Talk:Bigfoot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goodall does NOT believe in Bigfoot

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

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

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

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

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

See tape on BFRO website.

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

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

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

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

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

The article is not even written to Wikipedia standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias and Aggressive Reverts: Admins Please Review This

The opening paragraph states that the "mainstream" scientific community says there is no Bigfoot, when in fact the scientific community is divided on the issue and a number of notable primatologists (noted later in the article and including Internationally recognized and award-winning primatologist Jane Goodall) believe that Bigfoot does exists. It is therefore obvious bias in the opening to say "the mainstream scientific community" says there is no Bigfoot.

Past attempts to correct this extremely biased and poorly-written opening have met with aggressive reverts by individual who camps out on this article and tries to dominate it.

I also just removed a line from the opening that states a serious of opinions about why there is no Bigfoot and then calls these opinions "facts". Very manipulative and biased writing. My prediction is that my edit will be aggressively reverted and I will receive threats from this editor (as has happened numerous times in the past).

Sean7phil (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read the cited transcript of Goodall. She is open about the weakness of the evidence. 'Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist...Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist....Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.'

As a scientist she accepts the arguments against their existence but she wants them to exist and (in sections I don't quote above) she cites stories from Native Americans describing the same sounds, and "a little tiny snippet" in a newspaper suggesting the DNA has been examined but does not match any known animal.

So her position doesn't really strengthen the scientific argument for Bigfoot, it only shows that Jane Goodall doesn't dismiss the idea out of hand and is actively looking for evidence. I think the current wording does her statement justice:

Jane Goodall, in a 2002 interview, expressed her personal hope of the existence of Bigfoot, but allowed that there is no concrete evidence for the creature..

I've replaced your removed statement with one that doesn't refer to "facts". The import of the statement is that Bigfoot is significant within the fringe-scientific field of cryptozoology. --TS 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This section was just moved from the top to the bottom (attempt to hide complaints about aggressive edits?) Vandalism? 75.166.179.110 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

See tape on BFRO website.

I just listened to the tape and she starts by saying that SHE IS SURE THAT THEY EXIST-- she only says at the end (about the past before she became sure that "she wanted them to exist". BUT IN THE PRESENT SHE IS SURE THAT THEY EXIST.

Someone on this site is lying-- because the tape was obvious. HERE IS THE LINK (Cut and paste it into your browser to get it to work) -- http://www.youtube.com/user/BFROVIDEOS#p/a/f/0/4NmCmfdFAhQ

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

Goodall is mentioned in the appropriate section, as are other notable figures that have expressed limited support for the existence of Bigfoot. I don't see what the problem is. ClovisPt (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's lying. Goodall clearly expresses a personal belief in the existence of Bigfoot.

On the positioning of the comments, Wikipedia convention is to place newer sections at the bottom and that is where regular editors will look. Placing the comments at the top makes them harder to notice because regulars will not look there. The conventional ordering also makes it easier to gain a chronological overview of discussion topics. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Following this same convention with all new topics also makes pages easier to archive once they become too long. As this page now has so archive 10 was started. If I took a topic I shouldn't have or if more can be moved please correct me.--Timpicerilo (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"A small minority of accredited scientists profess..." Really? I would say that there are many scientists that think these creatures exist and some who aren't sure. The fool who wrote that "small minority" bit has an axe to grind. And did you catch the citation for this? It has little to do with the comment! 75.48.30.247 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is so out of control and one-sided we can't even tell the Bigfoot story properly. It's a mythological cryptid as it says on the bottom of the page! Give us a break people it's Bigfoot we aren't talking about a new scientific discovery!--Timpicerilo (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind editors taking part in this discussion to remain WP:Civil and keep WP:GOODFAITH.--Gniniv (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved this section back to its original location. Do not take old conversations and move them to the top or bottom of the page. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Meganthropus

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

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

The Wilderness Hunter

I find it distressing that a simple matter of verifiable fact should continue to be subverted by a single editor. The text of The Wilderness Hunter is public domain, and readily available online. At no point in the Bauman goblin story is the creature ever identified as a "bear"; although, Bauman's initial thoughts about the animal were of a bear. Roosevelt speculates that Bauman may have given elven attributes to an "abnormally wicked and cunning wild beast" (e.g. bear, cougar), but states, "whether this was so or not, no man can say." The creature is in fact never identified, and only described as walking on two feet. Roosevelt describes the encounter as a "goblin-story".

In properly describing the story, a "bear attack" would be incorrect, a statement of opinion about a ghost story. "Bear attack" is not even correct as to Roosevelt's suspicion ("wild beast"). Roosevelt described the story as a "goblin-story". I have made the description in the article more in-line with the story as published. I also identify it as Bauman's story, as retold by Roosevelt. As to why Hunting the Grisly and Other Sketches is referenced... as long as the first publication (The Wilderness Hunter) is properly cited, I have no serious objections, other than brevity. - Magic pumpkin (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, you are the one distorting things. It is a verifiable fact that it is mentioned as a bear, they thought it was a bear, and it's in a book ABOUT bears. Good grief, the extent some people will go to to try to distort basic facts is disgusting. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor and Failed Sources

This article, particularly the section "View among the scientific community" contains several poor and failed sources WP:RS. There are also several statements which are not supported by their sources, and other statements which are controversial and should have been sourced, but were not. - Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Swedish Publication

The book, Berömda Vidunder, has long been a point of contention, due to its lack of availability, and publication in Swedish. It was used as support for what is prima facie an erroneous statement. The book has been found and read by a Swedish national, who confirms that it provides no content supporting the statement, "Beromda Vidunder Reviewed". Retrieved 2010-04-06. Because this problem was highlighted over a year ago, and an opportunity to present a better source was provided yet none was given, the reference AND the controversial, unsupported statement have been removed.- Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

USA Today

A pair of reprinted USA Today articles are provided to lend support to the inaccurate statement "The scientific community overwhelmingly discounts the existence of bigfoot". After reading the articles, it becomes apparent that 1) The author never states that the scientific community discounts the existence of bigfoot, 2) The statement "the Bigfoot search faces widespread scientific skepticism" is likely the journalist's opinion, and 3) the author interviewed a roughly equal number of scientists on both sides of the issue, indicating that the scientific community is split concerning skepticism. Only one of the interviewed scientists completely discounted the existence. The statements have been rewritten to conform with the source.

Also, these sources should be properly cited, back to the original USA Today issue and page numbers. - Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with your assumption that "the author interviewed a roughly equal number of scientists on both side.......is split concerning skepticism". This does not logically follow. If I am writing an article on issue x, and the scientific community is split, let's say, 95% to 5%, and I interview someone from both camp (1 for, 1 against), that does not mean there is an equal split. Selection bias in representing both sides should not be taken as a representative sample. Especially since a juornalist would actively seek out people to tell both sides. I'm not arguing for the USA today articles, I just think your assumption is not viable.Jbower47 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Minnesota

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

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

Opening Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Patterson film is fake! But don't get me wrong...

The patterson film is fake. The man that dressed up in that black gorilla suit,(Hieronimus Condemn), confessed that the film was fake. He was supposed to get One thousand dollars from Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, acting as the eledged "Bigfoot", but never got his cut, so he confessed that it was a fake film. He actually walked like he did in the film, in real life, coincidentily. They showed an episode about this topic on the History and Discovery channel a few years back but not many people must have seen it. Here is the link to Hieronimus's confession...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/Hieronimus_testimony.mpg

So I just thought that I should put something on here so people are aware that this particular film is a hoax. But don't get me wrong, I do beleive that there could very well be a Bigfoot out there, just not the one in the Patterson film.

                  67.208.236.157 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Aaron Kevern, Muskegon Michigan, My e-mail is    aaron.kevern@yahoo.com

The Patterson film is real, that confession is completely bogus. There are several different stories involving different people who claimed (or were suspected) to be the man in the costume. Hieronimous claims he was friends with Roger Patterson, and accompanied Patterson and Gimlin to Northern California with this ape suit. Patterson's widow says he's lying and so does Bob Gimlin. No one can corroborate Hieronimous' claim that he accompanied Patterson and Gimlin and the worst part is that there are real living witnesses near Bluff Creek that say Patterson and Gimlin were not accompanied by anyone! Hieronimous doesn't know where they went, or which route they took. The fact is that Hieronimous is trying to attach himself to the Patterson story with his own fiction.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done Timpicerilo ! You have done your homework and your reasoning skills are outstanding ! You shall be rewarded in the not too distant future with indisputable evidence of their lives, along with never before seen or documented hominin behaviors. Your agenda appears only to be seeking the truth. It is refreshing. Thank you on their behalf. Sincerely 67.165.216.135 (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller

The Patterson film is real!

People like to make things up. See above comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.30.247 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Bigfoot Times" blog post?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guy in a costume

Bigfoot is just a guy in a costume. Wasn't the hoax revealed a few years ago? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There's different stories involving different people who claim to be the man in the costume. Those bogus stories have been commercially exploited in books and TV documentaries. All for financial gain. There's much more evidence and history on the existence of Bigfoot than just the Patterson Gimlin film.--Timpicerilo (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if there are false claims of certain people having been the guy in the costume, it doesn't mean this monster is real. There are other ways to fake a film. Even more likely, bears sometimes walk bipedily for short distances, and yet those short distances can be longer than what the alleged monster walks in the film. Furthermore, an individual bear with ursinine dwarfism or some other deformity could look more humanoid than a normal healthy bear from certain camera angles. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this relate to any specific concerns about the article? Talk pages shouldn't be used as chat forums. --McGeddon (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does, even though this reply took a while. A bear walking bipedily (which they do for short distances in some circumstances) would in fact look deceivingly primate-like from certain camera angles. We should acknowledge this in the Article (who's chatting...this is about the Article) so that reader's don't assume the alleged monster is real merely because no human wore a costume. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone that claims they were a guy in a costume to gain money is suspicious. CypherC2 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Homo robustus bigfooticus" is their scientific name

I think it is objectionable that the least likely people to see or preserve these beings are given credit and authority over their descriptions and futures. They are falsely referred to as ape-like when the only thing ape-like about them is that they are densely haired. They are not only hominids but hominins. Their young resemble robust Australopithecines and the skulls of adults resemble a cross between A. boisei and H. erectus. Their young are more alert and agile compared to contemporaries of human, bonobos, gorilla or chimpanzees of the same ages. Adult cranial capacity nears 1,000 cc which overlaps H. erectus and H. sapiens. Their young, starting at only 150cc craniums, have a skull and brain growth time period near double that of humans. Their comparative skeletal analysis and D.N.A. profile indicates that they are divergent from Sapiens by one to two million years. Their size is a function of "Bergmanns rule". They migrated out of Africa, crossed over the Bering land bridges during the ice ages when both eastern Russia and western Alaska were ice and snow free. They are omnivorous and partial to fish, grasshoppers and roots. Their body proportional ratios compared to Sapiens are: torso to legs are similar while their hand, arm, feet and ears are proportionally longer. An adult female stands just over seven feet and males just under eight feet on average, with the same variability and sexual dimorphism as humans. Their reproductive and survival strategies are unique. They are mostly nocturnal and prefer to rest during the heat of the day. They have a proportionally larger foot that is wider but near identical in shape and function to humans, with an arch and longer heel for necessary fulcrum propulsion of their large mass. They do not have a mid-tarsal break in their foot, which is a manufactured and promoted scientific myth. Whereas human shoulders approximate 1/4 their height, Homo Robustus are about 1/3 their height with total arm and shoulder mass ten fold that of humans. All of the above are referenced in the book:{BIGFOOTICUS and THEIR BABIES Our Living Hominin Kin "HOMO ROBUSTUS BIGFOOTICUS" TM by:Tom Miller DISCOVERER of 6(six) Individual BEINGS corroborated by INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE that PROVES they are REAL! & the scientific evidence of WHO & what they are & how they got here! Scientific Classification BCC 001 Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo robustus bigfooticus, Nicknames: Homo Robustus TM, Bigfooticus TM, Copyright 2010} and also referenced at LivingHominids.com. For their protection and continuation as a species into the future- They should no longer be referred to as creatures, apes, ape-men or sasqu**** as that is a derogatory term. Bigfoot is appropriate as it refers to the size of their body as compared to humans. If you shaved a Homo robustus bigfooticus from head to toe, what you would see would be nearly human with proportional variations most notably in the skull. The evidence suggests mistaken identity shooting deaths have occurred. They are at risk. Many new species are being discovered and given scientific names based on one camera trap photo. Perpetuating Bigfooticus as creatures or myths does our shy, gentle, unique hominin cousins a grave disservice. They must be preserved and protected. 67.165.216.135 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.216.135 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Thomas. I can't find a single piece of evidence published by reliable sources suggesting that Homo robustus bigfooticus, Homo Robustus or Bigfooticus exist, or ever existed. LivingHominids.com is your personal website. Please read WP:Original research to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Vejvancicky. Thank you for your comments. Obviously major discoveries have little precedent. I believe it would be near criminal for me or anyone else to suppress this information and knowledge which is corroborated by more than two years of quiet study, skeletal, photo and video evidence. A population of 1,000 rare Bonobos has just been discovered and announced. I have a tremendous responsibility to these beings and am proceeding with caution. I can assure you that this is no hoax or anything of that nature. As far as reliable sources, I suggest that you do a thorough listen to all of J. Goodall's lectures over the years where she states that she "knows" that these beings exists. She is in the know. The fact that she does not know exactly who and what they are - does not diminish her statements. If you would like to see what the skull shape of their young look like - see the cover of the college text book by Clark Spencer Larsen titled "Our Origins". Robust Australopithecus boisei lived over a time span of at least a 1.5 million years - side by side with Homo habilis and Homo erectus with a very robust body and skull. They are the first known beings associated with stone and bone tools 2 1/2 million years ago and presumed by most paleoanthropologists to be non-ancestral to H. sapiens. Also the 1.85 million year old A. sediba, which was discovered by a ten year old boy and announced in April 2010, was immediately pronounced by Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) discoverer D. Johanson, as being mis-genused and should be re-classified in the Genus - Homo. I agree with him. Between five and one million years ago in Africa - how many complete hominin skeletons have been found ? I am a Conservationist and freelance paleoanthopologist whose past contributions include the California Condor Recovery Program in 1987 when only 26 birds existed in the world. Today more than 350 exist. It was my suggestion - that when they had the numbers to begin releasing them back into the wild, that they use non-endangered WILD caught Andean Condors as bonded surrogate babysitters to teach the young releases to avoid humans and to do their first releases in safer Arizona. A couple of the new releases walked into the Grand Canyon Visitors Center as a result of the biologist allowing them to imprint on humans. They should be raised by Condor hand puppets and never associate humans as a food source. Those individuals will never fly again. I currently have baby Osprey and four baby owls on my platforms (photos available upon request). Since the main BF article seems biased toward myth, and our evidence suggests that - that perception has and is causing - mistaken identity hunting incident deaths, I thought it responsible and prudent to share some of the facts. What harm can come from preventing even one killing of an upright bipedal "bear" which walks on two feet. See: President Teddy Roosevelt's 1880's book. Each individuals D.N.A. is vital. Sincerely and Thank you.67.165.216.135 (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller

Thomas, Wikipedia is not a good place for publishing shocking unverifiable news of this kind. I wish you all the best in your work with birds, it is an interesting and praiseworthy activity. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

View among the scientific community - overly weighted?

I know this may be stirring a hornets nest, but as someone who really has no dog in this fight,I have to say I find the "View among the scientific community" somewhat overly weighted toward those who support. Based solely on the real estate taken up by the "support" side, it would seem that 66-75% support, and maybe third or a quarter are skeptics. I find it hard to believe that this is accurate. Regardless, the support portion goes into significant detail with names and quotes, while the skeptic section primarily contains short blanket comments. I realize people feel strongly about this in both camps, but let's be adults and leave the agendas for crypotzoology and skeptic forums. This is Wikipedia, let's keep it neutral. Jbower47 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It didn't used to be that way. A Bigfoot proponent went in there and totally slanted it. I fixed it now. DreamGuy (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph

Remade last paragraph with slightly more space given to the skeptics. Please comment on the result..--Gniniv (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have dialled down "The scientific community overwhelmingly discounts the existence of Bigfoot" to "Skeptics of Bigfoot say the evidence that does exist is largely based on hoax", and moved it below the arguments supporting Bigfoot's existence (which you have changed from "a few scientists" to "some scientists"). This seems like a misleading summary of the balance of opinion.

The section in question does need cleaning up, but I don't think we help the reader by avoiding mentioning the scientific consensus. And given that the section is only a couple of paragraphs in length, I don't think it's worth splitting it into two equal-sized "for" and "against" sections. --McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a reference that absolutely confirms the strong statement "The scientific community overwhelmingly discounts the existence of Bigfoot" and relates how a overwhelming consensus of scientists accepts that, I will be happy to include it. If you look at the Support section though, you will see that several prominent scientists like Jane Goodall are not totally opposed to the topic, thus removing the "overwhelming consensus argument". If we are to adhere to WP:NPOV we need to say something more objective.--Gniniv (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not required to find a source that represents science as a body regarding its non-acceptance of the existence of Bigfoot. The absence of Bigfoot research in mainstream scientific journals speaks volumes (sorry for the pun). Jane Goodall saying she would like Bigfoot to exist isn't "scientific support" for Bigfoot's existence by any stretch of the imagination. Additionally, we have overwhelming mainstream coverage to attest that "Bigfoot search faces widespread scientific skepticism", and "In the scientific community, Bigfoot is usually good for a few laughs" and otherwise characterizing activities of proponents as "research outside the scientific mainstream". You may want to read WP:FRINGE sometime. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter what point you are trying to make with your personal bias against the subject, WP:V stands as Wikipedia's core policy. As it is the article has references to confirm Bigfoot as a significant minority perspective worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I suggest that you consider working on an article where you can contribute more constructively, or help add to the sources of this article instead of removing relevant information. Another idea would be for you to make an article that deals with the Criticism of Bigfoot. Remember that this article is about Bigfoot not about what you think of Bigfoot. (See WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--Gniniv (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias? I love Bigfoot. And I think the Chupacabra is huggable too. But sadly, Wikipedia is a reference work and its policies require our articles to be weighted to reflect the verifiably mainstream view. Seriously, have you read WP:FRINGE? What do you think of it? Anything I can help explain or clarify for you? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv, you still don't understand our core policies. First, there are three of them. The others are WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And "They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another" which is what you are doing. You don't appear to understand our NPOV policy and I have just discovered that you also don't understand WP:V or WP:NOR. WP:V says "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research". Yet in looking today at David Kyrle Down (where you did improve the article) I found you citing references that didn't back the material being referenced. And to suggest a content fork shows another gap in your knowledge. As for this article, what does 'confirm Bigfoot as a significant minority perspective' mean? A tiny, nay, miniscule number of scientists finding the idea intriguing or even needing more study, who get media coverage because their comments are good stories, is all I see. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the mythical figure "Bigfoot" and to maintain WP:NPOV it should cover all the aspects of this subject. What Daegling, David J. said in a book is not the final word or the complete scientific hypothesis on this subject. Many scientists don't discredit the best evidence.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the WP:NPOV policy (particularly WP:VALID) and also our WP:FRINGE rules, you'd already know what what you are arguing for is not allowed. Please do not try to use Wikipedia to advance your own extreme minority views on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot article content forks

Two content forks, Evidence regarding Bigfoot and Formal studies of Bigfoot, appear to contain mostly redundant information. Another, Bigfoot in popular culture, could be pruned and incorporated back into the main article, as well as Bigfoot trap, which doesn't appear to have enough notability to stand on it's own. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My only concern would be that it could make the main article to lengthy turning off readers after scanning through the first few sentences. Do readers want to wade through hundreds of words just to find the information they are looking for?--ChubsterII (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "too lengthy", considering this article is a long way from the recommended 32 KB limit. But I also have a question for you about the Scientriffic Magazine citation given in the article. Seeing as Scientriffic is a magazine for 7-10 year olds, I'd like to know what other opinions the team of Duke University scientists gave regarding Bigfoot, other than (apparently) supportive of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization's conclusions regarding the photo in question. Since Duke's science department is somewhat prominent, there must be fairly wide coverage of this particular study. Can you point me to it, or to a transcript of the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My length concern is that it may become encrusted with information that don’t add to the understanding of the subject. If it does not I'm sure it will be fine.

As for the other I checked the "Scientriffic" Bigfoot article. It is a classroom science publication for ages 7 to 16. The Bigfoot article in it is pretty straightforward containing only the opinions of the writer and scientists from Duke University not the BFRO. It mainly is on teaching students how to properly investigate a Bigfoot sighting. It does not list Bigfoot or the Jacobs creature as a "real creature". It does list several famous sightings including the "Pattersons" as hoaxes. It displays a survey from the Jacobs creature site with a photographic recreation on location. It displays some type of wire model that was used during the recreation and survey by scientists to measure and determine the limb proportions were not similar to a bears. Unfortunately the article does not determine the Jacobs photo was indeed Bigfoot or that Bigfoot is real.--ChubsterII (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Who were the other Duke U. scientists involved? Names? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Scientists" that have worked on that Bigfoot Science Fiction or Science Fact article. It doesn't identify a specific team member anywhere in the article. It only displays how these "scientists" worked out the proportions and size in that particular photo. Along with their generalized opinion on Bigfoot, other major sightings they believe are hoaxes and how-to properly investigate.--ChubsterII (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot problem

I think that a significant amount of effort has been expended trying to improve blanket statements of majority consensus on these articles (Bigfoot and Cryptozoology) by myself, and due to the fact this is seen as violating WP:NPOV (though in my book I am merely trying to give coverage to a significant minority view) I am imposing a one month ban on myself for these articles. I hope my absence will inspire others to work towards removing rule of the majority problems and WP:Systematic bias without having me to blame as the scapegoat. I appreciate those editors who are of a similar mindset.--Gniniv (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)