Talk:Bigfoot
|
|
Bigfoot has been a staple of Television shows
- Yep, there was a touching made-for-TV movie, starring the actrees who played Marilla Cuthbert in the Anne of Green Gables movie. Ed Poor
I think the whole gist of the article lacks NPOV. Obviously, "bigfoot" is myth and it should be stated as such in no uncertain terms. The contributor writes:
"Also, at least one film (the Patterson-Gimlin film) shows something that is definitely not a bear (although it could conceivably be a person in a furry costume). "
Erm... "conceivably"? Furthermore, so what? I have a home- video of something that is brown and furry and is also not a bear. David de Paoli
- And you blame the author of this article of lacking NPOV? Read elsewhere in this encyclopaedia that Jane Goodall believes in their existence. She isn't the least among primatologists. As long as people like her are claiming that, whe should leave the possibility of their existence open, or otherwise we are breaking the NPOV principle. Moreover, the article on theLoch Ness monster, which is even much less likely to exist (bordering with the absolutely impossible) features a similar consideration of arguments for and against. Go complain there first before screaming for adaptation here. Caesarion 12:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that in Wikipedia we're not supposed to think that something is "obviously" a myth -- and we're definitely not supposed to say so. :-) IMHO, NPOV means we say "Some people think A and some think B. The opinion of the expert community is X." (Personally I agree that it's a myth).
"something that is definitely not a bear (although it could conceivably be a person in a furry costume). " -- The point of this is that it is definitely either a real bigfoot or an actor in a great costume -- according to expert analysts it can't be anything else.
- Yes, which is why I didn't make the edit. That, plus I really enjoyed "Harry And The Hendersons"
Maybe his mom was the gal in the Patterson film. :-)
An anon user with no other contributions added this paragraph:
Also it must consider, before exactly taking the declarations from the family of Wallace, that exists certain portion of significant evidence, like are indigenous traditions, stories previous to 1958, information of sightings in several parts of the United States (not only in the West Coast), in which Wallace could not have some interference. It is not logical to think that outside able to influence in all the reports of apelike creatures (and malodorous), in American territory.
There's a point there, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to rephrase the less-than-masterful English. -- Jake 06:51, 2003 Sep 20 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why neither this page or the page devoted to the Patterson-Gimlin film mention Greg Long's 2004 book "The Making of Bigfoot". It seems to be a reasonably thorough investigation of the origins of that film. The focus of the book is Patterson's history as a con-man, and the alleged confession of Bob Hieronimus (an acquaintance of Gimlin) to being the one that wore the bigfoot suit in the famous footage. Long attempts to corroborate Hieronimus ' confession, although the success of his attempt is open to debate. The book also includes an interview with costume manufacturer Phillip Morris - Ed.
| Contents |
Image
There hasn't been any discussion regarding the image edit war, so I am starting it. Lizard King's sketch would be better than nothing, IMO, even though it is clunky and not very well done. The new image from the Patterson film may have copyright issues -- seems like fair use, but I dunno... Tuf-Kat 21:39, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
I haven't found any copyrights with regards to that image, but I admit I haven't done a 100% thorough search. The image is used on numerous websites already. - UtherSRG 23:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- could you upload this image unter Wikimedia Commons again. I like to use it in the german wikipedia. -- Horst Frank - (213.39.143.167 12:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC))
Dont know of somebody else have said this before, but here goes: There are two frames from the film, but the one sais its frame #352, and the othet #72. One of them is wrong.
Pseudo-Scientific Classification
Since only cryptozoologist use a Scientific Classification for Bigfoot, please do not put the standard Wikipedia Scientific Classification table in this article. It is misleading and POV. - UtherSRG 16:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- cryptozoologist use a Scientific Classification? Yes ...
"do not put the standard Wikipedia Scientific Classification table"? Why? ... It is NOT misleading nor POV [the info in the article is the same] ... that is the frmt that a cryptozoologist would want ... much the same way a botantist would want the Scientific Classification. Sincerely, JDR
Don't include it as the standard Wikipedia Scientific Classification table because it looks like that is a factual classification. It is not, and to include it is not NPOV. Besides, there are conflicts. Gigantopithecus uses a different classification. If this is Gigantopithecus, then it would need to be studied to determine if the cryptozoological classification is correct or if the paleological classificaiton is correct, or if they are both wrong. - UtherSRG 17:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- cryptozoologist can not use the the standard Wikipedia Scientific Classification?
- IT IS the factual classification by cryptozoologist.
- Gigantopithecus even cites that it is the right label ... [see bottom of that article] ...
- Sincerely, JDR
No, Gigantopithecus is a genus not a species. Did you even look at the Gigantopithecus article? - UtherSRG 17:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And besides which - using the standard table makes it look like it is accepted as fact, as opposed to being highly speculative. - UtherSRG 17:56, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Gigantopithecus is a genus? ok ...
- species? I'll find if any specific info is out there ... [Changed to Genus:Gigantanthropus Species:Canadensis] [1] (http://www.bfro.net/REF/scinafaq.htm)
- look at the Gigantopithecus article? yes ...
- standard table makes it look like it is accepted as fact? Accepted by cryptozoologist as fact ...
- I believe that your POV is iinserting the highly speculative, NPOV would allow the info about the cryptozoologist's view (BTW i'm not a cryptozoologist; but they do classify things). Sincerely, JDR
No, it is POV to place the data in the table format used for Scientific Classification. Cryptozoology isn't science, it's pseudo science. Displaying speculative data in a factual manner is misleading. - UtherSRG 18:10, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Cryptozoology is a science ... it is a pseudoscience to you (and other) and a protoscience (and sometimes a pathological science) to some) ... but this is where YOUR POV comes into this (concerning "pseudoscience") ... NPOV treat the info indifferently. It is what cryptozoologists use ... displaying data in a NPOV manner is NOT misleading (all the body text is the explicit in this) ... Sincerely, JDR 18:26, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Displaying speculative data as fact is misleading regardless of whether one believes the theory behind the data is valid or invalid. The table format is used to display factual information, not speculative information. display the information in another way if you need it to be there, but it is misleading to display the data in the same manner as African Grey Parrot or Gigantopithecus or Aves. - UtherSRG 19:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- "Speculative data"? There's many speculative datasets / articles on wikipedia ... and there is nothing wrong with that IF MARKED.
- Again, it is noted in the article about the validity of the claims of the cryptozoologists. The table format is used only to display the information ... factual information from a cryptozoologists view ... the same way that the coelacanth should be listed [also which was "Speculative" and believed extinct by the vast majority of "science"]) or how the Zuiyo-maru Plesiosaur should be ....
- "misleading"? No ... just giving out the information ...
- IYO it is "misleading" ... Displayin' the data in the same manner is NEUTRAL ...
- Display the information in another way if you need it to be there? A derivative of the original table? that may be something to look into ... this could be used for most of the cryptozoological animals (some of which have been labeled and categorized) and the dinoasuars (which have thier own dataset that could be displayed) ...
- ... more on this in a bit (mabey) ...
- Sincerely, JDR 19:47, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that the taxobox should not be used. This makes it appear as though Bigfoot's existence is scientifically accepted when it is not -- in an ideal world, readers would not draw conclusions that were not supported by the article, but we do not live in such a world and the presence of the taxobox implies that the bigfoot's classification is generally agreed upon, when its very existence is debated. The article text should make it clear how cryptozoologists classify Bigfoot, but not with a taxobox, which is used on thousands of articles for organisms the reality of which (present or former) is not seriously questioned. A parallel subject has come up concerning presenting the template used in countries like Russia in micronations and such, and these tables were eventually dropped (as were most of the articles on micronations). Tuf-Kat 19:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Also, why is there a link to the "artist's rendering" drawing? The sketch is still inappropriate... Tuf-Kat 19:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
Reddi, I suggest you read these articles: Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. To wit: You do not understand NPOV, you do not understand the use of the taxobox, and you do not understand how to work in a consensus system. - UtherSRG 20:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- UtherSRG, why don't you review the Neutral point of view. Not providing the info is not NPOV. Unlike what you may believe, it is FACTUAL cyrptozoogical information.
- Thanks, though, for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life pointer (and why it was pink, not grey)
- For now, I'll leave it (the full table w/ pic) in here until such time alternative frmt can be developed for cyrptozoogical entries ....
- Sincerely, JDR
NPOV means displaying information in a way that is not misleading. I was removing the table because it was misleading. I did not say not to include the data. I simply rejected having the data presented in the standard table. - UtherSRG 03:19, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
TUF-KAT, The artist rendering is appropriate. It is roughly the same structurally and it is a detailed picture of the creature unlike the incredibly grainy and poorly focused Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot picture. It goes with the subject of bigfoot and it furthers one's understanding of what the creature would look like. - ScifiterX
TUF-KAT, if you don't think the image is appropriate, state the rational justification of your position without deliberately insulting the artist who rendered it. Personally, I think the image is great. - The_Agent
Thanks. By the way, the image came from me. If you want to see any others or have a request just send me a message via Talk. Lizard_King
- Encyclopedia articles generally don't include "artist's rendering" of any topic if there are photographs available, unless it is in the form of a diagram.
- Our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize the views of those who are considered knowledgeable in various subject areas. Therefore, images of Bigfoot should only be used if they illustrate some encyclopedic interpretation of Bigfoot's appearance.
- As a freely editable encyclopedia, we must be careful not to set a precedent whereby there is a link on an article which takes the user to a page where somebody has placed a sketch of the subject. That is the purpose of other web pages where amateur artists display their work; it is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
- Since there is no agreed-upon description of exactly what Bigfoot looks like beyond some vague generalities, the sketch illustrates the view of a single Wikipedian about what Bigfoot looks like. This constitutes original research.
- An image of clear encyclopedic value is already present in the article. More images should only be added if they illustrate some point or facet that the photo does not. The photograph is not very clear but educates the reader that Bigfoot's detailed appearance is not known; placing a sketch indicates that Wikipedia is endorsing the view, unsupported by facts, that Bigfoot looks a certain way.
That's all for now at least. Tuf-Kat 03:36, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed, despite its low photographic quality, the Patterson-Gimlin picture has unique significance in that it constitutes purported primary evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. Salsa Shark 03:40, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Now you are saying that encyclopedia entries don't include artist's renderings of subjects? How much crack do you smoke in in a day, genius? The_Agent
- Hey Agent, go easy on Shark, I don't think it's his fault, per se, take a look at his contributions, I think that there is less than 10% contribution to 90% deletion, reversion or abuse. He just needs to be treated a little more gently, we all need some love sometimes.The Fellowship of the Troll 03:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How interesting that The Agent and ScifiterX have no history of editing before coming here and giving their support to Lizard King. Sock puppets, anyone? RickK 04:13, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am not ScifiterX or The Agent, RickK. You are barking up the wrong tree. You need to check IP addresses before you start accusing people of having multiple IDs. Lizard_King
This only reveils your ignorance. I've edited a few things before signing up. One only has to sign up if they're using the talkback section. Additionally I've read quite a few encyclopedia's that used artist renderings to further illustrate the definition of a topic. You can check my IP if you need evidence. - ScifiterX
ScifiterX, how exactly does that reveal my ignorance??? Who are you talking to? Lizard_King
I'm Talking to RickK - ScifiterX
Nevermind, I see that now... Lizard_King
But to correct Rick, there have actually been several people to come to my defense concerning my illustrations, (I believe in including RickK) other than SciftierX and The Agent in other forums like this one. I seriously doubt any of them are sock puppets. You can believe what you want to though.Lizard_King
I really object to the taxonomic classification of bigfoot. You really can't classify an animal if you haven't got a specimen. Further, Gigantopithicus was essentially a giant Orangatan and from skeletal specimens we have they look nothing like eye witness accounts of big foot. If bigfoot existed it in the form of the creature in the photo it would more likely be a paranthropus (what was once classified as the robust australopithicine) of unusually large size. The size difference is relatively easy to account for as when the paranthropus travelled in his space ship to North America, or on his magic carpet or whatever, its representatives in the area may have gradually evolved the greater body mass for some logical reason. Sort of how the horses of today are descended from tiny prehistoric horses no larger than dogs. Gigantopithicus really couldn't be bigfoot.Lizard_King
There's an interesting discussion of all the difficulties that'd have been involved in faking the Patterson-Gimlin film, discussing muscle mass movement and the like at http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/home.asp , and I'd like to suggest adding it to the links section. Having encountered at least one first-hand account which I regarded as credible in the Pacific Northwest, I do agree that treating a phenomenon as mythical on the basis of elusivity of evidence alone would not be NPOV, and the current version looked decently balanced on a first read. Chris Rodgers 09:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Controversy
A lot of people want to believe in bigfoot. Biologists, as a rule, dismiss the sasquatch as ludicrous nonsense on a par with yeti or Loch Ness monster.
The only evidence for their existence is tracks or grainy photographs, and the revelation that some photos were published as a prank just lowers the scientific reliability of the reports -- if there's a rung lower than "negligible" on that ladder.
So how should we write about this? Say that biologists dismiss the possibility of the creature's existence, same as astronomers dismiss the flat earth theory. But also identify people and groups that do believe and explain their reasoning.
Any child over eight years of age ought to be able to decide for themselves what they want to believe. Who knows? Maybe bigfoot is just shy and elusive. --Uncle Ed 14:58, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I think the way we handle it now is appropriate, Ed. We say straight out that the creature is "probably mythical". (i.e., we report the standard, generally accepted view first.) We don't say "it is mythical" because - who knows? - maybe they are just shy and elusive. We have to keep open minds. And we don't say it actually exists or anything of that nature either, as the evidence just ain't there. The day the Smithsonian or the NPWS is ever persuaded to believe in Bigfoot, then we need to do a heavy re-write!
- I think the key issue here is tone. It's important to stay cool and just report the essentials without taking sides and barracking. Tannin 22:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
See Also
I had removed the see alsos because
- the relevant ones are already in the text
- the rest are irrelevant. Those interested in them will have gone to cryptozoology and found them there.
- UtherSRG 23:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Copied from the article because it's hilarious:
- However, it is possible that bigfoot was the first innovator of the wooden air plane or that he stole space ships from extraterrestrials who crashed in indonesia and flew to the Americas, though that would not be ethical of the mythical hominid.
— No-One Jones (talk) 05:38, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My god, people. You gotta check this out. And laugh... --Nc622 11:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Woman tells her story of being married to Bigfoot (http://funreports.com/2004/10/13/56596.html)
Neutrality tag
Recent changes to this article by an anon user have added tons of new information shown only from a pro-Bigfoot stance. Most of the alleged facts added are highly disputed, but you would not know that from the new version. The previous version covered these topics much more fairly. DreamGuy 23:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Merged From: Talk:Etymology of the words Bigfoot and Sasquatch
I've merged the article Etymology of the words Bigfoot and Sasquatch with the Bigfoot article. Here is the comment from that page. Robinoke 22:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Merge and NPOV tags
This article does not source its statements and lists highly disputed statements from the Bigfoot supporters side only. Any salvagable information should be added (following NPOV policies) to Bigfoot. DreamGuy 21:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)