Talk:Jacobs figure

From squatchopedia.com - All things bigfoot and sasquatch

I cleaned up the article by --Gertrude 10:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)removing some incorrect material needing sources. Reading a letter from Lynn Rogers at a Bigfoot conference is not a reliable published source of information, nor is blog articles from Cryptomundo. The topic has multiple conflicting verifiable perspectives as evidenced by reliable sources. Each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers must be allowed to form their own opinions. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. The more people engaged in checking facts, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable this article will be. A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view.--Truthseeker 11:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove the honest version?

First, please don't revert edits without discussing it on the talk page. The proper thing to do is discuss the matter on the talk page so a revert war doesn't get started. Second, you didn't address the problem. The BFF is not using reliable, third-party, published sources in this article. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. Squatchopedia is not representing views published by reliable sources fairly, they are undermining the mission of this site and the Bigfoot Information Project.--Ryan18 00:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The BFF and Cryptomundo try very hard to see a bear in these pictures. They must stop hiding the other side of them, they are not of a bear.--Yarmont 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The BFF must allow all constant editing and significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.--Roger Patterson 10:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Material must NOT be removed from Squatchopedia by members without first discussing it - to do so is regarded as vandalism. --Paul1968uk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Any additions MUST include citations - none of the recent materials include any such citations, and as such, I am rolling back to the last sensible version, pending discussion here prior to the next revision. - --Paul1968uk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, as is BIP policy, users purporting to be other people, either alive or dead will be removed from the site. --Paul1968uk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Recent Changes

The following are the recent additions that were rolled back - they shoudl be discussed here first before editing the main entry. --Paul1968uk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"On 16 September 2007 a camera trap owned by a Rick Jacobs captured at least two indistinct images of a dark-colored animal in northwest Pennsylvania. In both pictures, the head of the animal was oriented away from the camera or otherwise obscured from view, even though the animal itself was standing in the open. "

was changed to...

On 16 September 2007 a camera trap owned by a Rick Jacobs captured at least two indistinct images of a dark-colored animal in northwest Pennsylvania now known as The Jacobs Creature

I believe this is an incorrect statement - the name 'Jacobs Creature' is not widley known, and was 'named' only by the BFRO without the use of a scientific paper officially suggesting the name as is standard scientific practice. --Paul1968uk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Securing rights to the images, the photos were displayed on the BFRO website on 19 October 2007 and identified as depicting a juvenile sasquatch. A third photo was included that clearly showed two young bear cubs, photographed about 28 minutes before the “Jacobs creature” (as the BFRO dubbed the subject). Based on photo time stamps and comments from the Jacobs family, other pictures were apparently taken by the trail camera, but they were not initially made available for public viewing."

was changed to...

"Securing rights to the images, the photos were displayed on the BFRO website on 19 October 2007 and identified as depicting a juvenile sasquatch. A third photo was included that clearly showed two young bear cubs, photographed about 28 minutes before the “Jacobs creature” (as the BFRO dubbed the subject). Based on photo time stamps and comments from the Jacobs family, other pictures were apparently taken by the trail camera, but they were not initially made available for public viewing. Securing rights to the images, the photos were displayed on the BFRO website on 19 October 2007 and identified as depicting a juvenile sasquatch. A third photo was included that clearly showed two young bear cubs, photographed about 28 minutes before the “Jacobs creature” (as the BFRO dubbed the subject). Based on photo time stamps and comments from the Jacobs family, other pictures were apparently taken by the trail camera, but they were not initially made available for public viewing. - The BFRO discussion accompanying the photos claimed that, according to sighting reports, young sasquatches are quadrupedal. By the BFRO's account, U.S. and Canadian bear and primate experts, including someone at Idaho State University (by implication, Dr. Jeff Meldrum), had supposedly offered tentative opinions supporting the unknown primate interpretation. "

No references were cited. --Paul1968uk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"The BFRO discussion accompanying the photos claimed that, according to sighting reports, young sasquatches are quadrupedal. By the BFRO's account, U.S. and Canadian bear and primate experts, including someone at Idaho State University (by implication, Dr. Jeff Meldrum), had supposedly offered tentative opinions supporting the unknown primate interpretation, but no one identified with this position was named then or in the following months"

was changed to

"The BFRO discussion claimed that, according to sighting reports, young Sasquatch may be more chimp like, Dr. Jeff Meldrum supported this theory during a interview. Vanessa Woods also believed the creature was more like a ape than a bear. Perhaps because of the timing of the release of the Jacobs photos with the fortieth anniversary of the filming of a sasquatch at Bluff Creek, CA, by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, or the proximity of the story with Halloween, a traditional time for bigfoot related newspaper articles and television programs, the Jacobs photos story captured the attention of the public and was picked up worldwide by the media. No small part of the media’s attention was drawn to the debate raging among sasquatch researchers."

BFRO 'discussion' is not a suitable source of material for SOP. Dr. Meldrum's initial comments regarding the figure should be included in SOP, but only in the context of his final condiseration as to the nature of the figure - to do otherwise would give a false impression of his overall opinion. --Paul1968uk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

" The Pennsylvania Game Commission claims the images in the photos are of a bear with a severe case of mange. Conversely some formed the opinion that it may be the Pennsylvania Game Commission that have misinterpreted the photos. Sasquatch proponents stated that the leg lengths were far too long for a black bear, but that they were consistent with what would be expected for an undocumented species of great ape."

References please --Paul1968uk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, a considerable amount of material was removed from the entry - this is nothing short of vandalism. If it happens again, I will 'protect' the page, meaning no-one will be able to edit except admins. --Paul1968uk 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By blocking the article the BFF is admitting to only allowing coverage of there biased version of these controversial photos. The honest solution to this misrepresentation issue is to make an accurate chronological list of all the main events from reliable sources.--Penny9 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Squatchopedia will include any fair comment provided it can be backed up with a citation or reference. With that in mind, Penny9, please insert references to the 'reliable sources' into your contribution, which has absolutely no sources cited - otherwise, I think it is acceptable, except for the line about Jacob's taking 'two pictures' - it would be more accurate to say that Jacob's camera took a number of pictures, only two of which were presented to the BFRO. If there references aren't in place by the end of the week, I'll assume you can't provide any and will revert back to the previous version. --Paul1968uk 09:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There were several pictures of deer then bear and the last two were the figure according to the information at the BFRO. I found some good references on the web I can add this latter today. For now I need to learn how to work these controls. --Gertrude 10:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)--Gertrude 10:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Allow me, I have some information and the ability.--Normann 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)