Bigfoot (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 April 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bigfoot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Bigfoot is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
This article is part of WikiProject Cascadia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Cascadia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CascadiaWikipedia:WikiProject CascadiaTemplate:WikiProject CascadiaCascadia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate
Stephen Harrison (February 13, 2023). "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot". Slate (magazine). Retrieved February 15, 2023. ...the Bigfoot article, which is sprinkled with descriptors like pseudoscience, hoax, folklore, and wishful thinking. But these words infuriate serious Bigfoot believers, who claim that Wikipedia should be softer and more neutral in its language.
I see this article was nominated for featured article status a few years ago. It looks to me like it has made tremendous progress since then. Does anyone think this could be a candidate for either good article or featured article? Of course, it might needs some work before then, but we could look at that. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never initiated either process for any article, but I think I would support nominating this page. It has indeed made a lot of progress compared to where it was at previously. TNstingray (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ever initiated the process either, but am learning for a few other pages. We could start by putting the page on Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines to get some fresh eyes and suggestions on it. I currently have a page being reviewed, so I can't add another right now. If someone else wanted to add this there, mentioning that we want to get it to good or FA, we could get some momentum. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article could use some improvement before nominating. For example looking at the 2nd paragraph, it references 7-10 refer to scientists trying to disprove bigfoot. It would be good to include work of scientists Grover Krantz and Jeffrey Meldrum. Both earnestly studied the bigfoot phenomena. Especially since reference 8 mentions Krantz.
It is impossible for science to "disprove" something. The null hypothesis is that bigfoot does not exist, to reject it we just need a living bigfoot, or a corpse. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states " Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." The article discussing Krantz is adequate for the lead, if you want to discuss his research agenda and the failure to produce evidence of bigfoot, that could be in the body. If a reference mentions Black bears are one of the many preposed explanations for the bigfoot sightings, a photo of one is appropriate. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the opening paragraph shown below, I suggest changing 'alleged by some' to 'alleged' or 'believed by some.' Alleged, implies something is unproven and only believed by some and the sentence also says bigfoot is a 'mythical creature.'
"Bigfoot, also commonly referred to as Sasquatch, is a large and hairy human-like mythical creature alleged by some to inhabit forests in North America, particularly in the Pacific Northwest." LilacGiraffe (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
changed to alleged. While "alleged by some" does seem redundant, "said" sounds more universal. Simply saying "alleged" seems to address the original concern and saying "said" goes beyond what @LilacGiraffe seems to have suggested. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't noticed the talk page when reverting GeogSage. "Said" is a more universal term and that seems like a good thing in this case, when the article is also covering tall tales and folklore. Belbury (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "mythical creature" covers folklore. People literally allege that it really exists as a flesh and blood animal. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When people 'allege' they are making 'allegations'; it's the wrong word entirely as it has connotations of illegality, misconduct and/or accusation. Bon courage (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can also be read in a broader sense of a factual assertion made without evidence, but it does seem wrong to apply it to mythology. We would not say that "Christians allege that God created the world in seven days". Belbury (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, as MOS:ALLEGE says, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". It's not as if Bigfoot has been accused of illegal camping or something. Bon courage (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Allege" is often used in legal contexts, but means "To assert without proof." Lawyers don't own the word. In the scholarly debate around bigfoot, people have asserted that it exists and have used fabricated evidence, which would be scientific misconduct. Bigfoot doesn't exist, and can't do anything, so the allegations are not against it. People allege that it exists based on dubious evidence (We previously worked to ensure "dubious" was cited). Two of the five definitions we use in the lead use the word "purported," one uses "supposedly," one uses "reported to exist," and another uses "believed by some people." "Alleged" is a synonym to "purported," which is likely where the word entered the lead. That said, a quick search on Google Scholar for "alleged" bigfoot returns several hits, including an article titlde "Is bigfoot dead?" from Skeptical Inquirer which uses the word "alleged" five times to describe the claims. Example:
"The most famous recording of an alleged Bigfoot was a 16mm film taken in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Shot in Bluff Creek, California, it allegedly shows a Bigfoot striding through a clearing."
Not sure what Wikipedia thinks of that source though, it's a Science magazine and not peer-reviewed. Would using "purported" in line with the two source definitions be more acceptable? We are implying that the view is inaccurate, in line with the scientific literature on the topic. In the case of bigfoot, the wording is to keep in line with Wikipedia:Fringe theories to avoid giving the fringe theory appearance of wide acceptance. While bigfoot is a mythological creature, the page also exists the very real set of pseudoscientists that assert it is a real animal. Based on sources, I think "said" is too neutral of a term. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not edit warring as I have only reverted twice in the past 24 hours by my count, the same number as you. Three times if you count my changing one word of your initial edit and bringing it to the talk page. As this page is currently being discussed on the talk page, the word "alleged" is the status quo and you are reverting to your preferred word use and then accusing me edit warring to shut down the discussion. You are "disregarding" repeatedly disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits on the talk page. More importantly, I've already asked you to be civil, but this is the second time you have used language I consider to be both belittling and rude. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dodging slightly one side of a 24hr boundary won't save you. There is no consensus for your bad wording. Maybe go to a noticeboard or start a RfC to seek a wider view, but I can tell you now it'd be a waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." I have only done three edits to this page, not more than three, since August 26th. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. 3 reversion is quick succession, for text which nobody agrees with you is apt. And on a WP:CTOP too. You have been warned, and further reversion will likely attract a sanction. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the article using "alleged" when referring to people making factual claims about sightings and research, certainly the word is used a lot throughout the article. But for the concise definition of the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, where Bigfoot is also the subject of indigenous folk tales and knowing jokes, "said" seems much more appropriate. Belbury (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is, as we say in sentence No 1, a "mythical creature". You can't make "allegations" applying to a mythical creature in any sense, even a strained one. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads "Enthusiasts of Bigfoot, such as those within the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, have offered various forms of dubious evidence to prove Bigfoot's existence, including anecdotal claims of sightings as well as alleged"
I suggest removing the word ‘dubious’ and changing it to “have offered unproven evidence…” or just to “have offered evidence…” as you go on to mention that the evidence is doubted and the word dubious is proceeded by pseudoscience.
Also change “anecdotal claims” to “claims”. Claims are unproven. Saying ‘Anecdotal claims’ seems repetitive.
This is a common discussion point on this page. The last time the word dubious came up, I added literature that used the word dubious. The body of evidence around bigfoot is dubious, according to experts. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there is no more evidence for a large non-human great ape native to North America then there is evidence the Wooly Mammoth still lives somewhere in Canada. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Floe Foxon's pronoun is mistakenly given as "she" in the current Wikipedia article for Bigfoot. Floe Foxon's pronouns are he/him as given in other articles by Foxon, e.g. the 'Author' section of Foxon's article How much iron is in the Sun? states: "He has published on stellar structure modelling and a wide variety of other scientific fields including cryptography, public health, paleontology, and zoology. His statistical analysis of the Rilke Cryptogram was featured in Cipherbrain, his model linking bigfoot sightings to bear populations was featured in New Scientist, and his study on the eels of Loch Ness was featured in Popular Mechanics" [emphasis added; source: https://doi.org/10.1093/astrogeo/atae024]. Similarly, the author section of Foxon's article What's in Lake Champlain? states: "His research linking bigfoot sightings to black bear populations in North America was featured in New Scientist, and his analysis of large eels as a candidate for the Loch Ness Monster was featured in Popular Mechanics" [emphasis added; source: https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/06/whats-in-lake-champlain-analysing-historic-sightings-of-the-cryptid-known-as-champ/]. Furthermore, Foxon's bigfoot research is currently cited via media outlets which are not the original source. The peer-reviewed article describing Foxon's research has been published in the Journal of Zoology and should be cited there instead: https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.13148 Hope these suggestions help! Latimeriachalumnae (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
