Talk:Scientific studies of sasquatch

Merge and NPOV tags

This article does not source its statements and lists highly disputed statements from the Bigfoot-only supporters side. Any salvagable information should be added (following NPOV policies) to Bigfoot. DreamGuy 21:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I know I probably shouldn't be judging the article based on this, but I can't help but be suspicious when I see so many spelling and grammar mistakes. In any event, I agree with you on both counts (I just don't know enough about Bigfoot to actually help, unfortunately). --Whimemsz 22:48, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

For the sheer sake of article bulk, this should remain a seperate article from the bigfoot article.--The_stuart 23:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with The_stuart. The only problem is, an article like this is central to the Bigfoot controversy and it is a regret it is missing. If someone can break away other, not so vital sections of the current Bigfoot article, than this one can be, and should be, merged. --Every1blowz 17:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that someone jumped the gun and went ahead and merged the articles before there was any formal decision. So in other words, this article is currently useless as all the information can be found in the Bigfoot article. Alright, whatever, that’s how Wikipedia is. --Every1blowz 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Other POV

The skeptics can relax, for despite the limited studies done by unpaid scientists in their spare time, no solid evidence for Bigfoot has surfaced, such as bones or a body. You just cannot, however, expect always that there will be an equal number of non-productive studies, for the sake of a specious "balance". The skeptics did take two Bigfoot trips, however, Robert Sheaffer of CSICOP, went with Jon-Erik Beckjord, (joined later by a family of 6) in 1999, and he did not see nor hear Bigfoot. Dr Molly Hanson of CSICOP, also went with Beckjord on an expedition in 1989, to the mountains of AZ, and she found Bigfoot tracks independently, and became a believer.

All editors should remember that Wikipedia is NOT a scholarly encyclopedia, it is a general encyclopedia, and does not need the exactness of citations the other type needs. This is not a scientific JOURNAL.

SAM

Uhm, actually, even though Wikipedia isn’t exactly a scholarly encyclopedia, formal use of citations is a policy. Sure, we don’t have to get every single thing down perfect, but it is preferable and should not be discouraged. --Every1blowz 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)