No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
108.11.202.190 (talk) →Paranormal Bigfoot?: new section |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
Please don't block me!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! [[User:Wordsighn|Wordsighn]] ([[User talk:Wordsighn|talk]]) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
Please don't block me!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! [[User:Wordsighn|Wordsighn]] ([[User talk:Wordsighn|talk]]) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Paranormal Bigfoot? == |
|||
Scientists believe Bigfoot is a paranormal figure. One group of Bigfoot hunters say that Bigfoot isn't human. They say he is a spirit. he isn't an alien but he is believed to be a creature connected to the paranormal side of this universe. No one really knows if Bigfoot is part of the Ape category or Supernatural category, but we hope to find out soon. |
Revision as of 18:42, 30 December 2016
Bigfoot is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contentious edits
Asuato has twice (thrice in one case) made a set of edits that a) delete "mythological" in the lead, b) change the assessment of the Patterson-Gimlin film, and c) alter the tone of skeptical assessments by adding words like "most" or "mostly". All without introducing new references. I've reverted these twice (and thrice in the one case, but I decided to self-revert that one to avoid getting close to a 3RR violation), all the while suggesting that these changes be taken up here on the Talk page.
Here's the place Asuato. Explain what changes you wish to make to the article and why and what sources you are referencing to justify the changes. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 10:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you are saying Wordsighn (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
small changes in the article
I agree with the other poster here who said that the word "mythological" should be removed. While not yet proven to exist by the scientific method, there is at least some circumstantial evidence that something is out there, unlike a unicorn or a kraken. Also the statement that the Patterson-Gimlin footage showed no supportive data of any value is highly inaccurate. A source was cited, and at the time was probably an accurate assessment. But recent improvements in video technology have allowed some scientists to revisit the footage and have made some fascinating observations after the footage was stabilized. http://www2.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html
The entire article is written ok, lots of good information with sources, but tends to lean toward the author's viewpoint of nonbeliever instead of straightforward scientific point. 19:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Asuato (talk)
http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asuato (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Meldrum is mainly to be applauded for giving careful scientific examination to this subject. So far, you've only pointed to self-published papers, i.e. primary sources not yet published in peer-reviewed journals. It's not yet time to change this article, but you may want to devote some effort to Talk:Patterson–Gimlin film. If you can get that article to be less skeptical, only then would it make sense to introduce here the changed evaluation of this one piece of evidence. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I am as skeptical as they come on the subject of the existence of Bigfoot, nevertheless I agree with those who object to the word "mythological" used in the lede. I just object for different reasons. That word implies something NOT related to the subject. This is the definition I am familiar with, which is at dictionary.com:
- "The body of myths belonging to a culture. Myths are traditional stories about gods and heroes. They often account for the basic aspects of existence — explaining, for instance, how the Earth was created, why people have to die, or why the year is divided into seasons." (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mythology)
- I suggest "fabled" as in:
- celebrated in fables: "fabled goddess of the wood."
- having no real existence; fictitious: "a fabled chest of gold." (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fabled) RobP (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see "fabled" as a good substitute. Perhaps you are being too restrictive in your sense of "mythological" and "myth". Consider the term "urban myth" or what happens on the show Mythbusters. These are both well accepted uses of the term that don't comfortably fit within your dictionary definition. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 14:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- If I am being "too restrictive," then it's not just me. Yes, it seemed to me to be the wrong word when I read it - but after I did I ran a test (small scale as it was) and showed the page to several co-workers - and without specific prompting they both questioned me on that word. Perhaps "ological" adds a more subtle meaning than straight "myth." Re-reading the lede just now, I see that same sentence has towards the end "that is said to..." - which is then somewhat redundant following mythological... so perhaps NO adjective is necessary there, thus avoiding the subtleties of that word? RobP (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I just reviewed the sentence in question and "mythological" (which I think aptly describes the claims and stories spanning decades) is needed to convey the status of Bigfoot. "That is said to" is also needed to convey the non-factual status of the attributes or claims about Bigfoot, i.e. it lives in a specific place in a specific region. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The word 'mythological' should be replaced with 'legendary' for reasons of neutrality. Sea Captain Cormac 21:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)
I too agree that mythical should be removed and replaced with real Wordsighn (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
real would be POV pushing, IMO. mythical, is acceptably less so IMO. fabled and legendary would go too far in the other direction, IMO.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a wrong-headed discussion. In folkloristics, Legend does not imply fiction: as any folklorists knows, legends can in fact accurately reflect history. Generally speaking, mythological and fabled have very different implications in folkloristics. I would refer editors here to legend, myth, and fable but all three are terribly inaccurate and need to be rewritten with an introductory text to folkloristics in hand. In the mean time, just including that the entity is from American folklore does the job. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request - September 14, 2016
In reference to genetic analysis performed on hair samples, Section 5.2 Formal Studies ends with the following line: "The last two samples matched a fossilized genetic sample of a 40,000 year old polar bear of the Pleistocene Epoch". DNA analysis published in the scientific journal zookeys in march 2015 indicate that this is not the case, but rather that the hair of both samples was from a subspecies of brown bear common in the Himalayas [1] [2] [3] [4]
The specific text: "Other than one sample of human origin, all but two are from common animals. Black and brown bear accounted for most of the samples, other animals include cow, horse, dog/wolf/coyote, sheep, goat, raccoon, porcupine, deer and tapir. The last two samples matched a fossilized genetic sample of a 40,000 year old polar bear of the Pleistocene Epoch."
Should be changed to: "Other than one sample of human origin, all are from common animals. Black and brown bear accounted for most of the samples, other animals include cow, horse, dog/wolf/coyote, sheep, goat, raccoon, porcupine, deer and tapir."
Ldenison5 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not done for now: Ldenison5 Thank you for your suggested edit. Rather than citing the popular press, please go back and reference the journal article the press reports are based on; it would be considered a more reliable source although it's still "primary". How strong do you think this evidence is? Are there other citations evaluating it? —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added a reference to the actual scientific paper and an additional article from BBC news covering the findings. Evidence appears to be strong. There don't appear to be any publications disputing this research. Ldenison5 (talk)
References
- ^ http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=4885&display_type=list&element_type=9
- ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30479718
- ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2878905/Abominable-Snowman-mystery-continues-DNA-analysis-reveals-Himalayan-Yeti-NOT-polar-bear-s-ancient-cousin.html
- ^ http://www.livescience.com/50148-yeti-genetics-questioned.html
- Done: also, the first finding was kept and the results of the second study were added. Paine u/c 05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The main picture is of a female Bigfoot
If you look at her front you will see two breasts. It just a thought to list her sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.hallsted (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk about the bigfoot page
Who thinks that the bigfoot page a new update P.I.M.S. (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop it, P.I.M.S., and pay some attention to all the warnings and advice on your own talkpage. Please use reliable sources. This is not the way to find reliable sources! Bishonen | talk 15:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC).
Why is everyone against P.I.M.S? Wordsighn (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I mean what has this user done to you so far!!?!?? Wordsighn (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Wordsighn just stop I have done enough already . P.I.M.S. (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
OK OK OK sorry Wordsighn (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wordsighn, are you and P.I.M.S the same person, or friends? I ask because I noticed this version of your userpage. Please note that Wikipedia is not for telling people about your mysterious experiences, and not for playing games either. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC).
No we are friends not the same person Wordsighn (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I had a typo ,I meant we are friends and not the same person, what made you think that? Wordsighn (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Good technical reasons made me think it. See your talkpage. You should reply to me there as soon as possible, or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC).
Please don't block me!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! Wordsighn (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Paranormal Bigfoot?
Scientists believe Bigfoot is a paranormal figure. One group of Bigfoot hunters say that Bigfoot isn't human. They say he is a spirit. he isn't an alien but he is believed to be a creature connected to the paranormal side of this universe. No one really knows if Bigfoot is part of the Ape category or Supernatural category, but we hope to find out soon.