Talk:Wendigo

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2025

Removal of "Scholar Francesca Amee Johnson criticized the use of the Wendigo as an antagonist horror character in popular culture in Reinvention: an International Journal of Undergraduate Research. She noted that many popular depictions, like Until Dawn (2015), The Retreat (2020), and Supernatural (2005–2020) are created by mostly non-native writers. The use of the Wendigo as an antagonist has become a common trope, "as it easily creates a villain for white protagonists to defeat repeatedly." Johnson writes,

This construction is problematic in the horror genre as it presents an Indigenous antagonist that poses a threat to white culture for its otherness and indigeneity – while at the same time, misappropriating, discarding and demonising the Indigenous culture the myth comes from, at whim.[54]" for irrelevance to article and not being a credible source ~2025-32740-84 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The quote is coming from a peer-reviewed journal, so would seem to meet the criteria for reliability. I'm also not seeing how it is irrelevant to the article. meamemg (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

its pretty clear, are you illiterate? ~2025-32740-84 (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Mind your tone please.

I agree with Meameng, and while I think I understand what you are requesting, I want to make very clear that I object, and thus this would first require consensus. If you really think that people will agree with this, you can try to (politely) start a discussion on your proposed edit.

I also warn you to STOP removing other people's comments. This is unacceptable. I have reverted these edits as far as I can tell.

Just for good measure:

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Slomo666 (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Covering criticism is not inappropriate unless it's WP:UNDUE or fringe, which does not seem to be the case here. Works used as sources in articles (including for criticism) do not have to be notable to be included. It's enough that they are WP:reliable as long as other considerations such as DUE are considered too. "I don't like it" is not a sufficient reason to request removal. Gawaon (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The temp account has been blocked from this talk page. NotJamestack (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

I figure that there's good reason for an image (like the one in the French version of this article) to be added to the infobox. ~2025-33494-05 (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

We deliberately haven't done that due to a lack of suitable images. All images are in the "In popular culture" section because no other (say, traditional) depictions seem to exist. Gawaon (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Misspelling

Chicogquaw should be "Chicogsquaw" source pg 75 of the 13th annual archaeology report 1918by Dr. R. B. Orr. in the collection of annual archaeology reports digitized at: https://archive.org/details/annualarchaeolog07boyl/page/n7/mode/2up and held in the special collection of University of Toronto ~2026-10509-21 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. I have found the spelling "Chicogquaw" on the mentioned page. The spelling variant with s is not used, as far as I can see. They also write: "'Quaw' is evidently another form of 'kwee', a 'woman'" – so it's not a misspelling of "squaw". Gawaon (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)