Talk:Bigfoot

AI-generated bigfoot image

Does the image of bigfoot described as being "created using Midjourney" have any place on this page? What does it actually do for the article? TheKevsterWiki (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed here, now in the archives. It does at least as much as an artist's impression (that is, imaginary) that looks like a gorilla with an anthropomorphic head and with no genitals. Carlstak (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Not only does this image show what the description of bigfoot looks like when rendered through an AI, rather then a more biased human artists attempt at replicating what they have seen other artists do, the image is a demonstration of a practical application for image generating AI's. This should be encouraged, and is in this way more significant to our civilization as a whole then an artist impression of it. This page is a great place to experiment with AI generated images, as it is a page for an entirely fictitious mythical creature. If this was a page for an existing species with well sourced high resolution images, this would potentially be an issue. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The input to AI image generating program is other people's art. Any biases from the input will be present in the output, so putting it through an AI first won't do anything to fix bias. Further, we are not the right place to be carrying out experiments, we are an encyclopedia. We are also not the right place to demonstrate the practical applications for AI's. I don't think this image adds anything useful, and the long explanation of how it was made certainly doesn't. The page also has plenty images available, so I wouldn't worry. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The AI image generating program is taking a diverse number of input images, and then taking the prompt to output an image. The images it uses are not necessarily artist images of bigfoot. The AI image is as useful as any artist interpretation of a fictional creature, and perhaps more so, as the AI is taking a different approach then a human to generate the image from a prompt.

The practical applications of AI don't need to be demonstrated globally, this has already been done. AI generated images are incredibly useful, and here to stay. Wikipedia is not needed as a laboratory, or to advertise the technology, in a global context as the technology is here. The demonstration I'm referring to is of the practical application AI images can have within Wikipedia. Outside of Wikipedia, demonstrating how we can use the technology here can help other organizations know how to apply it. As this is already happening all over the world, and needs to happen on Wikipedia eventually, incorporating this image does have greater impacts to civilization overall.

Refusing to use this new technology to include Wikipedia is just Technophobia. Wikipedia is not a battleground. The technology exists, and we will inevitably start using it to improve Wikipedia articles. Many articles do not have public domain images available, and creating them is a huge cost. Use of AI images can therefore dramatically improve the encyclopedia overall, especially if the images are documented as coming from an AI, with the AI used noted, and the prompt given to the AI included. As bigfoot is a fictitious creature, and the image was added in good faith, it is as good a place as any to start working out how to include such images. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Talk:Bigfoot/Archive_13#AI_Rendering the previous discussion that Carlstak mentions above, and which GeogSage has just invoked as "heavy discussion" when restoring the image? Beyond Carlstak saying the image is "just as relevant" as the amateur drawing in the article, and that they don't like the roadside carvings either, the discussion is mostly just Carlstak (the image's creator) and GeogSage being excited about the future of AI art.

It's a strange image, and I don't know if it's meant to show the reader what Carlstak thinks a Florida Bigfoot looks like (if it was created from a very detailed prompt), or what a 2023 AI thinks a Florida Bigfoot looks like (if you just type Florida Bigfoot and hit the button). Commons recommends specifying the prompt for good reason.

I think it's less useful than the various human-created depictions that are already in the article. --Belbury (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

In that archived discussion to which you allude, I wrote, "This image was created on 4 September 2022 using the artificial intelligence program Midjourney with a short series of Discord bot prompts to imagine an image of Bigfoot. The image was one of several generated that I tweaked with further commands. The best result was rendered with a green screen background that I filled in using Adobe Photoshop Express to modify a photo I took with my phone of Florida scrubland...".

I further wrote, "I thought I had the few commands I issued in a data set saved on my server in Discord, but unfortunately they're not there", so you're implying that I lied, which I don't appreciate. The prompts I used were on a non-static page, which I didn't realize at the time. I don't remember the exact sequence of prompts I used, but I started with a generalized description similar to the Merriam-Webster entry for "Sasquatch" cited in the article, and refined the resulting iterations with further prompts.

I'd like to know how you think the "Sassy the Sasquatch" image of a black-colored ape with a bouffant hairdo, a rough carving of a bearded hippie with a bear's body, or "an artist's impression of Bigfoot" that depicts a modified gorilla or chimpanzee's body with an anthropomorphic head stuck on and no genitals are more useful to the article. And even granting your unjustified "what Carlstak thinks a Florida Bigfoot looks like", why would that be less allowable than a random "artist's impression of Bigfoot"? Carlstak (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what implication you're reading into what I've said, but I'm not suggesting that you're lying about the prompt.

I meant it wasn't clear to me whether the image from is an AI being asked to draw Florida Bigfoot (maybe with some iterations to change the framing or lighting but not the underlying creature), or being asked to draw a tall humanoid covered in dirty strawlike yellow hair with sunken eyes, flat nose, brow ridge, gray muzzle [etc]. It's still not really clear to me, from what you're saying here.

I guess my general take on AI-vs-human art for cultural stuff is that actual human art is more useful because it shows us what somebody consciously thought something looked like, in a specific part of the world at a particular moment in history. Bouffant Sasquatch tells us that the sculpture was made like that and installed with the blessing of a national park. Questions like "why does it look so much like an ape?" and "what's with the hairdo?" have potential answers to them. We know that the artist deliberately made those decisions. If I wanted to I could go away and research when that statue was installed, who made it, whether there was any local response to it, maybe even contact the artist to ask what they meant by the hairstyle.

The same questions may have no answers for an AI image. Is Florida Bigfoot's hair yellow and strawlike because you as a human artist consciously decided that it should be, or did the AI make that call on its own? If the AI did choose it, is there a chance it worked in some unrelated but adjacent concepts (Florida surfer hair colour, camouflage ghillie suit texture) without us realising?

In an article about a cultural phenomenon like Bigfoot, I'd get more as a reader or researcher from a photo of a bad national park sculpture than I would from a high-quality AI artwork. Comparing an amateur sketch to an AI artwork is a closer call, but I think there's probably still more cultural value in the sketch. Belbury (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

While you think it is less useful than the various human-created depictions that are already in the article, I think that it is at least as valuable, and is perfectly fine. There are several artist created images on the page, an AI generated image is an interesting approach to showing what mythical creatures look. The inclusion of one AI generated image adds something that an additional artist generated one does not. Having one AI image is worth the small amount of space it takes in terms of storage and page space. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

First, flooding the site with poor quality Midjourney experiments based on who knows what prompt isn't helping anyone and is simply not going to happen. Second, this article already has plenty of dubious imagery and itself remains in a dubious state, focused on "sightings" instead of academic analysis. Adding some random user's Midjourney prompt experiment to the article based on text found wherever is not helpful and clearly against consensus here. I've removed the image along another, non-AI-generated image based on who-knows-what. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground in the fight against AI assisted artwork. The statement "flooding the site with poor quality Midjourney experiments simply is not going to happen" is a bit extreme in reference to a single image, not a flood. The technology is here, and it will inevitably be included in Wikipedia and other projects. Currently, there is a lot of Technophobia surrounding the concept, however AI is not going anywhere, and offers significant utility. The image is as good as any of the many more traditional art pieces of the mythical creature, and offers some unique utility in being computer generated (I'd rather remove several of the other art works and include one AI work in this case). Consensus has not been reached as far as I can tell, this discussion is ongoing, and there has been previous discussion on this topic that was archived months ago. Wikipedia:Consensus: "an editor who knows a suggested change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion." Declaring consensus and reverting my revert after a previous discussion is a bit bold. I reinserted the image, we can continue to discuss it and perhaps bring in third party arbitration. If the image quality itself is the problem, perhaps a better quality one could be generated using prompts based on consensus here as a compromise. AI generated media is something that we will have to address going forward, the discussion on this talk page can possibly help shape how to integrate them into the project.

I won't be reverting/restoring this any further to avoid edit wars, but suggest it be left until we have a clearer compromise/consensus on the issue.

[1]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:AI-generated_media#How_should_AI-generated_media_be_handled? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This terrible image based on who-knows-what adds nothing whatsoever to this article. Take your manifestos elsewhere, this isn't the place for it. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The change to the article is removing the image. The discussion here is on if it should be removed, undoing my edit before consensus is reached is . When working on creating consensus, my understanding is to avoid edit wars the general custom is to "not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed."

The image adds as much to the article as any of the other images of a fake creature, and using an AI shows how prompts based on oral descriptions are interpreted in AI results. As an editor defending the status quo, it is my obligation to provide an explanation here to avoid stonewalling, hence the longer reply, or as you call it, "manifesto".

With your reverts, it seems like you are taking the new version as the status quo ante bellum, and stonewalling without providing such a manifesto. Statements like "flooding the site with poor quality Midjourney experiments simply is not going to happen" sound like ownership behavior. Your responses/edit summaries are generally coming off to me as hostile, and dismissive. This makes it hard to have a discussion on the topic. If you have a civil response to my "manifesto" besides "terrible image," and telling me to take my opinion "elsewhere," then please write a manifesto of your own. This IS the place for it.

I suggested a compromise, such as creating an image based on an agreed upon prompt. Using the first sentence of the article for an example can return a really interesting image, for example. Including an AI image in the article can add as much as the artist interpretations, and a good faith attempt was made by an editor to include one. Rather then outright dismissing it and assuming consensus on your opinion, propose a compromise or solution. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've pointed out before that showing how AI works is a task for the article about AI, and not for this article, so you can't really use that as an argument for inclusion here. We're not an advertising platform. --Licks-rocks (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

AI in itself is a tool. The tool itself here offers a utility different from human made art by converting a text description into an image without the same artistic human bias in the process (people trying to make the depiction look like others depictions). Over time, as people get over the squeamishness, we will inevitably use them quite a bit on articles. Starting the shakedown process on an article about a mythical creature is a safe place to start the introduction. Playing with image generating tools to explore this, I found that using the Wikipedia description (with the words "bigfoot" and such removed) from the lead makes really interesting images. If the image in question is inadequate based on its quality, I would propose using the talk page here to come up with a prompt create a better quality image. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

For a depiction of a cultural phenomenon such as Bigfoot, "artistic human bias" is a good thing rather than something we should try to eliminate! We want a picture that reflects (consciously or subconsciously) the human culture that the artist exists in. The equivalent "subconscious" biases of an AI, such as novel coloration secretly inspired by some unrelated source that the AI can't articulate, do not tell us anything about Bigfoot.

There's potential to use AI as a tool to create an image where every meaningful aspect of the image has been provided in advance by the human prompt, so that it becomes a similar process to drawing with a pencil or brush. But any process that allows the AI to introduce unanticipated concepts that wouldn't have occurred to the human prompter is taking us away from the concept of Bigfoot, rather than towards it. Belbury (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to rescind my previous statements supporting the usage of AI-generated images on Wikipedia, specifically referring to the archived conversations from this particular talk page in which I took part. This talk page is not a forum for the ethical discussion regarding AI usage, but my personal conviction is that such content, text or visual, belongs neither on this page nor in any other article on the encyclopedia. TNstingray (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: The Basilisk is watching, and I want to note I welcome our future AI overlords. In all seriousness, rejecting the tool of AI generated images is very odd. The tool exists, and while AI probably won't replace people, people who use AI will replace those who don't. Wherever it can improve the quality of Wikipedia, especially on articles without images or on topics that aren't grounded in reality, there is no reason I can see not to use them that didn't apply to countless other inventions we now take for granted in the past. Assuming this Conversation is closed at this point with the decision not to include the image. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I would counter to say that every article on the encyclopedia is absolutely grounded in reality, whether that is science or story. Even if the article is about a myth/hoax/folk tale such as Bigfoot, the primary supporting images should first and foremost be grounded in real images such as the ones already present in the article. Beyond that, genuine original artistic depictions are the next level of priority, but I personally see more of a use for these on abstract subjects. But within this context, AI theft (excuse me... "art") should not be established as a precedent for visual content on the encyclopedia. TNstingray (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

A genuine original artistic depiction can be fed into an AI image generator to create an image based on that description, where one previously did not exist. In this way it serves like a police sketch artist. The bias against AI employing training data is anti-progress. Humans are inspired by other humans work, however no human can ever digest all the work ever created. An AI can make connections between things that would otherwise never have been made. AI art can be thought of as a collaboration between the AI developers, the source material, and the prompt writers.

Collage "is a technique of art creation, primarily used in the visual arts, but in music too, by which art results from an assemblage of different forms, thus creating a new whole." AI is at least as legitimate as a collage, I'd argue more so as it creates a derivative project that is unique from the training data. As such, an AI image generated using prompts describing a mythical creature should be encouraged. Ultimately, as people become more comfortable with AI technology, it will be inevitable, and opposing it is like trying to stop the tide. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would not construct an argument based on perceived inevitability. In the specific context of this article, as well as across the encyclopedia, my position is that artists and writers should be the ones creating the visual content. Sure, AI usage could have lots of tech/research-based applications to speed up processes such as coding, data management/organization, etc. But art and language are inherently defined by a factor that AI will never be able to replicate: humanity. Anything it steals from these sectors is entirely emotionless and void. To compare and even elevate AI "art" above human artistic techniques such as collage deals such a blow to creativity and imagination, which are desperately needed on projects such as this encyclopedia.

For this article on Bigfoot, artists should be the ones to develop depictions of the legend if necessary, rather than a soulless algorithm that would manufacture an image stolen from the work of talented creators without attribution. The AI process is not the same thing as human inspiration in the slightest. TNstingray (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

AI isn't sentient, it does not steal. The AI is itself a collaborative work between the data fed into it, the programmer, and the individual creating the prompt. The person who creates the prompt can adjust it, generate multiple outputs, and select one that suites their vision. This result can be either the final product, or the foundation for additional work. An AI is many times more advanced then a collage, and everything the AI does IS human artistic techniques, as the AI is fundamentally made by, fed by, used by, and ultimately understood by humans in an artistic collaboration exceeding anything in human history. With all the information we have compiled on the internet, only advanced algorithms can properly sort through and make any practical use of it. A human is unlikely to make an obvious, spontaneous, connection between something from an obscure work no one has read in a century from 1702 and a sitcom from 1986, but a computer AI might. We have so much information collecting digital dust in Wikipedia alone, AI is the only way for any of us to leverage it.

"Never" is a strong word that is best avoided when discussing computer progress on a virtual Library of Alexandria compiled by the general public over a few decades using world spanning networks of computers that have only been available to humanity for less then a century... Your arguments are all the exact same ones from "real" artists about graphic design. They are the same that digital photographers heard from analog photographers. They are the same that photographers heard from "real" artists over the years. They are the same that those operating the printing press heard from scribes. The product and process of AI is as much art as video games, CGI movies, and graphic design. AI as it currently exists will not replace artists, but artists who use AI will replace those who don't. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, AI has practical uses in its background lane as a tech-based application. The ethical issue comes in when it attempts to cross barriers into human expressions of culture and creativity. In and of itself the technology is of course not sentient, but AI "artists" use it to steal from actual creators (mostly unintentionally, to generally assume good faith).

This is coming from someone who out of curiosity started an account on NightCafe to experiment with AI "art". At first this new tool is really cool and exciting! But I quickly realized that my "creations" were not something I accomplished. They were devoid of emotional depth and meaning, and I found myself wishing I could learn how to actually draw, paint, and design my own works of art. And that was before realizing that the technology was bastardizing the works who were pursuing the latter. After recognizing element used in pieces of authentic digital art I had seen previously, I deleted my account and sought to learn about what I had been getting myself into, and I haven't gone back.

This is not a vague conspiratorial argument that "new technology = bad". This is the rational argument that "new technology needs appropriate boundaries and limitations". We have done this with every single development in human history, ranging anywhere from copyright laws to the mandate of seatbelts and safety lights in vehicles.

To bring this back to the proper discussion relevant to Bigfoot, the best course of action is to pull actual cultural depictions as we already have present in the article: blurry photos, roadside attractions, petroglyphs, carvings, signs, bones, footprints etc. Only if these are not satisfactory should we move towards supplementing with unique artistic depictions. Within this secondary context, the priority should first be given to the only artists that actually exist: humans. This way, Wikipedia can expand to include a greater segment of talented creators who might not otherwise be interested in copy-editing the encyclopedic text, but may have other skills and passions through photography or art. TNstingray (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

AI doesn't cross barriers into human expressions of culture and creativity, humans use AI to further their expressions. In this message, I did not design the font I'm using to type. AI is guided by a person to express a creative vision, and enabling people to use it in this way is only a benefit. Copyright laws need to be balanced with the public domain and fair use doctrine (if you post your art on the internet, an AI should be able to use it for training data in the same way any other artist can use it for a collage), and we didn't need to stop the internet to protect music from piracy.

The Wikipedia page for Collaboration states "The romanticized notion of a lone, genius artist has existed since the time of Giorgio Vasari’s Lives of the Artists, published in 1568. Vasari promulgated the idea that artistic skill was endowed upon chosen individuals by gods, which created an enduring and largely false popular misunderstanding of many artistic processes. Artists have used collaboration to complete large scale works for centuries, but the myth of the lone artist was not widely questioned until the 1960s and 1970s."

AI is a collaboration between the collective works, those who have created the hardware and software to run computers, the team programming and training the AI, and the end user who prompts it. This is what art always was, the idea of a "lone, genius artist" is not quite as mythical as bigfoot, but it is counterintuitive to expressing ourselves. It is one thing for you to make your own decision, the ethical issue comes in when you try to control others decisions and limit their access and use of the technology.

Most people are not formally trained artists. Putting an account of the mythical creature into an AI is no different then using a police sketch artist. The AI has a utility in turning these accounts into a visual medium, and can be thought of as similar to data visualizations in science. As the users of AI are humans, and gatekeeping what it means to be an artist has never ended well, there is no reason not to prioritize other forms of artistic expression. By allowing AI artists to post their work, Wikipedia can included a greater segment of talented creators who might not otherwise be interested in copy-editing the encylopedic text, but may have other skills and passions through the use of AI prompts. Gatekeeping images to only more traditional arts, like CGI and photography, will only exclude wide segments of potential editors who would like to help by inserting AI images they generate. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that your arguments are convincing. I just find myself empathizing with the plight of artists such as Kelly McKernan. To be able to replicate an image in their exact style in a fraction of the time is technically impressive, but ethically? It is concerning to me that the so-called collaboration lacks the informed consent of those creating the source material. In my mind, the sheer scale of the AI issue makes this a different conversation than any other historical step in technological advancement.

When I say my priority is promoting actual artists, I am not meaning "formally trained". Instead, I'm emphasizing that my vote for this page (and for the encyclopedia at large if it ever comes to that point) is to utilize the artistic creativity of people, primary sourcing if you will, as opposed to a prompt outsourced to an algorithm which would derive an image pieced together from existing depictions of Bigfoot anyway. One is art, one is technology. Aspects of each category can learn from each other (ex. upgrading online tools used to make digital art, or making coding more aesthetically accessible), but the two should not entirely cross lanes to envelop the other. Why not utilize the artists making the source material? The introduction of generative AI for the encyclopedia would itself be the biggest gatekeeper of them all. TNstingray (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on if IPAc-en template text should be included in the lead sentence

In the lead, MarcopoloParadiso1050 recently added the IPAc- en pronunciation of Sasquatch based on Template:IPAc-en. @Magitroopa reverted the edit without including a summary. Opening this talk conversation to discuss if this should be included.

Personally, I am in favor of the inclusion, which is why I started this topic. I did not want to revert the revert of Magitroopa without due discussion though. As Sasquatch is an unusual word, its pronunciation may be useful for non-English native speakers reading the article. Below is the lead sentence with the pronunciation that was reverted:

"Bigfoot, also commonly referred to as Sasquatch (/ˈsæskwætʃ/ or /ˈsæskwɒtʃ/), is a large and hairy human-like mythical creature purported to inhabit forests in North America, particularly in the Pacific Northwest"

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The user in question is a sockpuppet. Hasn't been blocked yet, but it is very clear that it is a sock- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan. Magitroopa (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what a user being a sock puppet has to do with the pronunciation of sasquatch being included. It seemed to me like a relevant/useful inclusion. Was the revert based on the user, or the content? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Homo sapiens cognatus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Homo sapiens cognatus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 8 § Homo sapiens cognatus until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

Change contents section name from citations to footnotes and change contents section name from general and cited references to sources 213.202.138.17 (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:REFERENCES allows either. Personally, I'd choose "References" for the first title, and "General references" for the second title. A majority of articles use these titles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Yellow Top" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Yellow Top has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § Yellow Top until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot" article question

It occurred to me that we could use the Slate article to discuss the discourse surround this topic on this talk page on the article. For example, controversy surrounding the use of the word "cryptid."

To on the nose? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean Including information from this article within the main text. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Such as? What part of it is relevant to Bigfoot? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

answering even though clear consensus against.

I was thinking in the Popular culture section. The example sentence I gave is below, but is "The big foot Wikipedia page has been subject to intense debate, with one notable point of contentions being the use of the word "cryptid" to describe it. The Wikipedia talk page has been the subject of an opinion piece within the magazine "Slate"." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah, the Slate article is an opinion piece that quotes one Wikipedia editor, Susan Gerbic of "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia", and Cristina Van Epps and "her friend Chelsea Miller"; from this exhaustive research its author, Stephen Harrison, deduces that the WP article is lacking in its coverage of the subject, and presumes to advise WP editors that they should make "concessions". Not a chance of that happening, and not a suitable source. Carlstak (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I Definity get that it is an opinion piece with quotes from only Wikipedia editor.

To elaborate on what I was thinking, I just thought that within the "in Popular culture" section we could include a single sentence that says something like "The big foot Wikipedia page has been subject to intense debate within Wikipedia, with one notable point of contentions being the use of the word "cryptid" to describe it. It has been the subject of an opinion piece within the magazine "Slate"."

This is something I like, but I know it is a bit odd and might not be the most popular. That is all my cards on this concept, if you and others still don't like the idea, no problem. Thought it was a cool feedback of Wikipedia being noted by outside sources, which could be noted in Wikipedia. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Slate article mentions Bigfoot in its title, yet it's largely about how NPOV affects topics like cryptozoology and cryptids. It's a one-off opinion piece, so can't be given WP:WEIGHT in those topic articles. Criticism of Wikipedia might be a possible fit, but even that might be iffy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Lucky Louie—it might fit at "Criticism of Wikipedia"; you could try proposing it at that article's talk page, and see how invested editors there respond. Carlstak (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Carlstak and @LuckyLouie, I'll do that on that page! Thanks for the feedback, while I really like idea of the loop created by citing an article discussing the Wiki page in the page, it is probably best elsewhere. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Related page needs cleanup: Yowie

Just noticed that the Yowie is kinda a mess and thought that some of the editors watching the talk page here might be interested in taking a look at it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Etymology of Sasquatch

This should probably be addressed in the article. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:7030:FD16:87D5:8432 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It is: The name "Sasquatch" is the anglicized version of sasq'ets (sas-kets), roughly translating to "hairy man" in the Halq'emeylem language. --Belbury (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have source for that? If so we can slap that in the article and satisfy the IP users request. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean it is addressed in the article. I'm quoting from the History section there. Belbury (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, so it is! I did not read the words "It is" in your reply and just saw green text. I've been skimming far to much text recently, and it shows. Thanks for your patience and time letting me know! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! I ctrl-f'ed "etymology" but didn't find anything. Regards, 2804:14D:5C32:4673:5DBE:2F80:27B7:584 (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Bigfoot in Popculture

While cryptozoologists are a fringe group in academia, they have been given a large platform with TV shows like Finding Bigfoot. "Finding Bigfoot ranked among Animal Planet's top rated programs throughout its run," and as this show is in the category "Cryptozoological television series," it seems that while the subculture may be "moribund" in terms of mainstream academia, the general public has a lot of interest in the topic. Bigfoot is a pop culture phenomena and of interest as a piece of folklore as far as scientific consensus is concerned. The enthusiasts for bigfoot are the ones driving the conversation, as academics really aren't that interested. I would wager that many of the views on this page are from people who are interested in Bigfoot because they heard about it on one of these shows. I think that it is therefore appropriate to address this group and their claims directly and clearly, and that it is not inappropriate emphasis to do so. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you proposing to add more content to the "In popular culture" section? Where else would you want to add such information, if otherwise? If you have something substantial in mind, you could write up a draft in your sandbox and link to it, so that other editors can read it and offer feedback. I can hear the incels stirring already.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Not preposing more content, I'm justifying my revert to the format of the lead. Status quo is fine. I thought I put a note for "see talk section" on its edit summary, but forgot. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Your revert was justified. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis on cryptozoologists over academics

We've recently had editors play the reception of this article's subject before discussion of it from academics. This reads as if all notions of the folklore surrounding Bigfoot stems from cryptozoologists, who are a tiny subculture. Most individuals who believe Bigfoot may be out there somewhere are not aware that the subculture exists. Belief in Bigfoot does not make one a cryptozoologist. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

As I stated in the above talk section, and in my edit summary, moving the sentence to the end is not a logical flow. The sentence does not indicate belief in bigfoot, but is discussing presenting evidence for its existence. As my previous edit summary had gone into, the first sentence is on those presenting the evidence. It is then followed by expert claims. Moving the line on cryptozoologists to the end of the paragraph does nothing but sandwich the expert consensus between mention of Enthusiasts, and cryptozoologists.

As a significant amount of media on Bigfoot that the public is exposed to is from the Cable network programs, the term "cryptozoologist" is likely to be much more well known then you may think, especially among people who believe in the folklore. However, statements either way would need substantial research, we don't know the percentage of people who are aware of the subculture.

The change I made should satisfy your criticism that not all who believe in the folklore are cryptozoologists, while maintaining the logical ordering of ideas within the paragraph. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)