Talk:Bigfoot

.....is the smell omitted from the article. People has smelled it, and it smells like shit, rotten eggs, dead animals, etc. ? 216.247.72.142 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

As is always the case on Wikipedia, if there are any reliable, secondary sources (see WP:RS and WP:FRINGE) that report on "the smell," that content just might make it into the article. Until then... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• BigfootSussex.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The page states that Theodore Roosevelt wrote about a Bigfoot encounter in his 1893 book, The Wilderness Hunter. This is incorrect, and the misinformation is widespread. The story of the "Batman Incident" appears in a different book by President Roosevelt: Hunting the Grisly and Other Sketches. This can be verified by examining the texts for both books on Project Gutenberg. The story appears in chapter 9 of the above stated volume. ~2026-48911-6 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: If you view the copy of The Wilderness Hunter on the Internet Archive, you'll see that the Bauman story appears in Part 2, in the section titled "In Cowboy Land". Hunting the Grisly and Other Sketches appears to be a separate collection where the "In Cowboy Land" is also reproduced, but evidently (and according to every source I can find) it originally appeared in The Wilderness Hunter. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

within the opening section of this article it says the following;

'However, the evidence is a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, and the creature is not a real living animal.[3][7][10][11'

I believe that the final part of this is not based on fact or evidence.

I believe there is no proven or undisputed evidence that bigfoot exists but to make the claim that it doesn't is not based on fact.

there are multiple genuine scientists that believe in the possibility including Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello.

where he said within national geographic magazine the following in 2003

"Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified,"

he is not alone with his view and the assertion of the creature not existing undermines the thousands of witnesses who report sightings each year in north America alone.

I search reveals more scientists across the world believe that the possibility of it's existence remains, and even some who don't believe like the below person can only state 'its likely not to exist'

Mark Wilson, a geology and natural sciences professor at the College of Wooster, led the presentation, titled "A Scientific Perspective on Bigfoot," to explain scientists do not believe it's likely the creature truly exists.

this is because despite his credentials he can't evidentially state it doesn't exist,.no one can.

I think consideration should be given to state that bigfoot

'is not known to science at this time' or 'no verified evidence to it's existence has been made public'

or words to that effect ~2026-75217-6 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The brantopatimus doesn't exist because I just made it up. There is no evidence it doesn't exist because you can not find evidence to prove a negative. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Why is it so hard to state "we don't know"? Tcarter887 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The reason the final part of this is not based on fact or evidence is that Wikipedia isn't based on truth; it's based on reliable sources. You might also like to read Russel's teapot. lp0 on fire () 16:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I am saying that I agree with "~2026-75217-6" regarding changing the article's inaccurate conclusion "...and the creature is not a real living animal". There are "reliable sources" listed in the article that suggest a possibility to the contrary. Tcarter887 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There is also a "possibility" that Russell's teapot exists. But it is still correct to say it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok so hypothetically if 10 reliable sources are referenced, and 9 of them say "we think it's green" but 1 of them says "well I think it's red", then logically you would conclude it's still 100% red? Does not seem logical to me. Do other wikipedia subjects come to a similar conclusion? Or for some reason logic does not apply to this subject? Tcarter887 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

sorry I can't edit my mistake... correction " then logically you would conclude it's still 100% green?" Tcarter887 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

but 1 of them says "well I think it's red" That would be a minority viewpoint, also called a fringe view, covered by our WP:FRINGE policy, which basically says we give the most weight to the majority view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand everyone's viewpoint here and "Russell's Teapot". My feeling is that wikipedia should not conclude with a verdict if the jury is still out. And the conclusion language should be modified to disclose that, as suggested by the original poster, or removed altogether. The article does a great job of presenting all the information on the subject, enough to allow the reader to make their own conclusion anyway. Tcarter887 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

the jury is still out There is no jury. There is the scientific community which says one thing, and a few weirdos and hoaxers who say another thing. The conclusion from the other thing being unfalsifiable is not that we have to sit on the fence; it is that the other thing is useless for scientific purposes. Wikipedia follows the scientific community.

allow the reader to make their own conclusion Wikipedia does not have the compulsive power to disallow that anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I support any editor adding an adjective: "the [alleged/presumed/purported/supposed] creature is not a real living animal". 5Q5|^✉ 13:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Just some context. How do we know that bears exist? The overwhelming evidence. How do we know that ancient extinct animals existed? A lot of evidence, including about many without legends around them. Animals leave bones, fossils, coprolites, to survive a species needs a population and we rarely find a single specimen. We can even find their ancestors and we can map their migrations. How do we know about folklore and human traditions? We follow the evidence of such, like through writings. For a cryptid such as bigfoot, we can also note the many cases where common animals were misattributed. For bigfoot, we have all of the latter and none of the former. And people who jump to hasty conclusions to call "bigfoot" anything they want, wishthinking and confirmation bias. Saying "we don't know" or presenting beliefs as facts for readers to "chose between fantasy and reality" would be misleading. ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

My only issue was the second paragraph which concludes with "...and the creature is not a real living animal." I feel that Wikipedia has no authority to conclude one way or the other on this subject and it would be best to remove it. However, I have read the "Fringe Theories" and "Neutral point of view" policies which require verifiable evidence, so I realize my argument here is pointless. Until we get evidence, the existing conclusion can remain in place to satisfy the skeptics, and insult the 100K+ witnesses who have actually seen the creature. Tcarter887 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Correction: witnesses who have seen something they believe to be the creature. Read Eyewitness testimony#Reliability. It is not Wikipedia's job to traipse around people's misconceptions of their own infallibility. Reliable sources familiar with the subject and with the mistakes one can make in such situations unanimously state that there is no solid evidence for the creature's existence and that there should be solid evidence if it existed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

See also xkcd:1235 lp0 on fire () 08:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Many sightings of Bigfoot in Ohio and Michigan from March 7- 10, should this be included in the history section as a recent sighting? Or somewhere in this page ~2025-41546-35 (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

They're already listed in Bigfoot#Sightings. Belbury (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)