Talk:Sasquatch

Redirect

According to Newt Scamander in fantastic Beasts, bigfoot is another name for the yeti. We should merge the articles, shouldn´t we?--Rodolphus (talk) 22:22, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Sasquatches and yetis are different legendary creatures. The sasquatch is a large, bipedal, ape-like creature covered in shaggy brown hair, said to live in forested regions of North America, particularly the Pacific Northwest. Whereas the yeti is large, bipedal ape-like creature covered in white fur, said to live in the Himalayas. The yeti has its origins in Nepalese culture, whereas the sasquatch comes from the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest. "Bigfoot" is a real colloquial name for the sasquatch, but not for the yeti. My guess is that J. K. Rowling was unaware of the distinction between the yeti and the sasquatch back when she wrote Fantastic Beasts in 2001, so she made "bigfoot" a Potterverse synonym for "yeti." But she probably learned more about the legendary creatures of North America in the course of writing History of Magic in North America and realized "bigfoot" is correctly a synonym of sasquatch. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 22:45, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

You could be right. However, this could yet be another case when the Harry Potter version of a creature difers from mythology. Well. according to Internet Movie Database, a Sasquatch will appear in the Fantastic Beasts film. I suggest to write a BTS section for now. We can wait until the film is released in November. In case it turns out that Sasquatches and Yetis are still identical in-universe, we can move iz then.--Rodolphus (talk) 22:55, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

So... Something JKR wrote herself is ignored as being canon because it is different in real life, but a German translation - where we have zero proof that she was involved with - can be used as canon? I really don't get this one. Thought JKR was the supreme source of canon? Lady Junky 23:02, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

There isn't proof that the sasquatch and the yeti are the same thing in the Harry Potter universe. Only that both known by the alternate name of "bigfoot." I'd suggest turning "bigfoot" into a disambiguation page. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 23:10, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Now I get it :) Yeah a disambig for Big Foot is the best for now :) Lady Junky 23:12, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Status?

If they set up a rebellion against the Congress, doesn´t this mean they were able to understand what the MaCUSA was and be able to understand magical laws? That would classify them as beings. Given the limited knowledge we have, I think we should delete their classification from the infox completely. --Rodolphus (talk) 23:20, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

The wizarding world has always been subjective in their beast/beings classifications - making it more of a legal designation based on the biases of the wizards doing the classifying. (Vaudree (talk) 00:27, March 20, 2016 (UTC))

There are a couple things that bother me about Pottermore part 4 (the Sasquatch) chapter - most importantly, there is this line: - MACUSA was also more intolerant of such magical phenomena as ghosts, poltergeists and fantastic creatures than its European equivalents, because of the risk such beasts and spirits posed of alerting No-Majs to the existence of magic. - Sasquatch's would be deemed a threat to all wizard-kind even if all they did was show up in front of the MACUSA demanding that their grievances be addressed. Their mere presence would threaten to expose the wizarding world to dangerous no-majs. Also, rebellions tend to occur after one has sought (and has been denied) address for one's grievances (example War of Independence, Riel Rebellions). And then, less importantly, the name of OOF's book "Big Foot’s Last Stand" seems analogist to "Custard's Last Stand" as if we are supposed to be drawing some sort of unknown connection between the two. (Vaudree (talk) 00:27, March 20, 2016 (UTC))

Seconded. The evidence does seem to point towards being status, and since they weren't mentioned in the real-life book Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them when even Centaurs made it as 'Beasts'. The section on Yeti did mention Sasquatch in passing, but weren't listed. It would be safe to simply remove the section until we get enough proof that Seth won't veto it. He's got higher standards than some bible scholars as to what he accepts (and I say this as a guy who got into a debate where Sola Scriptura was my primary argument to try and knock some sense into him).   Tepheris ||  Send Patronus  00:55, March 17, 2016 (UTC)