Talk:Bigfoot

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 3 months

Template:Vital article

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 22, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Folklore B‑class High‑importance

	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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cryptozoology B‑class High‑importance

	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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Paranormal B‑class High‑importance

	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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Canada: Ontario / Manitoba / British Columbia / Saskatchewan / Alberta B‑class High‑importance

	Canada portal 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Saskatchewan.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Washington B‑class High‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Oregon B‑class High‑importance

	Oregon portal 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Cascadia

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 articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pennsylvania B‑class High‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism B‑class High‑importance

	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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Primates B‑class High‑importance

	Primates portal 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a video clip or video clips be included in this article to improve its quality.

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Why They Deny

Perhaps a section could be added to discuss the various alleged motivations that are said to be common amongst those claiming "hoax" or that otherwise doubt or deny Bigfoot existence. These might include: government cover-ups, academic peer derision, and creationism incongruity. MStettler (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People who have no evidence for their beliefs all the time try to invent excuses for why their beliefs are not accepted. That is part of the core of all pseudosciences. No reason to add those excuses here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MStettler To explore the motivations behind an action (denial) is very germane to the topic at hand. If the motivations are found to be indefensible, it may explain why mainstream academia does not take this topic seriously, or why the park ranger does not report what she saw overnight, or why deniers are reluctant to even consider the possibility of new truths that start out as myths and folklore. If the motivations are defensible, then refuting the allegations of dubious motives behind denials will be easy and understandable. 108.24.168.218 (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for improving the article, not for your fantasies about why people do not agree with you. (Actually, they do not agree with you because your evidence is crap.)

You can only improve the article using reliable sources. See WP:RS to identify those. I don't expect you will find any reliable source which calls Bigfoot non-believers "deniers". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goofball statues of the imaginary creature "Bigfoot"

The two statues of the imaginary "Bigfoot" in the pictures that I recently removed from the article are comically bad, and they degrade the article. The one in the Garden of the Gods Wilderness is hilarious with its depiction of a gorilla (lazy sculptor, and look at the nose) with a massive 60s French-girl hairdo, and the one at the Crystal Creek Reservoir does not depict anyone's description of a creature they think they saw, or pretend that they saw, but rather, it depicts a bald-headed 60s hippie with a beard, a Fu Manchu moustache, and size 36 feet. Personally, I believe they were done as satire or spoofs, and anyone who takes them seriously is the victim of a joke, or perhaps the perpetrator of one. Sorry, but they are garbage as art and as depictions of this ridiculous imaginary creature. There are actually much better ones out there, made by actual artists. These goofy joke creations don't belong in the article. Carlstak (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the reader's delectation:

"Bigfoot" statue in the Garden of the Gods Wilderness with gorilla features and a massive, perfectly-parted hairdo, just like every stylish Jim Morrison-worshipping Bigfoot had in 1967
Crude carving of baldheaded "Bigfoot" with beard and Fu Manchu moustache at the Crystal Creek Reservoir in Colorado; note his pearly whites and the pontoon feet. This one really kills me.

Carlstak (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you're dealing with an imaginary creature, who's to say what features are definitively "accurate"? And, like it or not, the various statuary is part of the pop culture surrounding the legend of Bigfoot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, LuckyLouie. Well sure, "who's to say what features are definitively 'accurate'?"; the thing is, it's just silly to depict this imaginary creature, who's supposed to be living a survivalist existence in the wilderness, with a perfectly-parted coif and neatly-combed beard arranged just so, and even sillier, nay ridiculous, to depict it as a human with long straight hair, a Fu Manchu moustache, a Roman nose, and a gleaming white smile. If I ever have the time, I will be happy to create some non-ridiculous images that depict it more "realistically" (if I may use the word) as an animal that ekes out its existence in the woods (which I have actually done). Not a pretty sight like our salon-visiting gorilla, and the smell—worse than a skunk.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we would be grateful for more accurate images of the legend, the "silly" carvings nonetheless exist as part of the Bigfoot phenomenon, and the stated arguments for their removal purely based on aesthetic violate WP:OR (though I would agree that much of the modern Bigfoot phenomenon is ridiculous). TNstingray (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, TNstingray—but I don't reject them on aesthetic grounds as much as because they do not actually represent the features of any animal matching the more detailed descriptions given by people who have reported seeing one. Rather, I believe they are cartoonish representations of nothing but the imaginations of their creators, of the sort intended to appeal to the crowds who visit public attractions and parks, like similar statues of Yogi Bear and Boo Boo. These in the article look like Tarzan's sidekick, the chimpanzee "Cheetah" (with a gorilla face) wearing a wig, and Lil' Abner's hippie cousin. I think I remember seeing police sketch artists' interpretations that were much more "realistic", if I may use the word, than these amusement park-type statues. Carlstak (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think it does say a lot about the nature of much of the Bigfoot phenomenon, that the creature is seen more as this fun and silly legend (a la Harry and the Hendersons), as opposed to anything with a potential historical/scientific reality (which is unfortunate, because that is where I personally lean). TNstingray (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, why does this look familiar? Oh yeah! - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, I noticed that too and forgot about it! Carlstak (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I created an image of Florida Bigfoot (not Skunk Ape) using an AI program that I got an invite to, using command prompts describing such an imaginary creature, and added it to the article. I think it did a much better job than than the hacks who created the goofball statues.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image of non-existent Florida Bigfoot created using an AI program

The carvings and statues currently in the article showcase Bigfoot's relation to popular culture; specifically with tourism. The "Shawnee Bigfoot" [1] for example, is a roadside attraction and public art piece. Your A.I. generated image is another "artistic depiction", but realistically we must leave personal opinions out of this and focus on the question, "Does this contribute to the article as a whole?" That's the question we must ask here.Bloodyboppa (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the AI images are a unique way to flesh out some of these more abstract cryptid/supernatural/mystery articles, especially with all of the advances in that technology. We have other artistic depictions, and as long as we are specifying that it is an artistic depiction (as it currently is), I am voting in favor of its usage. There may need to be broader Wikipedia consensus for this concept of AI art as a whole though, but I think it is important for Wikipedia as a company to be versatile and adaptive. It helps with the public domain/licensing issue for images if users freely upload them here. TNstingray (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, I couldn't have said it better. Carlstak (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The masked being" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The masked being and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#The masked being until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bigfoot the bigfooted" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bigfoot the bigfooted and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Bigfoot the bigfooted until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Bigfoot. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

bigfoot uses they/them pronouns 192.42.89.2 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]