Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 9

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately through April 2009. Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Bigfoot/Archive10. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger/reintegration of Evidence regarding Bigfoot and Formal studies of Bigfoot

Starting the discussion here so that a merge does not happen by default.

For exactly the same reasons I opposed these exact same merger proposals the last time they were made, I still oppose this latest merge proposal. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose I agree with TexasAndroid's concern about the article getting too unwieldy. My opposition is provisional at this point, but I think the correct solution is to include a brief discussion in the main article and link to the other two for a more extended discussion. —Fiziker ^t 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merger with Evidence regarding Bigfoot (improve it, then review this issue). Support merger with Formal studies of Bigfoot. That article can be trimmed down much more easily. Trimmed down, I don't think it would be able to be it's own article. —Fiziker ^t c 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge -- Other article is full of nonsense, badly sourced claims, POV-pushing. Existence of the fork is there to provide a place for pro-Bigfoot believers to edit without having to be integrated here. Any claims on those pages of any value should be on this article, and the lack here would be a serious problem with this article. Length of the article after merge isn't an issue, as the vast majority of it would end up deleted per our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with DreamGuy here. Merge 65.173.104.41 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is better to first improve the article and get it to the same standard that we are trying to reach on this page. Once we see what is left of those articles we should then come back to this issue. If there is sufficient content, we should keep the articles separate; if not may Bigfoot envelope those articles like the opossum Biscardi is saying it ate the other week. —Fiziker ^t c 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DG, please stop assuming and asserting that the reasons for the existence of the sub articles is anything other than the reasons that I have plainly stated. Any talk of "Providing a space" for anything is to assume motives to me that are simply false. "Assume Good Faith" and all that. (And as an aside, your original failure, over a year ago, to AGF of my reasons behind the original split here is the original reason I declared myself ineligible to act as an admin about you. To have my first time ever crossing your path have you, out of the blue, declare my actions a "POV fork" was... highly annoying, to put it mildly.)

That aside, anything that violates the project rules in the sub articles violates them whether they are in one article or two. I agree with Fiziker. Trim first, *then* re-address the merger issue with what is left. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I concure with Fiziker improve then reveiw if the merge is nessary, or alternatively delete evidence page and begin incorperating evidence onto this page from scratch. The evidence page as it is has significant faults, I wondered over there did a tiny bit of fact checking and quickly came to the conclusion that either someone was intentionally editing in false infomation or someone was drawing infomation from an extremely disreputable source. I'm willing to bet if I could find a black and white falsehood in two minutes of searching there is alot more of that sort of thing in the article. --222.154.165.109 (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on Evidence; it is too large to merge and could be perceived as too important to trim to where it's small enough to merge. Merge Formal studies, possibly leaving nothing but links to the individual studies in the Bigfoot article. --Link ^(t•c•m) 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another possible explaination

I think another good explaination, at least for the bigfoot cases occured in the less-developed regions of the Earth, is a human being with severe hypertrichosis, who was banished from human society as being "signed by evil" and forced to survive in the wild. I read about several cases happened in the Caucasus mountains in the 1930's, peoples of the Caucasus have facial hair growing much more actively than northern peoples and occurences of hypertrichosis shouldn't be rare there I think (I remember at least one such case was in the media in the past few years). Also, the recent analysis of the DNS samples taken from the remains of Khvit, the son of Zana, a purported yeti-woman from Caucasus, showed that he was an ordinary human. Efenstor (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this explanation should get its own subsection. Perhaps we may need a subsection on the misidentification of humans. Odds are that clean-shaven men and the right viewing conditions cause more misidentifications due to the much larger population of those than hypertrichosis—it's much easier to misidentify things than one normally thinks. Regardless, any sources that deal with hypertrichosis and Bigfoot would be interesting, especially as a possible origin of the American Indian myths. —Fiziker ^t c 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Education Request

I have a question on wording: under the Gigantopithicus section, the phrase "relict population" bothers me. I've never seen the word before. For my own edification, could someone tell me the source? Thanks. Please no jumping on the skeptic. I'm being polite. :) SkepticalGal (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relict. —Fiziker ^t c 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually spelled "relic" and means (in this context) a small surviving fragment of an otherwise extinct and originally much-larger population. 205.240.0.35 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The word relict is spell correctly and used properly. This is not the word relic (cf. wikt:relict and wikt:relic). —Fiziker ^t c 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Word 'Dubious' is Inappropriate for an Article Opening

The word 'dubious' is in the opening of the article and is innapropriate word usage by Wikipedia standards. 'Dubious' is a personal, subjective judgement rather than a neutral and detached statement of cited fact. Attempts to delete this word keep getting reverted. Can someone more familiar with wikipedia notify an administrator about this violation? 205.240.0.35 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The scientific community considers the existence Bigfoot to be dubious. I think that it sounded better before but to ensure clarity of what is meant by dubious I changed it to read "Despite its dubious status for scientists". I have no problem if someone changes it back to the original or rephrases is. —Fiziker ^t c 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave rephrasing a try, borrowing from your comment here. ClovisPt (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Much better. —Fiziker ^t c 03:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing claim and supposed source from lead section

I went to rephrase "dubious" myself, see section above, as it gives far too much credit to the reality of the creature, but I ended up checking out the source as well—Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend (2004) by David Daegling—and it made me remove the whole "dubious" thing. And remove the claim that "a minority of anthropologists and primatologists have seriously considered this possibility", meaning the possibility that Bigfoot is a real creature. And indeed remove the footnote to Daegling. Bigfoot Exposed is a proper scholarly book by a real anthropogist, but it doesn't in the least support, or "seriously consider", the possibility that Bigfoot is real. It says "Legend" right in Daegling's title! I have not read Bigfoot Exposed, no. I have read several reviews of it on the web, for instance this one, from a Bigfoot support site, entitled "One more debunker [the debunker is Daegling] exposed", and beginning "As indicated by the subtitle, the purpose of the book is to assure the public that Bigfoot is only a legend." Yup, so it is. See also this interview with Daegling here: "There's a ton of evidence for Bigfoot--a mountain of evidence. The problem is that none of that evidence is any good. And after all these years, you'd think one of these guys would have walked out of the woods by now, or a hunter would have shot one. Just one." And check out the further mention of Daegling in the article, in section "View among the scientific community". Bishonen | talk 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC).

I replaced the reference because your removal was due to a misunderstanding in what it was for. The reference was added to provide a citation for the claims of what the scientific community believes about Bigfoot, not for the other stuff. The other material was added later and the reference was not moved from the end of the sentence to clarify what it was for. (Although Daegling would be a decent reference for what Bishonen removed as he does mention actual scientists who have seriously considered Bigfoot as a real creature—Daegling of course thinks they don't have any evidence but there still are such people). I'm not sure if the removal of the rest of the material was really warrented but I'm on the fence on that. There are those scientists who do think Bigfoot is real but that's dealt with elsewhere and putting it in the lead might give it undue weight. —Fiziker ^t c 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As a side note: the reference Bishonan deleted was linked to other references. If you do remove a reference, please make sure you don't accidentally get rid of a source that other references use. —Fiziker ^t c 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A misunderstanding? Well.. in spite of all the passive forms in your post ("the reference was added", "the reference was not moved", etc) I suppose you're aware it was you who created the misunderstanding, Fiziker? Here. No, I'm afraid Daegling wouldn't be a decent reference for the stuff I removed. For a decent reference for that, you'd need to find a reliable source (WP:RS) that didn't merely "mention" these actual scientists and go on to refute them, as Daegling does, but that discussed them as having respectable theories. Anyway, the claims in the lead section look ok to me now, with the footnote back in the right place, and the formulation that Bigfoot's existence is "dubious" gone. I changed the "dubious" part to Bigfoot being "repudiated" by the scientific community, not so much because dubious is especially personal and subjective, as 205.240.0.35 calls it—speaking as the experienced administrator s/he asks for, I don't think it is, particularly—but because dubious means "questionable, uncertain, doubtful" (www.wordsmyth.net). That's too much credit to ascribe to the creature, especially in the lead section. "Repudiated" seems right to me. Please take a look. Bishonen | talk 06:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

I thought I was the one who moved text there but I didn't feel the need to search for the edit to make sure. The citation was still valid, just unclear. Not that it matters currently but Daegling is a reliable source who does deal with the few scientists who believe in Bigfoot. It seems like you are saying that a valid reference for the claim that there are scientists who believe in Bigfoot requires a source that doesn't go on to say why they are wrong to believe that. This issue here isn't whether they are right or not; it's about whether there is a minority of scientists who believe in Bigfoot. NB: I am making a distiction between a scientist (someone who investigates some thing scientifically, e.g., an anthropologist) and someone who investigates Bigfoot scientifically, which I believe the scientists who believe in Bigfoot do not do. —Fiziker ^t c 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that mention of the few scientists who believe in Bigfoot can stay out of the lead, given aforementioned issues of undue weight. ClovisPt (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Description change

In the description it says half of the sighting are in PNW.

"About half of all Bigfoot sightings are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, with a roughly equal number of sightings spread throughout the rest of North America."

But going to the reference given (8) , the BFRO database, you can see that counting all PNW, you come to about 1000 sighting location out of 3000+.

So the above quote should actually read :

"About a third of all Bigfoot sightings are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, with roughly two thirds of the sightings spread throughout the rest of North America."

I can't edit since it is semi locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aepervius (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the error. None of the other references give specific numbers for how many sightings there are in the Pacific Northwest. —Fiziker ^t c 17:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1958

In the 1958 section of the Bigfoot sightings section, it refers to the Bluff Creek (Humboldt County) incident. My great grandfather Laurence "Scoop" Beal was the newspaperman who wrote the story for the Eureka Times Newspaper. (now Eureka Times Standard) This incident, my great grandfather later revealed before his death, was a hoax that they all got a big kick out of. You can find reference to what I wrote in a back article of the Eureka Times Standard newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.248.55 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. —Fiziker ^t c 16:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I added it in. —Fiziker ^t c 20:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Mesachie Man

Although I linked that I see no need for it to exist as a separate article, just using it as a section heading so as to add this ref for a Sasquatch-type creature in the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island. "Mesachie" means "evil, bad, naughty, mean" in the Chinook Jargon. This might better go in Dzonokwa, if that even is a separate article, also....the link has been sitting on my bookmarks bar for a while now, figure somenoe here might put it to use....Skookum1 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Visualization of Sightings

I found a site with a cartogram of BFRO sighting data, showing sightings by state. I'd like to add it under the BFRO link in External Links, as Cartogram of BFRO sightings by stateWikitigger (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Raised importance rating

[1] An attempt is made to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.[2]SriMesh | talk 03:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick Jacobs Pictures

The pictures taken by Rick Jacobs were recently included in the Prominent reported sightings section again. I had removed previously [3] because I did not think that it was prominent enough to mention. There are many reports of sightings and photos a year, and as Wikipedia is not a directory we need some way of distinguishing the few noteworthy accounts from the rest. I've proposed in the pasted including only the most major ones that are consistently mentioned in shortlists of Bigfoot sightings or have a greater status culturally than most Bigfoot sightings (e.g., the Bluff Creek sightings). If has has better criteria or thinks that Jacobs's pictures qualify under the criteria above, please say so. If no one does I'll remove it. (Side note, if this is kept the original statement was better) —Fiziker ^t c 05:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really hard to say what makes a sighting noteworthy, but the guidelines you suggest are reasonable. This particular sighting seems right on the brink of noteworthy, as it did get a lot of attention for a while, but that has faded. You should feel free to remove it, if you believe that it fails to qualify as noteworthy. ClovisPt (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be looked at with regard to this is WP:RECENT. The story did get some play in the news but I haven't heard much since the initial incident. This is just like what happened over the summer with the Georgia Bigfoot. I'm sure there are plenty of similar instances throughout the past where a similar Bigfoot story appeared in the news for a time before fading away. —Fiziker ^t c 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I placed it back in because many still believe this may be a Bigfoot and is still a popular topic of discussion on several web sites after 2 years. According to Ph.d. bear expert Lynn Rogers 1-21-09 he can't be sure it was a bear unless you were there when the photo was taken. It is covered in a Science publication that included a teachers worksheet for investigating using the Jacob photos. Several articles in books around the world also have been written with this subject so it needs to be included for future reference.--Ben1985 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First, please don't revert edits that were the result of discussions on the talk page. The discussion was up for several days for anyone to see. The proper thing to is to discuss the matter on the talk page so a revert war doesn't get started. Second, you don't address the problem. Some people believe that the Jacobs photos are real, but if you look at BFRO's website there hundreds of reports where people think that their sighting was real. The article does not and should not (WP:NOTDIR) list all of those sightings, but instead lists the prominent sightings. Please explain how this is prominent enough to be considered one of the top 5 sightings of all time. —Fiziker ^t c 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed again. Pretty minor in overall scope of things. The ones we list should stand the test of time. DreamGuy (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This was an historical sighting because unlike other sightings of Bigfoot the majority of people did not believe it was a hoax. While in all the others sightings this was and still is the major concern. Along with the world wide attention it recieved I would say it was one of the top prominent sightings. December 30, 2007 The Ridgway Record, Ridgway Pa. followed by the Bradford Era, Bradford Pa. Both announced it was the number one news story of the year. I will revert the edit after several days.--Ben1985 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source which states this, or is this your opinion? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not my opinion just the facts. The historical significance can be referenced at the Ridgway Record, Ridgway Pennsylvania refer to December 30, 2007 number one news story. Also Marcy Schellhammer Reporter for the Bradford Era, Bradford Pennsylvania that covered the investigation of the news story. --Ben1985 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So some local newspaper coverage means that it's one of the "top prominent sightings" in all reports about Bigfoot ever? Sorry, I don't buy that. And as far as the "I will revert the edit after several days." goes, if you put it back in it';;; just get taken out again, so don't bother. DreamGuy (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Dream guy on this. Some local newspapers calling it the news story of the year does not make it one of the most prominent sightings ever. Beware of WP:RECENT. One day this might qualify as one of the top 5 most prominent sightings but currently it's on the 3rd, possibly 2nd, tier of Bigfoot stories. —Fiziker ^t c 02:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben's claim that the Jacobs pictures are unlike other sightings because the majority of people did not believe it was a hoax is wrong. The pictures no more convinced scientists than any other picture or sighting. While convincing an extraordinary number of people that Bigfoot exists would warrant inclusion as prominent, the Jacobs picture is far below the level that would be needed to count as one of the top few sightings. —Fiziker ^t c 02:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you call it a fact, its still your opinion that its a fact. You must provide a significant reliable source which states unambigously that a) this is an important "sighting" and b) that most, or many, or whatever verbiage you are arguing for, believe this to not be a hoax. I don't see that. Not in the MSNBC link below, either. In short, you have no source for what you want to put in the article. Sorry, but no. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Georgia Bigfoot body did have as much media coverage but was proven to be a hoax. As with any story the news media coverage has died down but this story is still very active on the internet bigfoot web sites even after over two years since first reported, it has stood the test of time.--Ben1985 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This still very popular MSNBC news video should be added and will explain the significance of the story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21518056/%20msnbc%27%27Hunter%E2%80%99s%20pics%20revive%20lively%20Bigfoot%20debate%2010-29-2007%27%27 Watch the video DreamGuy this wasn't just local newspaper coverage More references are available. --Ben1985 (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A sighting of this caliber that is the first of its kind should be included in a prominent sightings list but like all Bigfoot sightings not here. They do not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory and none of these sightings are noteworthy without proof they were real. I will remove all of these sightings they're all speculative at best and most likely are recycled hoaxes for profit, or a case of mistaken identity- according to the general consensus of the scientific community.--Bargo69 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the sighting needs to be real to be worthy of inclusion. Undeniably the sightings in 1958 and 1967 are worthy of inclusion in this article. The first one is the reason why this article is called Bigfoot while the other is probably the most famous one—something that even if we say it's complete crap should be noted. I'm less sure of the values of the other ones. I wouldn't necessarily object to removing that section as those two sightings are discussed in the History of Bigfoot section. However, this is something that should be discussed before removal. —Fiziker ^t c 04:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I will shorten the first to show how the name was chosen. The rest will be deleted because they're complete rubbish and have no place on Wikipedia.--Bargo69 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how they're complete rubbish. Certainly if you're talking about evidence all of those sightings are no better than the mangy bear that Jacobs took pictures of but that doesn't mean they should be left out of the article. I'm saying that as the 1958 and 1967 sightings are already in the text elsewhere any additional information in prominent sightings can be moved without a problem. However, there may be other sightings that deserve a mention that we might not want to put into the text else, instead putting them in a dedicated section where they can be listed. —Fiziker ^t c 05:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a personal opinion all of the stories that were major news events should be listed. I can see leaving out the weekly reports the BFRO receives that never make it as major news events. Hoaxes, misidentified photos, and stories that are big news need to be listed because until there is scientific proof that is all that Bigfoot is. I can start on the Georgia Hoax if anyone would like to help.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are personal opinions influencing almost everyone on here! For starters calling the Jacobs Creature a mangy bear is a statement that's completely incorrect. It was never scientifically proven to have mange and the only scientist that has ever researched it using data from the location came up with proportions that were not of a bear. We have to researdch these articles better! Scientriffic CSIRO Education, National Australia Issue #58 November-December 08 Bigfoot: Science Fiction or Science Fact? Pages 16 -19. Omitting information is not the answere to making an informative article. We all need to re-group and come up with a compromise.--Ben1985 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the picture is of a bear does not matter, just as it does not matter if the 1958 sighting was a hoax or a real creature. The 1958 has historical significance and is on the top tier of sightings. Getting a story in some educational material does not convey first tier status to Jacobs's photos. Getting an article published in Nature would warrant inclusion as would a number of less prestigious journals, but getting a mention in Scientriffic falls short of this. —Fiziker ^t c 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Sasquatch2, WP:RECENT. You're only looking at recent stories that made it into the media, not all stories. If we were to do that we'd have a long list of reported sightings, most of which, not even people interested in Bigfoot would ever have heard about. Just because something is recent does not make it more worthy of inclusion. —Fiziker ^t c 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not just recent news stories just the major ones that stand out. There is only two that made world wide news headlines. The ones that you wouldn't miss if you listen to the news. They need to be included because of all the people that remember them and may want to look back.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Which two stories are you referring to? Sightings of Bigfoot get into the news every once and a while, you have yet to demonstrate how the Jacobs pictures are exceptionally prominent other than they are one of the more recent ones. —Fiziker ^t c 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Georgia Bigfoot costume in a box and the Jacob pictures received world wide attention. They both reached a record number of hits on internet web searches the day they were released by the associated press. They both were front page news stories for several days. They recieved a substantial amount of interest compared to other pictures and sightings. Both were the first-of-their-kind reports. The first reported accidental clear image taken on a game camera, the other was the first reported body. Since then there have been several game camera incidents without anything close to the attention these two recieved.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again those are just two recent ones. We can't just be picking the most recent sightings to include. There are plenty of reported sightings that make news. What evidence do you have that these sightings are of greater prominence than the other sightings that get picked up in newspapers? Also, as I recall the Jacobs pictures got nothing of the attention that the Georgia carcass got. —Fiziker ^t c 18:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again They both were front page news stories for several days. They received a substantial amount of interest compared to other pictures and sightings you refer to. Both were the first-of-their-kind reports they need to be included in the history as do any future ones that cause a stir like they did. One was proven to be a hoax but everyone that seen it will remember it. They're both prominent even though it's not your personal opinion. One was in the past it was taken in 2007. If someone finds a real proof of a dead one today are we not going to add it tomorrow? Would we have to wait for 25 years? What exactly is the time limit? --Sasquatch2 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of how prominent a sighting is, not whether it is prominent at all. I've failed to be convinced that the media attention at the time puts Jacobs's pictures on the same level as Bluff Creek. This discussion isn't going anywhere as is so I suggest a new line: what do you think should be the criterion used to distinguish those few sightings that can be included with the large number that have made the news? The more we discuss this, the more I like Bargo69's idea of removing the section and placing the information in the text (the 1958 and 1967 are already elsewhere in the text and the Jacobs photos are mentioned--something that might reasonably be expanded). —Fiziker ^t c 21:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluff Creek was exposed as a hoax and turned out to have no real proof like all the rest. I'm sure if they had internet access it would've been at the same level. Instead few have heard of the Bluff Creek story and media exposure was minimal. Investigations were carried out at the Jacobs creature site where they found evidence that included live recordings of Bigfoot during a successful expedition. During scientific investigations into the size they have found it was not of a bears proportions. One story is as prominent as the other. Small news stories should be omitted front page world wide ones should be included.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether something has been exposed as a hoax or not makes no difference in the prominence. Jacobs's photos have not stood up any better to scrutiny than the 1958 Bluff Creek sighting or the Patterson-Gimlin. Regardless of them being faked, they have a prominent place in Bigfoot lore. Perhaps Jacobs's photos, dispite the evidence, will achieve the same status but they have not yet. I did a search of jacobs creature in google and for the first few pages the dated pages (excluding one or two forums) where all from around the time of the incident. It seems that relatively little has been done since the original sighting. I can't even find a skeptical article addressing it. The only time I've heard a skeptic mention it was in 2007 after the photos were published. Comparing this to what you find for a search of the 1958 Bluff Creek incident: articles by Bigfoot advocates arguing for it, not links to reports from the press. —Fiziker ^t c 23:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

It has been suggested that the "Prominent sightings" section be removed. I would be happy to support this idea, if we can be sure to integrate the information from this section into the "History" section, and if we can continue to be sure to only include the most notable events in the history of this phenomena.

The difficulty is determining the notability of particular sightings or other instances that might be part of the general history of Bigfoot. Bigfoot history is primarily written by Bigfoot advocacy groups and the news media, each of which functionally assigns an incident some level of importance. Fiziker seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) to be suggesting that we observe how these levels of importance have changed over time, and use that as the guide for inclusion in this article. This seems very reasonable to me. So, an incident which has consistently been championed by advocacy groups and consistently been reported on by media sources should probably be mentioned, whereas one which has not been given this level of notice should probably not be included. My understanding is that there are literally thousands of alleged Bigfoot encounters, the extreme majority of which only receive attention on a very limited and temporary basis.

These photographs from Pennsylvania and the recent hoax in Georgia received a lot of attention from a number of different sources, but in both cases the attention faded away pretty quickly. While I'm not dead set against their inclusion in the article in some form, at present it appears to me that neither should be added until some higher level of prominence can be established. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the 1958 and 1967 can be integrated into the article as they mostly have been. The Jacobs pictures, while not a prominent sighting in my opinion could be worth mentioning a bit more in the Bears section (an article about it is one of the sources already). However, I'm not so sure that the other two sightings listed as prominent would really go well with History but it could be done if we go with this. However, I'm not sure if this is the best choice. I'm still leaning toward keeping the section but expanding on Jacobs's photos in the Bear section. —Fiziker ^t c 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend losing the section entirely. Lists are bad in general and any important info in them should generally be incorporated into the text. And didn't we already have the photos in question in the bears section? I thought we did at one point. (Checked: Yeah, that's already mentioned in there, and has been for a long time.) DreamGuy (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To say it hasn't been talked about on an internet search isn't true. It's talked about on the top two bigfoot web sites almost daily. You have to put your personal feelings aside. To put more in the bear section doesn't make sense when just recently a bear expert Ph.d. Lynn Rogers wrote in one of the Bigfoot sites that he couldn't be sure unless he was there when the picture was taken and at one point he thought it was an ape. Until someone proves it was a bear you can't list it as one. That would be like listing everything in a hoax section without 100% proof they were hoaxes. Bigfoot is more about not being able to prove it' fake than being able to prove it's real.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this gets mentioned in the bears section, it would of course need to be noted that some proponents of Bigfoot claim that it is not a bear. The reason that the bears section is the best place to go is that it's a clear example of skeptics and believers differing on whether an animal is a bear or not. Also, what Bigfoot web sites are you refering to? —Fiziker ^t c 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that would be the same as listing them all in the hoax section and saying some Bigoot fanatics claim they're not a hoax. This one needs to be re-listed in 2007 with the rest. It has grown to controversial levels that are similar to the Patterson video. The photo is debated almost daily throughout different locations on the internet. Mostly on the BFRO, this is mainly do to it being largest Bigfoot organization and the only one with the rights to display the photo. It seems to cause some hard feelings among other Bigfoot organizations. There is a constant debate from believers and skeptics with sometimes thousands of visits per day to the site just to watch the debate.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting everything in the hoax section would not make sense simply because not everything is a hoax--e.g., these photos are not hoaxed. The mainstream view is that these photos were bears, so placing this sighting in the bear section would be entirely consistent with WP:PSCI. Do you have a link to any place where skeptics have discussed this besides in the period of time after the publication of the photos. I have been unable to find anything. I think this might make a good metric to see how prominent something is. If skeptics haven't dealt with this after the initial publicity then it would appear that it hasn't gotten onto their radar yet. Of course, this is a crude metric but I think it still might give a good enough indication for our purposes. —Fiziker ^t c 21:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/forum.php?forumid=151130 Is probably the best link to keep track on this one with skeptics and believers logging in and out with a constant tally.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I have been unable to find any information that has proven it to be a bear. We can't leave it out based on your personal view. Do we need to constantly monitor the position of the mainstream view? I found a couple on going voting polls that the majority were on the Bigfoot side. I found some that the majority believe all sightings are hoaxes or a case of mistaken identity. This is why they all belong in the Bigfoot section noted that some skeptics claim that it is a bear.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re skeptics' interest: I was thinking more along the lines of articles written in Skeptical Inquirer or some other more formal place. This of course wouldn't provide anything precise but if I saw skeptics mentioning this with regard to Bigfoot (as is what happens with the 1958 and 1967 sightings) I'd be more convinced that this is in the top tier.

Re mainstream view: Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. This sighting is considered to be a bear by the scientific community, it is part of the Bigfoot community that believes this was a Bigfoot. Also, the poll doesn't exactly constitute a reliable source. Of course, this doesn't make a difference on whether or not to include this. —Fiziker ^t c 01:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This talk of not being on the skeptics radar is nonsense Bob Kiviat, producer of “World’s Greatest Hoaxes Exposed,” The biggest skeptic in the world said it's truley a mystery on MSNBC coast to coast television and he knew all about what was said of the bear. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21518056/ msnbcHunter’s pics revive lively Bigfoot debate 10-29-2007 "Voting polls" are you serious? This stalling needs to come to an end. I'm going to put it back were it belongs as a prominent sighting.--Ben1985 (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The MSNBC article was written at the time of publication and Kiviat is hardly a skeptic according to his Wikipedia page. As I've said above, this is only a rough indication. I wouldn't expect other people to follow this but if I saw some articles that were published after the initial incident where skeptics deal with this, I'd be more likely to say that this was prominent. So far, the only evidence has been that around the time of the incident there was media attention and some Bigfoot websites talk about it (this is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one). I have reverted your edit putting the sighting back in. This issue has hardly been resolved. —Fiziker ^t c 01:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sasquatch2 and Ben1985, do you agree on the criteria I have advocated for inclusion of sightings as prominent? I'm not talking about whether Jacobs's photos qualify, just the criteria. I would like to see if our disagreement is just on whether the photos satisfy the criteria for inclusion or if there is a deeper disagreement. —Fiziker ^t c 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fiziker, you do not own Bigfoot the article. This has turned into a situation where we advocate the prominence of a giant ground sloth but delete an actual Bigfoot sighting. The fact that it is still talked about regularly I would suggest it's put back and this round and round deletion/addition war needs to stop. --Bargo69 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't own the article. I have never said otherwise. The giant ground sloth is only mentioned as an example of a non-ape theory of the creature—it is obviously on the fringe of the fringe. My issue is not necessarily mentioning this case, it's with creating clear criteria for inclusion as a "prominent reported sighting". If you propose good criteria that will limit the number of sightings lists to a small number (WP:NONDIR), which doesn't violate WP:RECENT, and these photos satisfy those criteria I have no problem with including them. —Fiziker ^t c 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"An actual Bigfoot sighting"? The only experts who have weighed in say it's a bear sighting. The fact that some people of no expertise in such matters insist that it isn't (or claim that they have talked to experts who claim otherwise but do not name any) does not mean much. We do not give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe claims by non experts. On top of that, it's a trivial example of a sighting, there are some 50 or more alleged sightings that are more prominent than that one, and most of those aren't important enough to list. Bottom line is tht this article is not a place for individuals to push their own theories, or to push the theories of other amateurs. We've given the BFRO and some other people some space for their opinions, but they only rate so much. DreamGuy (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And, regarding how we go about coming to a decision on what to do with the article, I should note that User:Ben1985, User:Bargo69 and User:Sasquatch2 are all very new editors with no history of editing this encyclopedia other than on this article and talk page and on the Jacobs Creature article, with the exception of some very clear test edits on other articles in which one word was changed to something else and then changed back. Single purpose accounts are generally considered problematic here, both because of the suggestions of having a POV to promote but also for the possibility that the accounts all belong to the same person and are being used to try to pretend that more people support a view point than really do. I have no idea if these accounts are the same person or not, but I will not let new editors who seem to have a shallow understanding of our policies aggressively dictate what will and will not be done on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your being very judgmental to come to these conclusions. For starters there is no Bigfoot sighting that was ever proven to be real. Did you consider that this article on this particular subject was just added and was the reason for this newbie to join in? I'm not here to push any theories or sell anything this was the only sighting of a Juvenile. The bear expert Lynn Rogers said to be sure of what it was you would have to be there when the picture was taken. Anything else is speculation as all Bigoot sightings are. If it was a hoax or a bear doesn't matter much it happened and it's all history of Bigfoot a creature that has no proof of existence.--Ben1985 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly are these people that are experts? Your DreamGuy page displays The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." The BFRO are experts in Bigfoot research because that is what they do. Nobody can claim to be an expert when nobody has proven the existance of Bigfoot.--Ben1985 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Including in bears

I placed a sentence in the section on bears about these photos. This falls short of being notable enough to include in and of itself, but the reference for some sightings being bears is already about these photos. I don't see any harm regarding WP:UNDUE or anything else from making this clear in the text. —Fiziker ^t c 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Offspring

I came up with a needed section where it can be listed. I'm also researching one other report of a baby Bigfoot to see if it is prominent enough to be dedicated to this section.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The section that Sasquatch2 added now contains a hyperlink to the relevant professional as well as a decent cite for reference. Given the media coverage and commentary, this seems a reasonable inclusion. However, I strongly think that any further inclusions need to meet equally high standards. Doc Tropics 20:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two silhouetted figures visible in the footage, in the background. You will need to watch the clip several times to see all of the relevant movement behind the tent and in the trees. Both figures are clearly primates of some sort (humans are primates too). One is large. One is smaller. The smaller one is clearly not human, and climbs through the trees quickly, then swings from a branch.

According to primatologists George Schaller and Esteban Sarmiento, the smaller figure is an ape, and must either be: 1) an exceptionally large gibbon, or 2) a year-old chimpanzee, or 3) an unclassified ape species. Gibbons and chimps are commonly called "monkeys" but are technically apes.

Reasonable skeptics are left with the possibility that the footage shows a lurking human releasing an ape into the trees -- an unlikely scenario considering that very few people own pet apes ... and if you were to release a pet ape into the trees you would not get it back very easily ...

Based on measurements of the tree taken at the site, the swinging figure is approximately 3-4 feet tall from head to toe -- about the size of the figure in the Jacobs photo from Pennsylvania.

The cameraman who shot this footage, Doug Pridgen (New Jersey), was videotaping a man talking beside a campfire at dusk in 1997. Neither the cameraman nor any of the people present were aware of the movement in the trees when the footage was shot. The figures weren't noticed until a few years after the tape was shot. Doug Pridgen was transfering his 8mm tapes to VHS tapes. His camcorder was hooked up to his big screen TV when his girlfriend noticed the figure swinging in the tree and called Doug into the room to ask about it. I'm having a hard time finding a good reference source for the story if anyone can help with this it would be appreciated because it is the only other evidence of a young Bigfoot.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is referring to. —Fiziker ^t c 20:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be reasonable to have something like this section, however, this would fit better under the Description heading. Unless anyone has a problem with that I'd like to move it there so the article flows better and doesn't jump around as much. —Fiziker ^t c 20:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that at this point it doesn't really have enough content to merit a seperate section, but I'm not sure that "Description" is the right spot. Wouldn't the "sightings" section be more appropriate? Not that I feel strongly either way, just making a suggestion. Also, the very first sentence is somewhat awkward becuase it tries to convey so much info. I'd suggest either a minor rewrite of that one sentence, or possibly splitting it, just so it flows better. Doc Tropics 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The section is supposedly about what proponents of Bigfoot think juvenile creatures are like. It should not be about sightings per se. —Fiziker ^t c 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing anything in the part that was posted to the article that is worth noting at all. At best it's worth a sentence or two, if that, not a big long quote from some nonnotable site (don't think it qualifies as a WP:RS, nor some bizarre theorizing about a photo of a bear supposedly showing offspring. DreamGuy (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I will reduce it, but to call it a bear without proof that it was would be an incorrect assumption. There is no reason to apply personal feelings to an article of this nature. The Bigfoot legend is based more on not being able to prove that it's fake.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, be familiar with WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI. Science is not about being able to prove something false, until it is proven the null hypothesis is assumed. —Fiziker ^t c 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a couple of sentences regarding the speculation about juvenile forms of Bigfoot in the Description section. It is probably worth wild to note that there's speculation about juveniles but more than a sentence or two might give undue weight. Now that I think about it mentioning that they are generally believed to be pictures of a bear is not necessary as it really isn't relevant. I think that using the podcast might qualify as an original source but I'm not sure. —Fiziker ^t c 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed Sasquatch2's edit for several reasons. This was already mentioned above so I attempted to merge it with what was already written. The long quote is not needed and if it was it would be a block quote. Perhaps there is something in the quote worth including but it's bad form to include a long quote unless it is required. Wikipedia is written in prose where bullet points are avoided if possible. Finally, there is a lot of unnecessary information provide: it isn't relevant to the issue what the camera was or who set it up. —Fiziker ^t c 23:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the note about skeptics questioning the absence of young ones. I still feel it was better under offspring with the above story of a baby bigfoot I'm trying to find references for. As far as it being a bear I did find that recently on 1-21-09 A Bear authority named Lynn Rogers said It did look like the skinniest, longest legged bear he ever saw. If he was there at the time, he could have been absolutely sure if it’s a bear or an ape. --Sasquatch2 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Too much editing all at once edits are running into each other.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I added the name it doesn't make much sense to omit it especially with the link.--75.88.176.130 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I added important informaition from the latest research on this subject.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have removed it, because it was meaningless. For instance, what measurements of what were taken from the site? The reference you gave cannot be accessed.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I corrected order of events and put it back explained measurements reference is available from sorce listed. These are important facts about the story and need to be included for it to make sence in the article.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sasquatch2, please stop stating in the article that Scientriffic is a "science publication". Based on what's been said at the Jacobs Creature article and talk, Scientriffic appears to be an educational magazine. Even if it is intended to educate people regarding science, calling it a science publication is misleading. —Fiziker ^t c 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, still not seeing anything in this paragraph that's worth being in the article. It's giving undue weight to a minor incident in which some Bigfoot believers specifically contradict scientists, other than no reliable source being given for an alleged scientist at Duke saying something else. It's also tiring to see someone so intent on reverting to his preferred version that he reverts things like spelling fixes and so forth and continuously outright ignores problems raised by other editors. Please get consensus for any additions on this topic by discussing the wording first on this talk page, and only add it when details can be hammered out and agreed to. It's clear from the back and forth that the new section in no way has consensus to be there right now. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a paragraph on speculation about juveniles per se—there's no substantial difference between this and the speculation in the rest of the description about adult Bigfoot. However, it is a problem that this is being turned into an attempt to publicize a sighting. —Fiziker ^t c 18:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t believe it was an attempt to publicize a sighting it carries enough weight to be worthy of mentioning in any article about Bigfoot with its historical significance. Personal feelings on the subject should not come into play. I changed the way it was written because it suggested the Pennsylvania Game Commision denied the speculation of limb proportions.--Ben1985 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that personal feelings should not come into play. Please provide evidence that this sighting is worth specifically including. I have asked multiple times but all you have presented have been news articles of the time of publication of the photos and a couple of sights were it and many other things are discussed. Why this particular sighting rather than others? From what I can see, the Georgia Bigfoot has obtained greater prominence than this. —Fiziker ^t c 21:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested correction

The phrase "planned fake footprints" should read "planted fake footprints" according to the referenced source. – 74  02:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed again

I have again removed the info about measurements of the site being taken, and the animal not being a bear. Bears can be fat or skinny, 8 ft tall or 1 ft tall, so what proportions of a bear does this thing not conform with? We can't find out because the article given in the reference can not be accessed for checking. Furthermore, the article is apparently in Scientriffic which is deliberately aimed at kids 7-9 years old [4] and also contains comics, competitions and brain-bending puzzles. Doesn't quite seem to be a good ref for such a contentious subject, even if it could be accessed. I also removed the statement that Meldrum believed the limb proportions "resembled those of an adult non-human primate". Totally irrelevant in this section about juveniles. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I had issues with exactly those same points, and I concur with Kaiwhakahaere's removal. Specifically: it's very misleading to refer to Scientriffic as "scientific" in any way; that phrase implies a peer-reviewed journal publishing serious research, not education and entertainment. Also, the text regarding the proportions contradicted parts of its own ref and failed to explain how or when measurements were obtained in the absence of physical evidence. It seems that the text we've already included should be sufficient without further embellishment. Doc Tropics 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If any credible scientist has made those claims, surely there would be a better source to use. I can't for the life of me guess how someone in good faith could seriously cite such a bad source. I'd have removed it myself except for the fact that I've had to remove so many bad edits lately that I might have been getting close to the 3RR limit. DreamGuy (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is accessible from the address, not all copyrighted material is free. It can be viewed in library’s and classrooms that carry the subscription. It is about science with articles to teach in class written by scientists. The limbs are too long for the body compared to a bear, Meldrums statement reflects this.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC) There isn't any credible scientist that has claimed anything on this page is scientific proof.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of WP:CONSENSUS? Multiple editors have made it very clear that they disagree with your edits. You can't just ignore them and do whatever you want to do. DreamGuy (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrected again

I removed the material about bears because it does not pertain to this section and is already covered in the bear section.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. It most certainly does apply to that section, as the example you are trying to cite as showing a juvenile sasquatch is considered to be just a bear by the only experts who have weighed in on it. If the topic gets brought up at all, we NEED to include the mainstream scientific opinion or else we are violating WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. DreamGuy (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific opinion is that Bigfoot is a perpetually recycled hoax. I see you want to be in control of what gets edited in or out but Wikipedia is not about what your opinions are. Lack of knowledge about measuring is not a reason to delete information. The accuracy of a scenario without the Bigfoot creature &/or photo depends on the purpose of the measurements. In this case It looks as if the photo and a model were used. Photographs are usually used to give side view representation and models are constructed to give a 3D view. One measures the scene in order to draw inferences from it. These inferences can be made while at the scene or later, with a recreated scene or a drawing. There are three basic techniques for making horizontal &/or vertical measurements at a scene: triangulation, polar coordinates and rectangular coordinates. Each can be elaborated upon or combined in a particular scene. All measurements begin from a fixed, or known, starting point(s) so that they can be recreated if necessary. The orientation of this starting point(s) to North, or to some other reference direction is desirable. I believe they achieved an accurate representation of the proportional difference compared to a bear since they used the same setup and type of camera to eliminate errors.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are removing referenced material, and an important {{fact}} tag, and replacing unreferenced POV. That is vandalism, especially as there is consensus for removal of the infomation you are re-adding. I think you have been here long enough now to know the consequences if you continue doing that. You say "Lack of knowledge about measuring is not a reason to delete information". That demonstrates why you are having trouble understanding what other editors are saying here. Lack of evidence for any claim in wiki articles is a cardinal reason why it gets removed. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with DreamGuy edits, I also question if he is the same person as Kaiwhakahaere and Fiziker-Ben1985 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You could always approach an admin for checkuser. While you are there, ask for a checkuser on User:Ben1985 and User:Sasquatch2 too. There's a thought. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have doubts about whether we are different editors, feel free do as Kaiwhakahaere suggests and ask for a checkuser. It's good practice however to see whether anything is really suspicious before trying to have a checkuser done. For example, I took a look at the edits by Sasquatch2 and Ben1985 of this talk page. Based on edits to their comments by IP users, it appears that Sasquatch2 is at 75.88.183.90[5] and Ben1985 is at 75.88.176.130[6]. You can find information about those addresses at [7] and [8], which shows that they are both registered to the same ISP (Windstream). This does not necessarily mean that these are the same people: it could be a coincidence or several other reasons. I am not an expert on these things and I may be misinterpreting the meaning—a checkuser would be much more suited to do this. I have, however, not contacted a check user as I would like an explanation from Sasquatch2 and Ben1985 about this rather than becoming hostile and accusing them of sock puppetry (N.B. while I may sound harsh, I do assume good faith with regard to this and that you are not the same person). —Fiziker ^t c 03:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I operate from a computer that sees some public usage and the odds are we're not using the same one. We are not the same person and this is a diversion from the problem at hand.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The articles I placed are from good sources and complete the Bigfoot story with the addition of two historical cases of young ones.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets take the first paragraph first, 1997, which comes after the request for a citation which you removed without comment. That is vandalism. But let's continue. The paragraph said

*1997: Doug Pridgen (New Jersey), was videotaping a man talking beside a campfire at dusk. Neither the cameraman nor any of the people present were aware of the movement in the trees when the footage was shot. The figures weren't noticed until a few years after the tape was shot. Doug Pridgen was transfering his 8mm tapes to VHS tapes. His camcorder was hooked up to his big screen TV when his girlfriend noticed the figure swinging in the tree and called Doug into the room to ask about it. There are two silhouetted figures visible in the footage, in the background. Both figures are clearly primates of some sort. One is large. One is smaller. The smaller one is clearly not human, and climbs through the trees quickly, then swings from a branch. According to primatologists George Schaller and Esteban Sarmiento, the smaller figure is an ape, and must either be: 1) an exceptionally large gibbon, or 2) a year-old chimpanzee, or 3) an unclassified ape species. Gibbons and chimps are commonly called "monkeys" but are technically apes.". After all the waffle you say two primatologists say it must be a gibbon, chimpanzee, or ape. Nowhere do they say it was a bigfoot. Nowhere. That paragraph is not a historical case of a young bigfoot at all. It is a historical case of someone not being able to identify something on a film, and as it is unidentified we cannot speculate, or make a choice to suit our POV, in an encyclopedia. The paragraph is not justified in the article, so I removed it. I will get around to the other paragraph later. Have you asked for a checkuser on myself and Dreamguy yet. Don't forget to also ask for one on User:Ben1985 and User:Sasquatch2. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care who you are I just know you have singled me out and tore into my contributions to the article more than anyone. I referenced two well known scientists and the worlds largest Bigfoot Research team and if that isn't good enough you need to obsess on another subject not so controversial. Nothing on this page is in agreement of the mainstream scientific opinion but you expect the information I collect to be. The above article was refernced to a news website it should not have been removed it is believed by some to be a baby Bigfoot. The purpose of wikipedia is for users to edit not totally remove good information pertaing to the subject--Sasquatch2 (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sasquatch2's recent edits

Sasquatch2 has created the offspring section again. Currently it contains POV claims that have no references nor credibility (e.g., "Both figures are clearly primates of some sort"), gives undue weight to fringe speculation about juveniles (mentioning this speculation might be worth wild but this is simply to much for such wild speculation), makes claims which are blatantly misleading (e.g., apparently calling Scientriffic a scientific publication), and ignores the problems that other editors have continued to pose. I have tried to assume good faith but this has become ridiculous. The only reason I have not reverted the edits yet is that I've been trying to avoid an edit war (something that we bordered on last night). Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy regarding fringe claims and pseudoscience like this, and please do not keep putting content back into the article that other editors have problems with without talking about it.

I propose that the Offspring section be removed and that the relevant text in Description be changed to be "Advocates of Bigfoot, such as The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization and Jeffrey Meldrum, have also speculated about juvenile forms of Bigfoot based on photographs and video that they claim show younger Bigfoot." What other information is worth adding, especially if a link to Jacobs Creature is added? Another possible way of putting it is to simply mention that there are also claims that people have seen/taken images of juvenile Bigfoot.—Fiziker ^t c 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's time for me to crank up the barbie, 3.50pm Saturday. Will get back to this mess tomorrow morning my time. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientriffic is a bimonthly science magazine the article I referenced was by a well known scientist your ignorance of that isn't my responsibility. We are all voluntary editors here your deletion of my offspring section was ridiculous. This whole article is about a mythological creature that has not been proven to be real and your complaint is I have made a fringe claim and practice pseudoscience? I have contributed two good stories referenced to good sources. They may need some editing but removing them was uncalled for. I will correct them and replace them. If your not satisfied edit them this is what Wikipedia is all about.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The website for Scientrific says of itself "Scientriffic: a science magazine for ages 7+"[9]. Re fringe theories: Bigfoot is an actual phenomenon (I refer to the legend and the culture surrounding it. I am not saying that it physically exists) that is very notable. As such it deserve an article that discusses relevant things. The pseudoscience related to Bigfoot is important to the topic so it is important to include examples of it but there is a limit to how much can be included and still be a readable article rather than a list of speculation. I'm not against mentioning speculation against juveniles but giving the attention who want violates WP:UNDUE. —Fiziker ^t c 05:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The science magazine article is written by a well known scientist and covers the facts about Bigfoot including the hoax's for classroom education. I've also quoted: Dr. Meldrum the worlds leading scientist of the Bigfoot phenomena. Also, the BFRO is the largest and oldest organization in the world dedicated to Bigfoot research. The newspapers and news information sites are all credible sources. You want to limit my two contributions because the bases of speculation violates WP:UNDUE. Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. "Offspring" has not been covered in the article, it's very notable and would become a relevant part. To say the article is now a list of speculation and is no longer readable is a false claim. If Bigfoot does exist they have to reproduce and the prominent evidence of this including lack of, false, or possibly real should be covered.

You also have determined my information collected is not the mainstream scientific opinion. The mainstream scientific opinion is that Bigfoot is a combination of over active imaginations and hoax's. (References available) The singling out of my contributions by some editors trying to control this article to their liking is in direct violation of WP:UNDUE.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are missing my point. The article is not currently unreadable because of your edits, but if everything thing gets included haphazardly like you have done it will become unreadable. I am not just concerned with current edits; I also would like there to be clear standards in the future. This does not mean that there can't be a mention of juvenile Bigfoot, just that such a mention wouldn't have unnecessarily long quotations and claims that scientists have proven these things to be juvenile Bigfoot. Can you please say what the science magazine you are talking about is? I have been assuming that it has been Scientriffic based on edits but I would like to make sure am I not mistaken. —Fiziker ^t c 15:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the name but I never said scientists have proven these things to be a Juvenile Bigfoot. Scientists have not proven anything about Bigfoot.--Sasquatch2 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre 1950s history

I removed this section for having currently unworkable POV problems. The whole thrust of the section was arguing that Bigfoot reports predate the 1950s, when this is a highly disputed fact. Most of the Native American legends have absolutely nothing to do with Bigfoot other than that Bigfoot true believers later came along and tried to force fit old legends onto the current folklore to try to get support to themselves. Most of the sources used were very one sided, and gave WP:UNDUE weight to the fringe promoters of Bigfoot. The information that actually would help show that the old stories were unrelated to Bigfoot (which was based entirely on the Yeti report) just sort of were there in ways that weren't informative. Sources from the 1980s and 2000s making claims about pre-1950 events are inherently problematic. I've moved the content to Bigfoot/Temp so that people can take a look there nistead of digging through the history of the article. At some point if a balanced overview (i.e. one that doesn't just promote Bigfoot believer's claims) can be created, then we can have asection lie that in the article. Until then it's inherently extremely biased. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Daegling and Nickell are in no way promoting Bigfoot. What you removed also contained references from academic articles (I don't know if they actually believe in Bigfoot or not so I separate them from Daegling and Nickell). The text does not say that these were Bigfoot sightings. There were legends of wildmen in the Pacific Northwest among the native culture, just like many other cultures. Later, Burns made these into his own legend of Sasquatch. I agree that Bigfoot as we no it today did not start until 1958 but this is valid history. Please provide sources that call this into question. —Fiziker ^t c 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to check on Daegling, but Nickell being cited refering to a legend in no way supports the clim that that legend was the origin on the beliefs. No one is disputing that there were legends of animalistic creatures, but it seems awfully POVvy to assume that that's where Bigfoot came from, when the first media reports of Bigfoot had NOTHING to do with such legends. It was only later the idea was advanced, and then there's been arguments about how close those legends were and whether they support a real Bigfoot, but just because skeptics talk about the legends it doesn't mean that they (or all experts for that matter, as some skeptics cold disagree) endorse the view that those legends were a direct connection to the origin. I posted more below. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy from below: "And if you are claiming it IS the orgin of the legend, then you have taken a POV stance." I have not seen any reliable sources that indicate that the legend of Bigfoot originated in a different way. If there are, then your claim of POV would be valid, but I have yet to see those sources. —Fiziker ^t c 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Guess you ave to do more reading then. I'll try to track down sources, but in the meantime the POV-pushing shouldn't be there. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fiziker asked on my talk page, and I should have just put it here or else nobody else will see it, but now I am coying so others can see it and not just think I never replied or that Fiziker was right (edited slightly from my talk page version):

When I have time to detail it I'll either give you more details or maybe I'll just skip the middleman and rewrite the whole section myself. The basic upshot, though, is quite clear and simple: the Native American stories have no direct connection Bigfoot. Bigfoot is a Yeti ripoff. Yeti's origins are another thing entirely, and could certainly include the world wide beliefs in big monsters like trolls and ogres and whatnot, but Bigfoot came from the media frenzy around Yeti and some people starting it up out West. It was only after the true believers got ahold of it and went looking for some sort of support that they had to answer the question of why some big old ape man was never seen before the 1950s that they started twisting every little bit of anything they could to try to shoehorn it in, which is where we get accounts obviously about grizzly bears and old native legends about magical otter creatures and more standard ogres and so forth being presented as if they were ape men. I'm certainly not the only person to notice this, as many commentators have pointed it out as well. Of course that view ends up being a POV, and needs cites, but saying that Bigfoot is part of an unconnected line of sightings based upon Native legends is just nonsense from the fringe crowd that's pushing a very clear pro-Bigfoot agenda. For similar reasons any claims of pre-1950s sightings should be treated with a huge grain of salt. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pitt Lake Giant - unremarkable/non-notable

I just added the notablity tag to this article, which I happened to visit while glancing over this article; there are hundreds of such sightings in BC, some much more widely cited too, than this one, which has only one citation. It appears to me that this entry exists solely to promote its book-reference....Skookum1 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but please also refer to the discussion below. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of History content

I have reverted DreamGuy's removal of much of the content from history. He has removed statements that have reliable sources. This section is important because it explains the origins of this legend. If DreamGuy has sources that are contrary to these claims he should show them, but until then the removal is unwarranted.

I am sympathetic to his claim of POV. I don't think it is but I believe that what's written could be misinterpreted as promoted the idea that Bigfoot was believed to exist prior to the 20th century. This section is intended to show how the legend of Bigfoot was created, in part, out of the compilation of earlier wildmen legends. Therefore, I think that wording could be validly changed to make this clear but outright deletion of valid material is ridiculous. —Fiziker ^t c 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I explained my edit above. What reliable sources? And if you are claiming it IS the orgin of the legend, then you have taken a POV stance. The wildmen legends can certain be mentioned as part of a rewrite, but until such time as the rewrite happens we should not have highly biased info on the article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have responded above. —Fiziker ^t c 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, do you have a rough idea of how a pre-1950s section should look? I agree that the current section is poorly worded, and could use some serious editing, but I'm having trouble seeing the merits of a full-scale removal. To me, this is another example of how difficult it can be to properly write articles on modern legends/pop-culture phenomena like Bigfoot. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything in there written with pre-1950 history up top is unavoidably going to give the false impression that there were authentic and confirmed Bigfoot sightings (or reported/alleged sightings) pre-1950. There wasn't (though some people after the 1950s claimed that they saw something pre-1950s, which is different, and some people take sightings clearly meant to be a bear and present it as a Bigfoot). Making the direct connection and placing it in that order is a POV. We should start with the first major media blitz, as that's where this all started from. We would of course later discuss that there were legends with some similarities (though the extent of those similarities is hotly contested -- a magical river otter creature being presented as at all comparable to huge woodland Bigfoot is just laughable, for instance, and wildmen don't necessarily relate to the Yeti image that started the Bigfoot craze) that some Bigfoot believers try to use as evidence that Bigfoot has always been around, but it should be covered showing what the experts have to say about that, relying on expert folklorists/anthropologists who study the Pacific tribes' beliefs, with the contrast in the fringe theories, in much the same way that we give expert biologists' views ont he possibility of it really existing as contrasted to true believer's claims. So far the people who actually know about these legends have been ignored. I know the sources are out there, as I've seen a bunch, and may even own some somewhere here, but I can't recall the specifics right now. But that needs to come later. The existence of a section labeled pre-1950s and then a section after that with an implied direct chronology is massively misleading. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This article gives too many false impressions. The hoaxes and folklore are part of the history on how Bigfoot became what it is today, but they need to reflect the scientific community’s opinion that they’re almost certainly just hoaxes. --Simpsoncan (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NOT every single reported sighting of a bigfoot-like primate cryptid in North America is nessecarily identified as Bigfoot

Hi. I noticed that several articles on North American primate cryptids have recently been redirected to this article, including Pitt Lake Giant and Pennsylvania Creature. First of all, "bigfoot" is often reported to have distinguishing characteristics. Some of these "other" similar cryptids do not have those same characteristics. I realise it doesn't make sense to have an article on every reported sighting of bigfoot, but some of these are reported to be different creatures. I did use the same primary citation for these articles, but this book places many of these cryptids in seperate categories of primate cryptids. I know it's difficult, and often impractical, to officially categorise species that are not supposed to nor proven to exist, but some of these are rather different from the general "bigfoot" category. Since there are more reports of bigfoot sightings, and less of the "other" hominid-like cryptids, it would seem to make sense to put them all under the general and vague category of "bigfoot", especially ones that are less notable or less well-known, considering that "bigfoot" sightings are reported in most of the US states (even though they're supposed to be confined to the Pacific Northwest). It wouldn't make sense, for example, to place Yeti or Yeren in the same article as Bigfoot, not only because they're in different geographical locations, but because they belong to different categories of reported distinguishing characteristics. Due to this discrepency, however, cryptids such as the skunk ape (shorter height, longer arms, orangutan-like as opposed to human-like, and better known than some of the other cryptids) and the devil monkey (monkey-like rather than ape-like or human like, reported to be the size of a dog, with a tail) are definitely not Bigfoot, whether they actually exist or not. The fact that I've used a single main citation for some of the articles I've created or contributed to on these cryptids does not make a given cryptid the same thing as bigfoot, nor does it mean I'm promoting the book (I did add other citations to many of these articles). As for primate cryptids outside of North America, I'm still working on that. Please discuss to obtain a relevent consensus on some of these articles, and please do not simply redirect all articles on "other" cryptids without adequate discussion. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the general point that you are making -- not anything weird is the same as a Bigfoot -- but I'd have to disagree that there'd be any cryptid humanoid primate reports from North America that were not offshoots of the Bigfoot myth. OK, sure, Mothman isn't a Bigfoot, but Skunk ape most definitely is without a doubt solely based upon the Bigfoot legend. In fact it's just a regional name for the same idea. The vast majority of reports have no differences from the standard Bigfoot tropes except, sometimes, for size (the smell is a common bit of folklore about Bigfoot as well). I think the skunk ape has enough reports on its own to have a separate article, but if there were fewer reports I'd definitely just redirect it here. And, wow, you don't even have a link in that article to Bigfoot? What's up with that? Going from your section title above, if it's "a bigfoot-like primate cryptid in North America" then, yes, it's identified with Bigfoot. I mean, that's pretty much a tautology if there ever were one.DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, please do not simply redirect articles without discussing them. The Devil Monkey is not described as being similar to bigfoot (not even humanoid-looking, and like you said, it looks more like a dog). The first paragraph of the "Bigfoot" article says that the creature is described to be a bipedal creature, which is not the case with the Devil Monkey. If you look at the alleged image in one of the references, the ears are shorter, and the teeth are much longer, than the image of the dog (actually read the report). As for truly reliable sources, they are difficult to ascertain for subjects relating to cryptids, as much of the information regarding them comes from reports (they are not proven to exist, after all), especially for lesser-known ones lacking the level of formal studies with more "famous" cryptids such as Bigfoot. It's certainly possible they are offshoots, but it's not a good idea for editors to speculateon this, and reports of "other" primate cryptids not associated with bigfoot should not simply be redirected to bigfoot (since when is Bigfoot "THE" North American primate cryptid?). Also, please point out the instances of the alleged "synthesis" and "original research" (all citations label the described creature as a "devil monkey", this isn't OR because it would make sense to place information from different sources relating to a single subject in the same article). As for the other articles redirected to this one, none of their references indicates that the alleged creature *is* a bigfoot (which means that doing so would be akin to OR, as redirecting suggests that the subject redirect page *is* supposed to be the same thing as Bigfoot). ~AH1^(TCU) 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Diane Stocking clarification

This should say: Loren Coleman, Author/Cryptozoologist, and, Diane Stocking, President of Stocking Hominid Research, Inc./Bigfoot Researcher, 3lilsocks (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No it should not. There is no need to go into the fact that Coleman is also an author or that Stocking, who from your other edits I presume is you (3lilsocks), is president of a cryptozoology company. It is better to be clear and precise in descriptions. —Fiziker ^t c 01:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If 3lilsocks feels it should include that information then 3lilsocks should change it. It isn't a big deal anyone can edit... so have at it.--Feldman2 (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you know, advice on what editors should and should not do here means more coming from someone who has actually edited the encyclopedia before today, and on pages other than only this talk page. Making a brand new account and suddenly telling people what to do isn't kosher, especially when we've had a problem with sockpuppets recently.

And I agree with Fiziker, "Stocking Hominid Research"?? Really? President of? What does that take, exactly? Does it even require printing up letterhead? Doesn't someone who gives themselves a fancy-sounding name for doing whatever they are already doing skip straight to president automatically? Notability and encyclopedic content is what we are after here, not people wanting to have fancy titles for no reason. DreamGuy (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The citation should not include an author's job title, maybe a link to their article at the very most. Also, the citation should properly be "Surname, First Name;", and a cite tag would be helpful as well. Also, please do not bite the new editors. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If a new editor is pretending to be an old one, or is an old one under a new name, then they can take criticism like an old one. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If notability and encyclopedic content is what you're after here why is it that you allow the last paragraph to sound like a commercial for Henry Gee and his nature magazine? The entire article needs a professional makeover--Simpsoncan (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jacobs Creature

As result of an AfD discusion, the Jacobs Creature article has been redirected to Bigfoot, with direction for merge discussions. There are plenty of 3rd party sources to support a paragraph or two on the subject within the Bigfoot article. I added some info on Jacobs Creature (probably too much), but my edit was instantly reverted by User:Fiziker. Is he the gatekeeper of this article? What are the thoughts of other editors on this subject? Untick (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they essentially copied the whole of the Jacobs article into this one (it should be noted that that article contained a lot of text directly copied from the sources--I did not check to see if the version you used included those issues). Jacobs's pictures were reported in the media but so have hundreds of other sightings. I'd say that it's probably toward the end of better known sightings but it still isn't one of the top few. The fact that this is recieving so much space is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, what you added contained a lot of material that does have anything directly to do with these photos. —Fiziker ^t c 05:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the AfD didn't say to merge, it said to redirect and that the decision to merge would be discussed elsewhere. I think it can be merged somewhat but we should not be giving undue weight to sightings and, more importantly, undue weight to fringe theories. —Fiziker ^t c 05:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice some of the editors have a strong POV and edit according to it. As long as the section is not presented as “the truth” and the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular views, readers will be allowed to form their own opinions. Then the view is not given undue weight.--Simpsoncan (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Simpsoncan, please see WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. Representing pseudoscience as such is inline with WP:NPOV. —Fiziker ^t c 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire Bear section is violation of WP:UNDUE. Follwing WP:PSCI will require many changes to this article that is based on folklore. Notability is not dependent on fame, importance, or the popularity for such a controversial subject other viewpoints should be included.--Simpsoncan (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your argument? It isn't the folklore part that's relevant to WP:PSCI its the pseudoscience. —Fiziker ^t c 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC

Some advocates of Bigfoot still speculate that was a Juvenile Sasquatch their published viewpoints aren't WP:PSCI. Omitting them based on your POV is a violation. The emphasis placed in the Bear section is giving it undue weight WP:UNDUE.--Simpsoncan (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Their speculation is pseudoscience and hence WP:PSCI applies. However, that doesn't mean that the speculation doesn't have any place. The description section has plenty of speculation about Bigfoot, so I'd have no problem with mentioning speculation about juveniles per se. The problem is that the text on the Jacobs Creature article gave undue weight to the speculation. It should be clear that it is pseudoscience and that the general consensus is that such speculation is predicated on unproven assertians. —Fiziker ^t c 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The general consensus among these advocates and the only Scientist to investigate this incident doesn't appear to be a bear. To place it in the Bear section with undue weight WP:UNDUE is a POV violation. The general consensus of other scientists over Bigfoot in general is that this cultural phenomenon is a combination of the misidentification of known animals, wishful thinking, and the deliberate fabrication of evidence. I'd have no problem with mentioning it in the Bear section as long as various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular views. Let the facts speak for themselves.--Simpsoncan (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What scientist? —Fiziker ^t c 23:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Duke University’s Vanessa Woods.--Simpsoncan (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my impertinence but this is an article on Bigfoot, therefore the entire article is predicated on unproven assertions. The only consideration for inclusion that should be followed is the general notability guideline which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria…" I do not agree that this article should be limited by a subjective exclusion rule allowing only “the top 5 sightings of all time” (where was that rule decided?). Jacobs Creature should have a paragraph in this article. Untick (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such limit. However, Wikipedia is not a directory; not every sighting can be listed here. There needs to be some clear criterion for inclusion. I haven't seen a different criterion proposed than limitting the individual sightings (not things that are elswewhere in the article that may be relevant to other sections) to the most prominent ones. The only claim that this sighting has to prominence is a short time in the news cycle. This is something that has happened to many other sightings so my concern with adding this and not the others is that it isn't inline with WP:RECENT because the only reason why this one is mentioned and not the others is because it happened only a few years ago. If you have an idea for a better criterion, please say so. —Fiziker ^t c 23:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought I did say my better idea... follow the general notability guideline. Untick (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And how does this address the WP:NOTDIR problem? —Fiziker ^t c 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn’t call six widley publicized sightings a directory. --Simpsoncan (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. But then what do we do about future inclusions. Obviously not every sighting that has been entered into BFRO's directory would be notable enough for inclusion under Wikipedia's criteria but there are many sightings that have gotten media attention. How do you draw the distinction? One idea that I've had in the past to try to objectively decide which sightings are prominent enough to be listed is to do a Google search for sites that list prominent sightings. Then use either the intersection or possibly the union of those lists as the sightings. This would get rid of some of the problems with arbitrarily including or not including sightings but I don't think the searches brought up pages that had lists of the most prominent sightings. —Fiziker ^t c 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember this story when it was in the news and it was big. You should use it as a gauge to measure prominent sightings. Even though some said it was probably just a bear nobody believed it was and it climbed to the top news story. There isn't another sighting that has done that yet except for the Georgia hoax but it was a hoax. They don't run Bigfoot sighting stories for long unless new information comes up. There isn't much there after they show the picture and the story. I did read they were making a documentary on this story but even that doesn't top the attention this report recieved back in 2007. We should put this back in prominet sightings. If nobody gets to it I can when I get a little more experiance on Wikipedia.--Ratpole (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're falling into the trap of recentism. The Jacobs and Georgia Bigfoot are the two that received the most attention recently; they are not the only sightings to receive such attention. —Fiziker ^t c 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added some other viewpoints for now that were mentioned. I will have to do some more research on this subject. I'll finish with the sighting section at a later date.--Ratpole (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua needs to discuss changes here before making them. His recent edits to remove various significant published viewpoints placed in the article by Ratpole should not have been trimed to his point of view. The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Media sources must be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet. These edits need reverted.--Simpsoncan (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed grammatical errors and removed editorial commentary per MoS; I have also removed content sourced to a podcast which does not meet WP:RS. I assure you I am quite familiar with the WP:RULES here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you should know the edits made by Ratpole fall within the guidelines of WP:RULES--Simpsoncan (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuaha was entirely correct in removing the "editorial comment". I'm undecided whether I think the podcast constitutes a reliable source or not. Podcasts generally don't but as this is of an interview of Meldrum this could count. —Fiziker ^t c 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Meldrum seems to have published and been interviewed a good bit; surely if this is a notable view of his it can be sourced to a publication rather than a podcast, which by its very nature is of questionable reliability. I don't suppose anyone here has seen Meldrum make similar comments elsewhere? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall reading WP:RULES where it says something has to be said a certain number of times before it is notable. I did read that audio materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered a reliable source.--Simpsoncan (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Misidentification

Should the title "Bears" be changed to "Misidentification"? After reading several articles I find it is more than just bears that are the culprit. Bears should then be mentioned under the heading. People, Chimpanzees and a few other animals have been mentioned at several sightings with good references available.--Simpsoncan (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are other animals that cause sightings, so adding stuff on other animals would be good too. That material should probably lumped with bears so putting it all under Misidentification would be good. —Fiziker ^t c 16:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add the Easton Bow hunting Bigfoot picture that turned out to be human. It seems it was a hoax played on Fred Eichler though, this section isn't about hoaxes it's about misidentification of known animals, humans or objects like the Bigfoot rock formation on Mars.--Simpsoncan (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The juvenile Bigfoot part is wrong it wasn't completely proven to be a bear. The information doesn't qualify as reliable when there's other published information that identifies it as something else. It's not professional to categorize sightings to what they probably are. I'll place a paragraph in with the other prominent sightings later. I need to check on some sources first.--Ratpole (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ratpole, the issue isn't whether this has been conclusively proven to be a bear or a Bigfoot. The images are consistent with a mangy bear; therefore, scientifically it is proper to say that it is consistent with a bear. The Bigfoot believers need to prove that the images do not contain a bear to first say that the images do not contain a bear, and then they would need to prove that those images are of a Bigfoot to say that it was a Bigfoot. To do otherwise would to improperly portray the possition of science on this matter. —Fiziker ^t c 21:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ratpole and Fiziker, Looking at it the other way around it could be noted that one or two scientists and proponents of Bigfoot believe scientifically the limb proportions aren’t consistent with limb proportions of bear. Obviously one side has to be wrong but the photos don’t show enough to conclusively prove Bigfoot or bear. That’s why it might be fitting to keep it under the title “Misidentification” with some added clarification.--Simpsoncan (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to mention that some people claim that there is evidence that this is a Bigfoot, but it is important that this is not used to misrepresent the view of the scientific community. Regardless, the arguments of the Bigfoot proponents should be mentioned—just like for all the other sightings that are mentioned. —Fiziker ^t c 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible concern

Incidentally, anyone want to file an updated sock report on the latest accounts trying to promote the Jacobs Creature? DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've considered asking for a check user in the past considering that these accounts were all created around the same time and after the socks were blocked. I decided not to and give them the benefit of the doubt. However, now that I look at the creation dates of Simpsoncan and Ratpole I see that they were made an hour apart I'm somewhat more suspicious. Untick was created prior to the blocking of our dear departed socks and didn't start editing this page until recently so I'm not all that suspiscious of that user. I'm personally not going to submit a check user on them until I take a better look at when checkusers will investigate someone or I see something more telling from them. If you want to feel free. —Fiziker ^t c 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that User:Untick appears to have come in through seeing the AFD of Jacobs Creature and then responding to points raised there here after the redirect. Simpsoncan and Ratpole, however, are another matter entirely. Simponcan's appearance out of the blue seemed supiciously timed, but his/her original comments were worded in such a way as to suggest he/she was advocating views entirely different from the banned sockpuppeting editor. Now from later comments and page edits it's a carbon copy of the guy who was kicked off, arguing for the same sources, the same supposed experts, the same everything. Ratpole showing up at the same time to do the same thing, with neither one having any substantial edits elsewhere (some minor edits which could be to try to build up a history to avoid the reasons the first socks were blocked). DreamGuy (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Because it was the only sources available copied from wikipedia history and they were good ones.--Simpsoncan (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone but are you serious? Bigfoot fanatic Fiziker and his WP:MEAT friends have controlled this page far too long. Now you have the odacity to accuse me of sock puppetry? This is definately out of control!--Ratpole (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to confine yourself to the article content, not attacking your fellow editors, Ratpole. Fiziker is an established and well respected editor. That DreamGuy has expressed concern that two editors who signed on close together and edit in a similar fashion, following a serious sock invasion of this article, might be sockpuppets is a rational concern. I realize it might be a bit alarming to you, but if you are not socks a check will merely clear you. Insulting Fiziker and/or DreamGuy is not a productive nor an approved use of your time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I am not involved in any meat puppetry. I know no one editing this page other than through their edits on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua has articulated the reason for concern. Several meat puppets, who tried to put Jacobs's pictures into the article, were blocked on 15 March, a week before you and Simpsoncan joined Wikipedia. The timing of your account creation may be just a coincidence but if there is any connection between you or any other editors you need to disclose it. —Fiziker ^t c 23:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has promoted anything it was all published facts! They keep getting removed over editors that can't contain themselves when it comes to their POV. You can't even blame Untick for promoting because he wasn't the one that started this topic. For that you would need to check TheDarkGod on October 31, 2007.--Simpsoncan (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is suppose to be reserved for discussion of the article not paranoid accusations over a disagreement among editors that have different opiniions. The three accused editors with similar interest working on the same popular topic that has been on here for two years haven't done anything wrong.--Orthonto (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy: I request you amend the report to include Simpsoncan, Ratpole, Untick, Orthonto and whoever Simpsoncan is talking about when he refers to TheDarkGod, if you can figure it out. The sooner we get everyone cleared or confirmed, the quicker we can move on to focus on the article.

Simpsoncan: One may promote published "facts". Just because something is published doesn't mean it gets to go in the article. Sourcing, weight, consensus, etc - published items may be on sources which don't meet WP:RS; they may fall short of notability and unbalance an article, making adding them a violation of WP:NPOV; they may be determined to be violations of WP:FRINGE; or they may be omitted for many reasons. To argue and fight to add content, whether published or not (even in the New York Times), may be considered "promoting" that content. Saying "they weren't promoting" because the content had been published somewhere is missing the point. The ONLY possible argument for "they weren't promoting" is "they never tried to add that content". KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed something -- I wouldn't know what to say about the latter two -- would I be suggesting they are socks or saying probably aren't but they should be looked into (and where did Orthonto come from? don't recall that name -- guess I'll check the history)? But as far as I know other editors can add evidence/questions to sock reports, and anyone who thinks they have something germane to add has my blessings. DreamGuy (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to me that Untick is a sock. —Fiziker ^t c 16:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

To argue and fight to remove pertinent information from the article because you belong to an organization that doesn't approve or a personal belief isn't keeping a WP:NPOV. Sourcing, weight, consensus didn't come into play.--Simpsoncan (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What an odd comment. Are you suggesting we belong to some organization or another? Which one, and why would you think that? DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy: I request you amend the report to include Fiziker and KillerChihuahua to confirm they aren't the same person.--Simpsoncan (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the same person as you? That's obvious. If you mean as each other, if you want to file a separate report and think you can back it up with any sort of logical basis whatsoever, by all means do so. I know you in the past accused everyone here who disagreed with you as being sock- or meatpuppets despite having no reason to think so, so if you really think making those accusations officially will help you rather than hurt your credibility, by all means go for it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Simpsoncan, feel free to try to find evidence of me using sock puppets or meat puppets and submit it to WP:SPI (make sure you have some evidence first as I believe they don't like people submitting those without justification). I'm confident what their decision will be. Alright, enough talk about sock puppets here, lets deal with the article and leave this sort of stuff to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sasquatch2.—Fiziker ^t c 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's seems KillerChihuahua, DreamGuy and Fiziker are working together to patrol and remove the material based on what they believe on this one topic. I've noticed their comments are sometimes posted in order close to the same times, I will submit a WP:SPI.--Simpsoncan (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC) After reviewing WP:SPI rules I will postpone this decision until it is justifiable as DreamGuy will soon find out he should have.--Simpsoncan (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Laws

This might not be the place to ask but what about a section entitled, “Bigfoot laws”? It could be used to present laws like in Whatcom County, Washington they have a Sasquatch protection and refuge area. There also was a 1969 ordinance in Skamania County, Washington that prohibits the killing of Bigfoot.--Timpicerilo (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Laws regarding Bigfoot are dealt with in Bigfoot in popular culture. I think that there are a number of more notable things about Bigfoot in popular culture that would make it onto this page before the legal stuff. Of course, we could always do a small section about popular culture and then link to the main article. —Fiziker ^t c 03:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this, a link would be a good idea.--Timpicerilo (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I see the Bigfoot in popular culture link in the "See Also" area, I wasn't familiar enough with the article.That might be adequate.--Timpicerilo (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The other Bigfoot

Since its inception, BIGFOOT has been the leader of the pack in innovation and development in the monster truck industry. Over the years Bob Chandler and the entire BIGFOOT family have comprised a list of records and accomplishments. The following list details all of these achievements. These are all "BIGFOOT"/"Monster Truck" firsts and records.

First monster truck in the world - St. Louis, MO - 1975

First monster truck at SEMA - Las Vegas, NV - 1977

A BIGFOOT truck has appeared at SEMA every year since 1977

First monster truck to use 48" tires - 1978

First monster truck to use military axles - 1978

First monster truck to appear at Gravelrama - Cleves, OH - 1978

First monster truck paid appearance - Denver, CO - 1979

First monster truck sled pull - 1979

First monster truck to use rear steering - 1978

First monster truck to appear in a movie - "Take This Job & Shove It" - 1981

First monster truck car crush - Bob Chandler - St. Louis, MO - April 1981

First monster truck to do a car crush at a live event - Jefferson City, MO - April 1982

First monster truck to float on water - Lesterville, MO - 1982

First monster truck toy/TV commercial - Playskool - 1983

First monster truck with major corporate sponsorship - Ford Motor Company - 1983

First monster truck in TV commercial for major automaker - Ford Trucks - 1983

First monster truck to successfully climb "Big Elm" at Gravelrama - Cleves, OH - 1986

I'd like to do an article on the other bigfoot. Would it be feasable to link it to this Bigfoot page as, "The Vehicle"?--Timpicerilo (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just found out someone has beat me to this one to, Bigfoot (truck). I can still put some information at Bigfoot in popular culture.--Timpicerilo (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It probably makes sense to include this in the popular culture article. Other than providing a link to the disambiguation page at the top of the article, I don't see how a link to the truck would improve the quality of the article. The name of the truck is not that relevant to the topic of Bigfoot. —Fiziker ^t c 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger/reintegration with Bigfoot in popular culture

I'd like to suggest a merger of something like this, along with some cleaning up.

(material, viewable here removed by Fiziker —Fiziker ^t c)

I couldn't make a major change as this without everyone's approval. Let me know how you all feel.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the content you included from the talk page. Please do not include long proposals (especially with headings) on a talk page. I have placed a link above directing people to the old version that shows what your proposal is (here). If you would like to have it as something that can be edited, please create a sub page (e.g. Talk:Bigfoot/Proposed merger with popular culture) and add a link to it. Also, if you are serious about merging the two pages you should take a look at WP:MERGE, which will show you how to propose a merger. Personally, I do not support a merger because I see no reason to clutter this article with trivia like before the articles were split. —Fiziker ^t c 21:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The same subject is on both pages I thought it would be better to delete some of the trivia, clean it up then merge. The second page needs some background material, it could be added but then we would have a duplicate. If you think it’s going to be a big mess then we’ll leave it alone, that’s why I brought it up for everyone to see.--Timpicerilo (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look at some pages on X in popular culture. It is common that if there is a good amount of material such as there is in Bigfoot in popular culture it can stand in its own article. A brief description of what Bigfoot is would be beneficial to the article (something that should be talked about on its talk page) but becoming a duplicate article will not be an issue. All that's needed is a paragraph. Regarding a merger, I do think that it would be messy. Your suggestion still includes a lot of material that isn't really relevant to the topic of Bigfoot. It shows its importance in popular culture but other than that, most don't have anything to do with the phenomenon. —Fiziker ^t c 03:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)