, 2008 as the third most famous Sasquatch sighting to date. It was recently removed from the game camera article by the majority of opposing editors and seems now the only editor in disagreement in this article is DreamGuy. Has the consensus here changed? I have no don’t doubt the image exhibits an excellent example of a well publicized, visibly understandable misidentification.

--Windowasher 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windowasher (talk • contribs)

Whether you believe or disbelieve, the article needs to adress the problem of misidentification. The Pennsylvania foto has received mainstream media coverage, and so is an excellent illustration of the problem of misidentifying bears as bigfeet. The text, apart from some needed tweaks to the wording, belongs in the article. Because the text centers on the disputed foto, the foto belongs as well. However, I would change the caption to read something like: "Purported Pennsylvania bigfoot, 2007." Plazak (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not really clear what is being discussed here. The picture seems relevant to the topic and relevant and a notable example of the discussion on misidentification. It's a great addition to the page. I don't think the discussion about how this photo was treated elsewhere is in any way relevant. I don't think the name calling going on above is in any way helpful either. If there is some other side issue going on about this photo, please take that discussion elsewhere. Mckennagene (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The photo was a copyright violation with no valid reasons for using it, so it has been removed again. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaced photo since only one editor wants it removed. It's not in violation and administrators approved its use.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodall does NOT believe in Bigfoot

In the section "View Among the Scientific Community," the article rightly states that Jane Goodall "hopes" that there is such a creature, but admits that there is no scientific evidence for its existence. The very next sentence states that "Anthropologist Carlton S. Coon...also expressed support for Bigfoot's existence." This is disingenuous in that Goodall did NOT "express support" for its existence, so it should not say ALSO. Goodall only stated that it would be great if the creature DID exist. Since the article is locked, I guess this (possibly purposeful) error will remain to lie to people for years to come. The truth is, the scientific community is pretty much unanimous in their NON-acceptance of such a creature as Bigfoot, and for many reasons (no physical evidence, no credible eyewitness reports, varied descriptions, the inability of such a large creature to sustain itself on available food sources, etc., etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.229.138 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Locked only for users that can't be trusted to edit so change it. Don't be afraid to edit, improve it for the better!--ChubsterII (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a small edit that I believe deals with this problem. Thanks for pointing it out. ClovisPt (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that did the trick.--ChubsterII (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

She does say on video tape that she does believe that it exists.

See tape on BFRO website.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

She says she is "absolutely sure Bigfoot exists" thank you for the recorded statement link and clearing up the discrepancy.--ChubsterII (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodall Misquoted by Editors of This Article: ADMINS PLEASE REVIEW THIS ISSUE

I've listened to the audio recording of the Goodall interview several times and Goodall says (and I quote her exactly) that she "IS SURE THAT THEY EXIST". Instead the editors of this article are quoting her completely out of context.

This article is being 'camped out on'. There is no fair debate here. Just aggressive reverts and domination by aggressive control tactics.

The article is not even written to Wikipedia standards.

The word "supposedly" is not considered acceptable in the opening paragraph in ANY Wikipedia article for any reason. It's an extremely biased word.

The word "allegedly" is far better, and shows neutrality. The fact that aggressive reverts have stopped the deletion of the word "supposedly" from this article for over a year now shows that this article is grossly biased and is besieged (stalked and camped out on) by those who don't understand the difference between fair and balanced debate and aggressive social manipulation.

Aggressively reverting edits to "win" a power struggle has NOTHING to do with fair debate, balanced discussion, or the truth. And it reflects very poorly on the article, which as written, is no more than a poorly articulated opinion piece.

69.171.160.147 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That spoken interview also includes the quote "maybe they don't exist, but I want them to" - it seems equally out of context to just quote "I'm sure that they exist". And I'm not sure I see why "allegedly" is any more neutral than "supposedly", in the lead sentence. Either way, such words aren't entirely forbidden.

Please remember to assume good faith before accusing other editors of "stalking" and "aggressive social manipulation". Most people are just here to write an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Meganthropus

Michael Rugg has presented a theory and video suggesting that bigfoots might be related to the animals that produced the Meganthropus fossils. In the same videos, he discusses why Gigantopithecus is not likely related. The videos are interesting in that Rugg presents a molar that was found in 2004, which compares very favorably to the Meganthropus fossils. Rugg notes the worn occlusal enamel, but fails to identify the significance; this is a trait only found in humans and their very close relatives (i.e. neanderthals and homo erectus), and is indicative of a substantial amount of ingested grit.

The presentation is rather recent, and there has not been any substantive review of the theory or the tooth. The Meganthropus fossils are not widely recognized as belonging to a unique species, but rather are believed to be from abnormal individuals of otherwise known extinct species (i.e. pananthropus and homo erectus). Owing to these two facts, I have inserted content about Rugg's comparison and theory under the general "Extinct Hominidae" heading. Magic pumpkin (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Minnesota

I remember reading on Yahoo! News a new sighting of 'Bigfoot' in Minnesota (I'm pretty sure). It was a hunter, like the mange-bear one, with motion-detector hunting cameras, only the pic he caught showed something that looked like it was actually walking. Does anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? If so, if it hasn't already been thoroughly disproven, I'd like to see a mention of it.Masternachos (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

MonsterQuest On the show monsterquest the found a hair. After removing the traces of galvinized iron from the hair, the scientists found it to be primate, but no know primate. Clearly this is evidence in bigfoot or either a bigfoot like creature.

Scientific community section (Admins Please Review and Note "Jane Goodall" Comment at Bottom)

This section presently has major POV issues, and I have tagged it as such. Despite the fact that that mainstream scientific view is that megafauna cryptids such as bigfoot probably do not exist, the majority of this section covers a small fraction of sympathetic fringe perspectives that are sympathetic to the possibility of its existence. The section gives entirely undue weight to these fringe perspectives. Whats worse, some of these perspectives are referenced from cryptozoological and fringe sources! There is no way that fringe sources are reliable sources for documenting the view of the mainstream scientific community. Finally, the fact that the mainstream scientific view is presently relegated to a separate section at the bottom of the page is not idea. The mainstream view should be clear from the beginning and should be incorporated wherever possible throughout the article to lend balance and perspective to fringe claims. I will try to work on this over time, but it may be a big project, so help would be appreciated. Locke9k (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course the problem here is that there isn't much to say on the scientific consensus. The view of the vast majority of scientists can be summed up simply and in a few sentences while the few scientists who do think Bigfoot is real have idiosyncrasies. Therefore the problem with undue weight is inherent in the section as is. One way that this can be addressed is including the arguments that scientists make against Bigfoot but I have found finding those sources hard to come by due to scientists prefering to talk about real science rather than refute pseudoscience. —Fiziker ^t c 17:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The other way is to remove content that gives fringe views undue weight, even if it is verifiable. Locke9k (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While some might be removed, it is valid to mention that some cases of scientists getting an interest in Bigfoot. For example, what Goodall said is pretty much just rampant speculation—it doesn't really matter to the issue of Bigfoot either way. However, there have been people like Meldrum who are scientists when it comes to other topics and have tried, at least nominally, to bring scientific rigor to their interest in Bigfoot (of course the success of this should be accurately represented). This is a good topic to mention as it has relevance to the issue of Bigfoot. The thing that stand out in my mind is that including such information would also be helpful for people looking for material relating to the demarkation problem. —Fiziker ^t c 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suport removing Goodall, as that clearly is just there as the result of a desperate grab to try to find someone who sounds reliable to say something positive, even if it's not all the relevant. DreamGuy (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you in general, but note that it was a hell of a lot worse for many, many, many years. Some work still needs to be done, sure, but if you'd seen it the way it was before... DreamGuy (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In general the entire article is written from unproven assertions. Back in 2005 this article was a mess but I think it’s on its way to a fairly decent one. If we are to remain as well respected editors it’s important that we must show all the various viewpoints. We need to make sure they are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular or scientific views. Regardless of what we believe we can’t forget that with folklore stories it’s extremely important to let the facts speak for themselves.--Simpsoncan (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You have said things to the effect of all viewpoints must be present "not just the most popular or scientific views" multiple times. Please note that there is a difference between a polular view and scientific consensus. That difference is the reason why WP:PSCI exists. It is why we can—and should—state what the fringe views are, but we should make it clear that it is opposed to the science. —Fiziker ^t c 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE for why we don't "show all the various viewpoints" and specifically why we don't give minority views as much weight as "the most popular or scientific views". DreamGuy (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it necessary to point out that this article still lacks proper neutrality WP:NPOV, and is rife with opinion as to bigfoot's existence as a creature or myth. In particular, the article is heavily and unreasonably slanted toward bigfoot being a myth, and contains an incorrect claim as to scientific consensus. If you fully read the WikiMedia requirements concerning WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, the weighting to determine WP:UNDUE must be based on reliable literature; reliable meaning that it has come from someone who has studied the subject. For example, a scientist who actually sequenced a DNA sample from a suspected bigfoot and determined it to be from an unknown species of great ape is considerably more reliable than a person writing his point of view in the Skeptical Enquirer, and should have substantially more weight than the layman (including scientists who have not done their own research, or even review). As another example, citing a State of Washington DNR bureaucrat, who claims that bigfoot could not exist because the environment could not support it, when that environment obviously supports brown bears, black bears, and nomadic humans, is not proof that bigfoot is a myth, but is proof that said official does not know what he is talking about. The editors are confusing popular belief among scientists and writers with actual scientific evaluation, which I am sad to say is not isolated to this article (see Global Warming). The sword of peer review cuts both ways. It cannot be used to discount a writer's opinion that bigfoot is real, but be ignored to promote another writer's opinion that it is merely myth. In my own research, I have found that the vast majority of scientific evaluations (actual scientific evaluations performed in the 1970's and 1990's) have concluded that the evidence for bigfoot is too scant to declare the creature exists, but too plentiful to dismiss its existence. This can hardly mean that the scientific community has determined it to be nothing but myth, when the scientists who have actually studied it proclaim they cannot call it such. If we were to apply the available scientific literature to the question of WP:UNDUE, then we must conclude that bigfoot's existence as a living creature is a definite maybe. Any discussion of scientific evidence should therefore include both sides equally. Magic pumpkin (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have done some major cleanup on this section. I haven't removed any references or general facts, but I have cut out a lot of the excessive detail in order to keep the same information while reducing the undue weight issue of giving too much space to a fringe view. I'll probably work on it some more later, but hopefully this is a start. Locke9k (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Locke9k has done some major cleanup on this section cutting a lot of excessive detail reducing the undue weight issue. What other suggestions are there for future editing in this section?--Timpicerilo (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this material is covered in short in the introduction and since the later section went into excessive detail (and rather poor writing) I removed it. It did not ad anything to the article but promote a certain agenda that took all neutrality out of the issue. This isn't the Skeptical Inquirer article on Bigfoot, it is the Wikipedia article. Gingermint (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just in plain words: a crappy, one-sided definition. Daegling holds no position to be labeled as the "Scientific community". All of you are taking your personal stance on this issue and dumping into this wiki page. Shame on you hypocrites. The first paragraph.. neigh the FIRST SENTENCE needs a re-do and contain neutrality as it DOES NOT contain such. Rokclimber17 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Change it, don't be afraid to edit improve it for the better. Don't worry if the consensus doesn't like it because it can be changed again. This is the way Wikipedia is designed to work.--ChubsterII (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Jane Goodall is not a 'fringe scientist', but is rather an internationally recognized primatologist who has been recognized for major contributions to the field. Goodall has publicly stated that she believes that Bigfoot does exist. Sean7phil (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus shows we still have some undue weight issues WP:UNDUE.--Timpicerilo (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus that Bigfoot does not exist! That is ridiculous. There are many scientists who believe it is possible that he exists, and some who believe it is very likely or even certain that such a creature exists. The majority viewpoint should be identified as such, but the minority viewpoint should not be belittled.

The minority viewpoint is popular enough that it needs to be given very significant space in the article.

It should be quite obvious that in an article about an animal which may or may not exist, the argument that the animal exists should in no way be given short shrift! Viva la Bigfoot, or at least a properly made wikipedia article about the potential that it does. Jane Goodall's opinion, for one thing, should obviously be included. The fact that she is in the minority means that including her is "reaching"?!? What? That's idiotic. So, a minority position can never be presented along with expert opinion, since that's "reaching"?

Include Goodall and anyone else of similar stature and/or qualifications who argues that Bigfoot does or does not exist.

--64.174.68.114 (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am with you that picture of big foot looks like a gorila walking on two legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.42.76 (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No article on Bigfoot is complete without mentioning the opinions of scientists Grover Krantz and Jeffery Meldrum. They have dedicated part of their lives to study it and had a great impact on the way we look at the evidence.--Timpicerilo (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statement

The wording of the opening statement is still sub-optimal. It is somewhat misleading, using fallacious terms such as "scientific community" (a fictitious entity) and "scientific consensus" (an oxymoron often employed as a formal fallacy), and is even contradicted by properly supported statements made later in the article. Several of the sources cited (including Daegling's book) do not actually support the preceding statements, or are themselves of questionable validity. For example, one source, used to support the postulate that there would be an insufficient breeding population, appears to be a blog. In an objective article, logical fallacies should be avoided, as well as our own postulates and conclusions (WP:OR). To this end, I have removed the fallacious terms, the blog as a source, and tried to sum Bigfoot as factually, and concisely as possible. Magic pumpkin (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do realize that there are some editors who are very passionate about portraying bigfoot as nothing more than a myth, and are willing to resort to fallacies in order to do it, but please consider this. The Scientific Bigfoot Research Community would obviously be at odds with having an editor claim that they claim that their research topic doesn't exist, while the Scientific Native American Mythology Research Community may be perfectly fine with calling bigfoot a myth. The Scientific Zoology Community would probably prefer we don't put words into their mouths, as they have never actually had an opportunity to study a bigfoot, so as to make conclusions pertaining to its diet, habitat, social structure, and reproduction. Then again, maybe some zoologist has, but has not yet put the evidence up for a community vote, not that there is a vote. Magic pumpkin (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to bring your arguments to the talk pages of Scientific consensus and Scientific community. ClovisPt (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if the Scientific Community and Scientific Consensus articles were properly written, but they are jokes, on par with articles found in publications such as The Onion. The articles were created by, and are still fervently maintained by people who wish to use the Appeal to Authority as an argument in other articles, which are rife with WP:OR, just look at the low quality and origins of the sources cited in those two "community" articles. There is more proof that bigfoot or UFOs exist than the Scientific Community exists. As has already been stated, I am the President of the World Scientific Community. I set criteria for membership, and conditions for when the views of the Scientific Community may be used in scientific arguments; which is never. That's why my organization is so successful. Magic pumpkin (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no documented opinion in the community of trustworthy scientists in this particular field of study that formed this so-called consensus. It never happened, what they are referring to is not accurate and doesn't belong here. What we have is an invalid source, it's a misstated conformation that was not an accurate source. That's not what Wikipedia is about, we need to keep an open mind when it comes to science even when the odds are against the subject.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned this discussion here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bigfoot. ClovisPt (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Good tweaks, the revised lead works much better. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is occasionally a contentious article and difficult to edit, as a look through the edit history and talk page archives will confirm. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. It's especially heartwarming to see the "President of the World Scientific Community" taking time out from his busy schedule to edit Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it's mostly an honorary position. ClovisPt (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Bigfoot Times" blog post?

The blog post cited in this edit isn't a reliable source for criticism of mainstream scientific opinions about Bigfoot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No mention of David? David Daegling's book was reviewed by the well respected author Daniel Perez at Bigfoot Times magazine.--Timpicerilo (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Magazine? It's a monthly newsletter by a fringe enthusiast. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the others in the newsletter that questioned Daeglings motives?

"Canadian Sasquatch authority, John Green, wasn’t positive about the book and stated, “there are enough factual errors and ill founded assumptions to thoroughly mislead anyone who has no other source of information on the subject." Minnesota filmmaker Doug Hajicek, responsible for the production of Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science weighed in as well, “this author should be ashamed of using his credentials to skate by with laziness of both action and thinking.” "I’m not sure if Dr. Daegling proofread his manuscript. Says the Florida anthropologist, “individual mammals do not extend their home ranges across entire continents.” Whether you are in Alaska or Florida, all you have to do is roll down your window and you’ll see plenty of mammals: people." "Daegling might be his own worst enemy in reference to the “r” word: replication. It is seen on pages 62, 63, 132, 214 and probably elsewhere. In reference to an old story about scientists Fleischman and Pons and their ‘cold fusion’ Daegling would write, “...when researchers at other institutions tried to replicate the results, they came up empty more often than not.” Later he writes, “replication of results is absolutely critical for a claim to be scientifically valid.”--Timpicerilo (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sasquatch authority"? "Minnesota filmmaker"? Their scientific opinions don't hold any weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The section in question is titled "View among the scientific community". Do Mr. Perez or those he quotes about Daeglings' book have any scientific credentials? Plazak (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There was the anthropologist from Fla. that felt Daegling didn't proof read his material.--Timpicerilo (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are misreading the review. The one who does not think that Daeglings proofread his book is only Mr. Perez, the reviewer. The "Florida anthropologist" quoted in the following sentence is Daeglings himself. Plazak (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Timpicerilo check out the guideline WP:UNDUE at WP:FRINGE. Your desire to make the article a 50/50 split of pro-Bigfoot opinions vs. mainstream science is misinformed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I did misread that part the way it's worded makes it confusing.--Timpicerilo (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)