Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 4

71.90.25.96 removing well-sourced information

Both Shermer, Coleman and Huyge, Harry Trumbore, etc, etc, further down in the article, are excellent sources for the sentence which 71.90.25.96 removes. It's a very well referenced claim. Per WP:MOS, the intro doesn't strictly need any inline references at all, since its claims will return furter down, in the body of the article, and will there be amply sourced). rv. No battleground editing, please, 71.90.25.96. Bishonen | talk 04:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Well yes they are good sources but the source does not actually say "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience" it is more nuanced.

BTW I think the efforts by the skeptical-ultras on this article are wholly partisan (I say this as a skeptic myself). The article has been stripped of a variety of peer reviewed references that suggested there are unknown animals out there in a desperate attempt to demonstrate the pseudoscientific nature of cz. If you have to delete reference to peer reviewed articles to support your position does that make it ever so slightly POV? CZ may be BS but it is not all BS and at least some zoologists have said this. The article should reflect this. Could we have a little evidence based editing please? Tullimonstrum (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I did think it was a good source and I'm sorry I removed it at first but I agree that the article in question didn't categorically state that cryptozoology was a pseudoscience. I wasn't trying to bias the article in favor of cryptozoology; I think that calling cryptozoology a pseudoscience is an extremely biased statement that, even if it were directly held up by the source in question, doesn't mean that cryptozoology IS a pseudoscience- it means that this author thinks it is. I was trying to make the article more objective, because cryptozoology is not universally decried by mainstream science like some psueudosciences (astrology, palm-reading). It isn't even listed in the index of pseudosciences. I'm sorry if my first edit was overly hasty and came off as an attempt to slant the article in favor of one side- that really wasn't my intention. 71.90.25.96 12:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

Our source calls it pseudoscience, the definition of which is "a practice which is presented as scientific but which lacks scientific acceptance". Furthermore, per our multitude of other sources, including the two cited directly before the sentence (3 and 4), cryptozoology is not a field of science or branch of zoology. If you'd like to change this sentence, can you please provide a reliable source which says that cryptozoology is a recognized branch of science? Jess_talk|_edits 01:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The source says "Cryptozoology ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting, depending on how it is practiced." They do also say it is "not strictly a science" but clearly they are not wholly dismissing it either and this is a skeptical text! I don't see how a wikipedia article can take more *more* skeptical line than a Michael Shermer edited book and claim NPOV!! No one has ever argued that cz is a recognised branch of science but plenty of people have shown there are new (large) animals to discover and there may be (a little) something to cz. I just discovered that the Zoological Society of London is holding a debate on the topic http://www.zsl.org/science/events/communicating-science-cryptozoology-science-or-pseudoscience,459,EV.html. So saying that CZ status as a science is "debatable" really does capture its current dubious but not wholly rubbish status. Tullimonstrum (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No. You jump around too much. I'm fine with saying its status is dubious but not wholly rubbish. That's well put, and it would also be fine to say its status is debatable. The problem is the way the phrase "as a science" inches in and out of there. The status of cryptozoology is debatable. Its status as a science is not debatable, because it doesn't have any status as a science. None. Zilch. Plenty of reliable sources show it. To state that cryptozoology sometimes reaches to the height of being "useful and interesting" is fine, but it's something quite different from claiming it's of any kind of status as a science. That's why I removed the misdirected compliment "Cryptozoology's status as a science is debatable." Why do you want that sentence in there, anyway? There are other, better, more appropriate compliments that can be paid. That it's sometimes useful and interesting, for instance. Those are excellent things to be, and maybe we should lean more on those qualities. And wouldn't it be great to aim for making this article useful and interesting, instead of full of dodgy claims about science? Bishonen | talk 08:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

@Tullimonstrum Pseudoscience is anything which lacks scientific acceptance. We have a plethora of sources which say that cryptozoology lacks scientific acceptance. Do you have any source which claims otherwise? You're currently conflating "pseudoscience is rubbish" and "pseudoscience is a category assigned to certain methods of inquiry". You, and the source you cite, are addressing the first. We are using the second. Jess_talk|_edits 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No pseudoscience is clearly not "anything that lacks scientific acceptance". Scientists do not accept the existence of fairies but that does not make fairies pseudoscience just a belief without evidence. I think you were doing better with the definition further up the page. Further I am not claiming that cz is a recognized part of zoology it clearly isn't and the article should reflect that nor am I trying to compliment cz. I do think the article needs a accurate summary of cz position on the science spectrum. "CZ is pseudoscience" is a little too blunt and does not reflect even skeptical writing in the field. To justify an unequivocal "cryptozoology is pseudoscience" one needs to show:

a)that many/some/the majority? of self-styled cryptozoologists purport to use scientific methodologies... this may be true but we still need a source for it, not assertion. Such a source has not been forthcoming although the use of -ology is damning.
b) that said self-styled cryptozoologists don't actually use scientific methods.

and/or

c) the methods used by cryptozoologists are claimed to be science
d) but they aren't

and/or

e) that as Bishonen pithely put it that the scientific quantity in cz is zilch by which I suspect he meant that they don't produce papers or something or perhaps it is not recognized by scientists?

(b) is covered in the article in part by the Roesch & Moore article in the Shermer book and the Scientific American article by Shermer. But the trouble is that some self styled cryptozoologists do use scientific methods even if one may disagree with their conclusions e.g Jeff Meldrum. Also if self styled cryptozoologists are writing papers in mainstream journals (*and they are*, check out the blogs by Darren Naish) then b) in part does not hold. Moving to c and d. c) is similar to a) and needs backing up and perhaps an example of a blatant unscientific methodology employed by czers thinking it was science could be found. Now the problem with (d) is that some of the methods employed by cryptozoologists have been used by genuine, zoologists in high profile papers namely the use of anecdotes. I provided some cites a few months back that were promptly deleted :-o . Regarding (e) Bishonen, what can I say? There are published papers on cryptozoology in science journals. Some were cited here until MannJess deleted 'em! The scientific status of cz may be miniscule but it isn't zilch.

Not one detailed evaluation of cz in books (as opposed to WWW ephemera) I have seen has unequivocally said "cz is pseudoscience" period except for a dodgy rant in Prothero's Evolution book where he equates cz with holocaust denial and young earth creationism without providing any evidence.

So IMO the article as currently written does not reflect even the published skeptical position on this. This is exemplified by the current use of the Roesch and Moore article to justify the "cryptozoology is pseudoscience" statement. Their article does not say that.Tullimonstrum (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete any sources. Furthermore, to interpret the word "anything" in that way is being plainly argumentative; I linked to exactly where I got the def in my reply directly above. Our sources clearly state that cryptozoology lacks scientific support. If you have a source which claims otherwise, then please cite it... but as is, this is extensively covered in the article. Jess_talk|_edits 21:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The term "scientific support" is ambiguous. None of the papers say cz has no scientific support in the sense of it is not supported by the scientific community. Four of them state quite reasonably why cryptozoology is not science or that it has no evidence supporting many of its claims but that is not the same as saying it has no scientific support in the sense of support from the community of scientists. Good points all but in contrast there are papers (like the one about giant marine animals you deleted reference to on the 14th) which support at least one cryptozoological assumption i.e. that there are large unknown animals awaiting discovery by science. C'mon play fair. Now you cannot delete refs/edits against your position and then claim that your position is unequivocal by virtue of no opposing evidence.

Now I think there should be papers cited in this article reviewing scientists support for or against cz. The trouble is that I don't know of any. I stress I am not arguing that cryptozoology should not be mentioned as being pseudoscientific in the article (of course it should, it often is) I just think there is room in the summary for some equivocation it is not all pseudoscience/nonscience especially given

a) the absence of a clear source that says based on evidence that the majority/plurality of zoologists disagree with cryptozoology.
b) there are zoologists writing papers on cz.
c) above all that is what the citations say i.e. Roesch and Moore.

Again I ask how can a NPOV Wikipedia article take a more extreme position on the pseudoscientific nature of cz than the informed source material?Tullimonstrum (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be engaging in original research. Our sources plainly state that cryptozoology is not science, lacks scientific acceptance, and is not a field of zoology. We have to reflect that. If you wish to demonstrate that it is accepted within zoology or any other branch of science, you'll have to provide sources beyond what we currently have, all of which unilaterally support our current wording. Jess_talk|_edits 01:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are nothing if not predictable MannJess. But what exactly was your objection to my last edit? Every single point well sourced except one where there is, alas, no source available (i.e. a definitive indication of the opinions of zoologists) and I included an additional anti cz ref from May and I even restrained myself from re-instating, for the moment, some of your dodgier deletions and unlike your version of said paragraph it contains a direct quote from the source (Roesch and Moore in Shermer's Encyclopedia) which, for reasons unknown, you keep on pretending does not say what it does say. Can you really claim you are being non-partisan here? Tullimonstrum (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Jane Goodall was an "adherent" of cryptozoology? Since she offhandedly once said she wished that Bigfoot existed, adding that into the lead was quite misleading. I'd discuss any further such edits here on the Talk page first.- LuckyLouie (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"I think I have read every article and every book about these creatures, and while most scientists are not satisfied with existing evidence, I have an open mind." Dr. Jane Goodall from her endorsement of Jeff Meldrum's book. So I think it fair to call her an adherent. Actually we could use that quote for the missing one I want that reflects the opinions of zoologists. Tullimonstrum (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. A dust jacket blurb is insufficient to cite Jane Goodall as an adherent of cryptozoology. In any case, her remark is specifically referring to a single book, not an entire field.[1] - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

True enough which is why I cited her radio interview in the article.Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There were numerous problems with your proposed wording, the issue LuckyLouie raised was just one of them. Another is that you're giving undue weight to the acceptance of Cryptozoology, which is wholly unsupported by our sources. I'll have to second LuckyLouie's suggestion: Please fully discuss any proposed additions here and gain consensus before making changes to the lead. Also, just to head this one off before it becomes a problem... do try to keep the discussion on the article, not on other editors. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 02:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, Tullimonstrum's version is written in unbalanced, poorly connected paragraphs and ends with a sentence surely baffling to school-age and most other readers: "Its exact heuristic value continues to be debated". And for those that do understand it, that makes it sound like there's parity between the sides of the "debate", too. I agree that any proposed changes to the lead need to be posted and discussed here first. Bishonen | talk 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

I only edited one para, Bishonen. The stuff you edited (well) was nothing to do with me.

So to summarise then

a) A source that says cryptozoology ranges from "pseudoscientific to useful and interesting" actually means "cryptozoology is pseudoscience".
b) The Zoological Society of London may be holding a debate on the scientific value of cryptozoology but there is, in fact, no debate amongst zoologists about the scientific value of cryptozoology.
c) There are no peer reviewed scientific articles that in any way have ever used cz methods or even suggested that the assumptions of cz may be met and the idea that any such articles (e.g one about there are numbers of large marine animals to be discovered) were ever cited in this article as recently as the 12/14/2010 and have been deleted, is base calumny. Even if such sources were (re)found their inclusion into the article would constitute original research and hence make their inclusion unjustified.
d) Because all the available sources in the article should only be interpreted as hostile to the scientific basis of cryptozoology and no further articles supporting the science basis of cryptozoology can be admitted (see above), it follows that there is no scientific basis for all of cryptozoology and cryptozoology is indeed a pseudoscience without any equivocation at all.
e) No prominent/influential zoologists (if they are prominent not by virtue of being associated by cz) has ever supported cryptozoology. Any suggestion to the contrary is clearly erroneous and should be supressed or at least banished (Henry Gee) to the end of the article until such time as they can be deleted without anyone noticing.

Sorry, all is clear now. Gosh and I thought I was skeptical about cryptozoology.Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you, Tullimonstrum. You appear to be engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Numerous issues have been brought to your attention and you've failed to address them in favor of continuing to claim we're all biased against the topic. You clearly want the 'pseudoscience' sentence changed. To do that, we need a reliable source which clearly states that cryptozoology is an accepted field of science. Until you have that, it doesn't appear we can make much more headway. Jess_talk|_edits 16:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Given no one is disputing cz is not an accepted field of science, I rather think, we need a source that clearly states cz is a pseudoscience without equivocation. To pre-empt, the two are not synonymous. If you can provide such a quote I would be grateful. For a self-evident truth it seems a trifle lacking.Tullimonstrum (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A small point, Tullimonstrum: the Zoological Society of London is apparently hosting a Talk followed by a "discussion" on the scientific value of cryptozoology this summer. Their own description advises that cz is "considered dubious by zoologists". Attempting to interpret this Talk as some sort of controversy within zoology is a bit premature, don't you think? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you mean by "controversial", "important controversy" or "controversy with sizeable support on both sides" or similar,then of course it isn't. But I strongly suspect London Zoo would not host a debate on creationism for example. It is a matter of historical fact and what the sources say, there has been occasional mainstream scientific support for some aspects of cryptozoology and occasionally the matter has been debated in scientific circles and a NPOV Wikipedia should reflect that. That some editors here apparently believe no aspect of cryptozoology has ever been supported by mainstream zoologists is just plain historically inaccurate (the Goodall business was a bit of a surprise, wasn't it, LuckyLouie? Shocked me too). But I have a solution to this situation. I'll do one big edit. Then read what I say and READ the references and give readers the chance to see if I am mischaracterising any sources (I won't be, not my style but judge for yourself). After say 24 hours if the majority of editors around reckon my edits are rubbish then go for it, piecemeal not in entirity on the grounds of "too much weight for cryptozoology" or "original research", because that just smacks of a contrived justification for censorship of facts you don't like. I will then leave entirely to your consciences whether you can just delete points backed up with well sourced references just because they don't reflect what you think about cryptozoology, rather than what science actually says about cz. Cannot say fairer than that.Tullimonstrum (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Tullimonstrum, the word "debate" never appears in the ZSL literature (but the word "discussion" does). Re Jane Goodall on NPR; her remarks are not interpreted as support of cryptozoology at our Bigfoot article and there's no reason why they should be here. Regarding your plan to do "one big edit" backed by your conviction that other editors are going to delete your contributions because of personal bias -- that's acting in incredibly bad faith, and I advise you not to do it. A better plan would be to discuss changes to the article beforehand here on Talk, or sandbox it and invite others to comment on it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, you are clutching at straws. I really do not care what another wikipedia article says and nor should you, that is not an appropriate source but anyway how else do you interpret the mention of Jane Goodall in that article? She is not be cited as anti. Just face it, Jane Goodall (jeez, two book blurbs and a radio interview, do you need her to wear a badge?) and other qualified zoologists (not many I agree) think the investigation of some cryptozoological animals is worthwhile, and the ZSL is holding a discussion/debate. So maybe it is factually inaccurate to dismiss cz as complete rubbish with zero zoological support. No big deal unless one had dogmatically decided it was all rubbish in defiance of the source material anyway. Now perhaps this means we can have some proper editing of this article now.Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Assertion Is Too Strong

I suggest that cryptozoology is not necessarily a pseudoscience. Here is why. Suppose that some who call themselves cryptozoologists do in fact discover a new species. For example, let us hypothetically suppose that the Chupacabra is in fact not coyotes with scabies, but in fact a previously unidentified canid. Once it is discovered, it would then be assessed and classified by zoology. Therefore -- no authentic documented and classified animal species can fall into the province of cryptozoology. And therefore cryptozoology cannot be a branch of zoology.

But that said, many valid skills and techniques can be used for hunting the as yet undiscovered species on the earth. As long as those techniques and practices fall within the realm of science, cryptozoology cannot be considered a pseudoscience even if such practitioners are looking for Sasquatch.

Therefore I think we should delete the assertion "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience". The citation provided should not, I think, be used as support for such a bald assertion because the source states: "...many of the individuals associated with the International Society of Cryptozoology are professional scientists and view their work as science, many other scientists think the field is a pseudoscience".

Now this assertion does not provide unequivocal support for asserting cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, rather it holds that many scientists think it is, but the actual professional scientists that are members of the society do not think that it is. Looking at how Wikipedia defines pseudoscience it would appear that cryptozoology does not, in fact, necessarily fit the definition. Therefore I recommend either deleting the statement, or providing the quotation "as is" in the body of the article. SunSw0rd (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we need to follow where the sources lead, and the sources we have are pretty clear that Cryptozoology is not an accepted scientific field. If what you say is true, you might be able to track down a reliable source which explicitly says that it is science, in which case we could amend the article. Jess_talk|_edits 02:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. I asserted that it cannot be a branch of zoology. But I am asserting that simply because it is not a branch of zoology does not make it pseudoscience. I do not agree that a subject must fall within either of two categories -- science or pseudoscience. For example: is "history" a science or not? If not, then the assertion that a subject must be either science or pseudoscience would declare history as a subject to be pseudoscience.

The question is therefore not whether cryptozoology is "an accepted scientific field", rather it is whether or not it is a pseudoscience. I would assert that cryptozoology falls into the area of subjects like history. Also please note there are valid academic disciplines that contain the word science that are also not sciences -- "military science" is a valid academic discipline, one can major in it at some universities, and I don't think anyone would call it a "pseudoscience" -- but it clearly is not really a "science" as science would commonly be defined. (I can make the same remark about "computer science" as well.)

So I assert it is perfectly possible for cryptozoology to exist as a discipline, to follow scientific methodologies, but to simultaneously be neither recognized as a formal science, nor be a pseudoscience like astrology.

Based on this logic (and the previous statement that the citation provided does not back up the assertion), I am tending towards the deletion of the assertion that it is a pseudoscience. SunSw0rd (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion that it can be outside the realm of science and of pseudoscience doesn't appear to be supported by the sources. I'd suggest reading the first few sentences of Pseudoscience. Cryptozoology is a supposedly scientific field, and our sources are quite clear that it is in no way a discipline of science. That is precisely the definition of pseudoscience, which is further backed up by our sources describing it as such. Do you have any sources which say that it is a branch of science, or that it's something other than pseudoscience? Otherwise, our sources are fairly clear. Jess_talk|_edits 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "our sources"? Who is "our"? There is only a single citation for pseudoscience and as I have point out that is not unequivocal. Since I am not arguing that it is a science, I do not need to provide sources for that, and as I have repeatedly stated, I am not asserting that -- so why are you trying to frame the discussion in that way? Drop it. I am asserting that the single citation provided is not sufficient to declare cryptozoology a pseudoscience. Therefore that statement will either have to be deleted or better citations provided. SunSw0rd (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please try to keep things civil. You made an assertion that cryptozoology can be outside the realm of both science and pseudoscience, but I don't see support for that in the literature. Our sourcing for cryptozoology lacking scientific support, not adhering to the scientific method, etc, is extensive, which is in addition to the explicit references as pseudoscience. I'm adding another reference attributed to Eduardo Angulo, a professor of cell biology, because I think it rounds off the section nicely, but ultimately the article simply repeats what we already have in our other sources, so it is perhaps a bit redundant. In any case, based on cite note 3, 5, and 14 particularly (among others), we need reliable sources claiming that cryptozoology has some status other than pseudoscience in order to change that sentence. If you have some, we could discuss including them in the article. Jess_talk|_edits 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So -- according to your perspective -- the subject of History should be declared a pseudoscience? Since obviously it is not a science. You question whether or not a subject can be "outside the realm of both science and pseudoscience". I don't think we would have to find sources to show that History is neither pseudoscience or science. So why here? I suggest it is better to simply provide the citations (of which there are many) that show that Cryptozoology should not be considered a science and be done with it. Otherwise, by your own logic, we are going to have to go to other subjects that use scientific techniques (which History does) and then assert that they are pseudosciences. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not about using scientific techniques. It's about claiming to be science. There's fairly extensive evidence of cryptozoologists claiming their work to be scientific, and we have extensive citations showing that it has no scientific acceptance. That is plainly the definition of pseudoscience, which again, is in addition to the multiple refs which call it that by name. All our sources point in that direction, so, in order to change the sentence, we need a source which says it's something else. Do you have a source like that? Jess_talk|_edits 16:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. Look, something can be "scientific" and yet not be considered a field of science. Many techniques used by science such as observation, recording of data, etc. are used by other fields that are not considered scientific domains. Exploration is an example of that. Cryptozoology is the field of pursuit of Cryptids. Now most cryptids would turn out to be hoaxes, mistaken identifications of extant species, outright lies -- or in some cases, new undocumented species. Now once something is validated and documented, the zoologists take over, and the species is no longer classified as a cryptid. Because really there is room for people to use valid scientific techniques to seek out unknown species. And of course some people will want to look for giant birds, or ape men, or sea serpents. I don't think they can call cryptozoology a science -- because anything valid that is discovered then falls right into zoology. So my point is -- just because something is not a scientific domain does not automatically classify it as a pseudoscience.

I think part of the problem is "plainly the definition of pseudoscience" as you are framing it, is as something that does not have scientific acceptance. That is an invalid definition, since as I pointed out, the field of History does not have scientific acceptance. That does not make the disciple of History a pseudoscience. Or how about Navigation? Or Exploration? Are those also pseudosciences? Heck, "the science of navigation" gets 178M Google hits -- but I never saw it taught in a university science department. Should we classify navigation as a pseudoscience also?

So again I assert -- disciplines can use science techniques, not be considered scientific disciplines, yet not be pseudoscience. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We're quickly falling into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Your comparison to history is fallacious, and misrepresents my point. Please read the definition of pseudoscience as presented in our article, which is: a practice which is presented as scientific, but which lacks scientific status. Cryptozoologists present it is science, and according to our sources, it is not a science in any acceptable usage of that word. Furthermore, we have explicit references which call it pseudoscience. You are trying to use rhetoric to establish that we should say something other than what our sources claim. Per policy, we cannot do that. The only way this conversation can continue is if you provide sources backing up your claims. Jess_talk|_edits 21:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

When you say "our" are you speaking of yourself as plural, or do you represent a group? This is a serious question.

I am arguing that there is insufficient evident to assert it is a pseudoscience. Here is my point. The current sentence states: "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience". It does not state that "some scientists claim" or "the majority of zoologists claim". There are problems with the 2 sources you cite. For example, the new one you have added says "it is considered a pseudoscience" -- but this is a statement by Patricia Moreno regarding Eduardo Angulo. It should be pointed out that while Eduardo Angulo identifies the limitations of cryptozoology, he is not quoted as asserting it is a pseudoscience. This is therefore a weak citation in that you have a reporter attributing a statement to a scientist without a direct quotation. In any event this would be the opinion of a single individual.

As for the first citation, as I pointed out before, it is not unequivocal but rather it points out that "many of the individuals associated with the International Society of Cryptozoology are professional scientists and view their work as science, many other scientists think that the field is a pseudoscience".

The citations provided are clearly insufficient for such a bold sentence as "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience". The first citation is clearly equivocal, and the 2nd provides no direct quotes and is furthermore clearly the opinion of a reporter. Now if what you want is quotations that assert that cryptozoology is not a pseudoscience, then see here: "...the Coleman & Clark practice of cryptozoology is not pseudoscience at all." Others, such as Darren Naish, have said here: "So people ordinarily regarded as mainstream zoologists do sometimes or often engage in cryptozoological research. The result of this is that it's very difficult - if not impossible - to define a boundary between cryptozoology and 'conventional' zoology. There are perhaps two solutions to this problem. One is that we should abolish the term cryptozoology altogether, and argue that anyone who's investigating a cryptid is simply doing zoological field work. The other is that we get more zoologists to realise what cryptozoology really is, and hence try and get rid of the 'monster hunting' label..."

Now do you see where I am coming from? I'm just saying we can't have such a blunt statement as currently exists which says "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience" -- because the two citations provided are too weak to support it, and I can find plenty of alternate citations that assert that cryptozoology either "not pseudoscience at all" or "anyone who's investigating a cryptid is simply doing zoological field work". For every statement you provide asserting it is a pseudoscience, I can find one that asserts it is not. And therefore that sentence must either be deleted, or modified to show that there is a dispute. SunSw0rd (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

By our, I mean wikipedia... or more specifically this article. "We", as editors of this article, have reliable sources stating that the topic is pseudoscience, so that is what we reflect. I understand quite clearly what you are saying. I disagree. This discussion has been had in the past, and consensus has been that the sentence should be kept. Given that all our current sources support the statement, and you haven't provided any opposing it, this seems to be the appropriate stance to take. I'm not sure what else to tell you besides repeating myself; We need reliable sources backing up your assertion to reflect it in the article. Jess_talk|_edits 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Jess, may I congratulate on finally finding a source that supports a little the "cz is pseudoscience" line after several weeks of request. That is good, now let's see if you can move on to the next step of critical source use, that of fairly reflecting all of the source material. Now we have a somewhat obscure indirect quote that support the "is pseudoscience" position (fair enough but boy has it taken a long while to find explicit support for such an "obvious" truth) and an extensive review article in a skeptical book that clearly suggests some ambiguity over the pseudoscience issue. So the question is what is NPOV? Now I know you are are a bit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about the the article in the Shermer book, perhaps you have not read it, but it is the ONLY printed source we currently have which mentions the word "pseudoscience" adversely in the context of cz. None of the other cited "anti"-sources in the article apart from your new source, even mention the word "pseudoscience" at all, so it seems that your frequent comments that the sources "support the statement", "cryptozoology is pseudoscience" is simply incorrect. Further it is just disingenuous to try to conflate "acceptance of cz by zoological community" with the claim that "cz is pseudoscience". A scientist could reject cz as he thinks the claims of some adherents are folly (e.g bigfoot exists, there are large mammals to be discovered) whilst thinking that some of its methods are/could be scientific. Under the circumstances a direct quote from the Shermer book seems rather appropriate and covers all the bases. You and others never have fully explained your hostility to the use of a direct quote, it hardly misrepresents the source whereas it is quite clear that a number of people think that saying "cz is pseudoscience" period does misrepresent that source.Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tullimonstrum, please keep the discussion on topic and civil. The way you're approaching this now is unacceptable. As I've said repeatedly, all of our sources back up the current wording. If you want to change the wording, please provide a reliable source which supports your proposal. Jess_talk|_edits 17:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

OK Jess, please provide a quote from any of the current sources apart from your new one that says cz is pseudoscience without equivocation.Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. The statement is sourced. You'll have to provide your own to show it isn't the majority scientific view. That's the last time I'm going to say it... If you have further issues with this statement and don't want to look up sources supporting your view, you're welcome to take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Jess_talk|_edits 18:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think this position is reconciliable with verification. But OK I'll take you at your word and add some references to justify my position. Play fair, you cannot delete them now.Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 2 problems with your newest edit. 1) You're giving undue weight to the idea that cryptozoology has been accepted as a scientific discipline. This info can go in another area of the article, but it is inconsistent with WP:Weight to put it so prominently in the lead, or to word it as you have. This is extensively sourced already. 2) The source you're using to change the pseudoscience section is an opinion piece, where the author specifically states that his proposal to redefine the field is counter to how it is currently understood. This is not an acceptable source for your purposes. Beyond those two, there are other issues with your edit, including changing "Discoveries" back to "Defense", which is turning the page from an encyclopedia article into a debate. Please establish consensus here before making those or similar changes. Also, be clear with your edit summaries; With the amount of discussion we've had on this topic, sneakily changing the sentence with "m minor bits" isn't being honest about what you're changing. Jess_talk|_edits 17:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the root cause of the disagreement is this -- which way is cryptozoology to be defined as?

Cryptozoology (from Greek , kryptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") refers to the search for animals whose existence has not been proven.
Cryptozoology (from Greek , kryptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") refers to the search for animals which are considered to be legendary or otherwise nonexistent by mainstream biology.

Obviously the latter (current) definition is self evidently pseudoscience by the very wording. And obviously the former is not. So which definition is more accurate? Well, according to the International Society of Cryptozoology: "International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC) was founded in 1982 in Washington, D.C. to serve as a scholarly center for documenting and evaluating evidence of unverified animals; that is, animal species or forms which have been reported in some manner but which have not been scientifically proven to exist. The study of such animals is known as cryptozoology" From the definition of this society, cryptozoology is merely studying "evidence of animal species or forms which have been reported in some manner but which have not been scientifically proven to exist". I think obviously whether or not cryptozoology is to be classified as pseudoscience depends entirely on how it is defined. SunSw0rd (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There has already been cases where creatures previously defined as cryptids or what would amount to one have been discovered. Mountain gorilla, Komodo dragon, Gaint squid, etc.

Strictly speaking, Cryptozoology is just zoology focusing on animals not yet catagoerized by science. It does not differ in how it operates or studies from normal zoology.

Also, what happened to the artcile? It's like half as big as it used to be. 24.154.119.139 (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Accurately speaking, cryptozoology is nothing like zoology. Do biology departments have courses in cryptozoology? Are the books on cryptozoology at all structured like books on zoology? No, not in the slightest. Cryptozoology works are structured with much the same tone and approach as writings on supernatural topics. DreamGuy (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated Definition

I am proposing updating the definition thusly: Cryptozoology is the search for living examples of animals taxonomically believed to be extinct; as well as the search for new species that fall outside of taxonomic records due to a lack of empirical evidence.

That appears to be both accurate as well as WP:NPOV. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As I would comment to you above as well, we can't make up our own definitions... we have to use those provided to use via reliable sources. Also, the definition provided by an organization explicitly devoted to the topic can't be used. We have to use reliable sources from unbiased third parties. With all of that in mind, do you have this kind of sourcing for your proposed change? Jess_talk|_edits 23:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well let's look at the current definition. It is entirely unsourced. I suspect you may see the twofold problem which is (a) currently unsourced and (b) it is unlikely that any parties are actually unbiased. There is however a simple solution. Use the definition provided by Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans in his book "On the Track of Unknown Animals". This satisifies WP:RS. Note that he attributes it to Ivan T. Sanderson: "When he (Sanderson) was still a student he invented the word 'cryptozoology', or the science of hidden animals, which I was to coin later, quite unaware that he had already done so." Source here. So the most simple definition would be to abbreviate the current definition and stop.

As follows: ==>Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kryptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals")<==

This would most accurately correlate with the original definition. SunSw0rd (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We actually have many sources which define cryptozoology, including cite 1, 4 and 5. I reject your assertion that no party can give an unbiased definition, and even if true, an international Cryptozoology organization would still be too biased to use. With that said, our current lead seems to adequately sum up the topic while sticking to our sources, so I see no reason to change it. Further, your proposed wording is more distant from the sources we have, and seems to suggest that the supposed animals do exist, despite there being no evidence. Our current def doesn't have that problem. Is there a fundamental issue you're trying to solve with this proposal? Jess_talk|_edits 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, even if we do change the definition, we will not be able to remove the bit on pseudoscience. Our sources say that the term "pseudoscience" applies to the field labeled "Cryptozoology". It doesn't matter what our definition indicates by nature so long as that's what our sources say. We can talk about changing the lead if there's another problem you'd like to address, but if, as you've indicated in the section above, this is an effort to redefine the field to remove the sentence you don't like, then you're going about this the wrong way; That simply can't happen no matter how the lead is restructured. Jess_talk|_edits 00:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation One states: "Cryptozoology is defined as the "science" of unknown and of hidden or undiscovered animals".

Citation Four states: "Cryptozoology is the study of animals whose existence has not been proven".

Citation Five does not in fact provide a definition at all, it merely references the definition provided by Bernard Heuvelmans by stating "The first that dared to define their task, Cryptozoology, was the Belgian Bernard Heuvelmans in 1958, which he described as a science that studies the hidden animals."

None of these 3 definitions which you recommend from the citations map to "...refers to the search for animals which are considered to be legendary or otherwise nonexistent by the field of biology." None of the definitions use the word legendary. None of the definitions state that the "animals which are considered to be...nonexistent" -- as there is a vast differences between "existence has not been proven" and "considered to be nonexistent".

Each of these citations maps more closely to what I am suggesting. In fact, I am fine with directly using the definition as provided by citation one -- the same citation you are recommending. Thusly: "Cryptozoology is defined as the "science" of unknown and and of hidden or undiscovered animals" -- to be immediately followed by the reference to citation one.

As to the question of pseudoscience I am not considering that at this point, I am discussing the definition, which is why I created a separate talk section for this. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was merely responding to your assertion that the definition was "entirely unsourced". The definition we use should encompass the topic broadly, taking into consideration all notable definitions proposed for it. As far as I can tell, the current definition does that. On the other hand, the one you propose takes into consideration "taxonomic records", which no definition we have appears to, and again, places undue emphasis on the creatures existing despite evidence. I'll state again that I don't see your definition as improving over the one we have... so, once again, is there some unstated problem you're trying to solve? Jess_talk|_edits 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the current definition contains the phrase "considered to be legendary or otherwise nonexistent". The word legendary exists in none of the 3 citations. None of the 3 citations state "considered to be...nonexistent". That is the problem. The current definition, even containing all 3 citations(of which I would argue the 3rd is not "notable"), is inaccurate. Therefore I suggest simply copying the definition as stated, word for word, from citation one, and then listing citation one at the end of the sentence.

I quote: "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material." Now none of the 3 citations state "considered to be legendary or otherwise nonexistent". All 3 say the same thing -- cryptozoology refers to "unknown and of hidden or undiscovered animals" or "animals whose existence has not been proven". These statements are significantly different.

The bottom line -- the current definition is not supported by any of the 3 citations identified, therefore fail WP:NOR.

I will shortly change the lead sentence to that of citation one. If you revert it I will take it to arbitration. SunSw0rd (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time now to respond fully to your post, but I will note that your last sentence is inappropriate. This is not a battleground, and the current definition was arrived upon via discussion and consensus. Changing it despite the fact that you have not developed consensus to do so is similarly inappropriate. I disagree strongly with choosing one definition to the exclusion of others, and disagree strongly with swapping a broad definition which encompasses all views of the topic for a narrow definition which does not. Lastly, I'll point out that that the 3 citations I listed addressed your assertion that the current definition was "entirely unsourced". Never did I say that they were the only sources we had, or the only views of the topic. Jess_talk|_edits 01:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusion - Or failure to distinguish between legitimate cryptids and hoax or mythical creatures

The cryptozoology template {{Cryptozoology}} appears on a number of articles where it clearly does not belong such as the Drop bear, Wolpertinger, Wild Haggis, Jackalope, etc which are jokes/hoaxes perpetrated to "entertain/frighten" gullible tourists and/or naughty children. I am deleting the template from these articles as I find them. These jokes and hoaxes should be separated from serious cryptozoology by removing the template and relevant categories. Roger (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with them being removed from inappropriate articles, but I'm finding the concepts of legitimate cryptids and serious cryptozoology to be hoaxes/mythical themselves. Frankly, the cryptozoology template ought to be removed from every article and an appropriate folklore/legend template added instead. The only difference between those articles is which bit of folklore the self-identified cryptozoologists pursue as if they are serious and which they do not. Similarly, the term "cryptid" should not be used in any article except this one, as it carries connotations that are misleading to other topics. The lexicon of a fringe field should not be seriously used in articles about topics that can be studied as parts of legitimate fields like folkloristics and mythology. DreamGuy (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually had been recently copyediting articles like Griggstown cow, Kitchenuhmaykoosib monster , and Crawfordsville monster that had the subject defined as a cryptid in the lead, with non-fringe explanations written as equal or less important than the fringe ones. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Take a cruise through random articles listed here and here and you'll see lots of inappropriate categories and definitions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience ref

I decided not to add this as a reference supporting cryptozoology as a pseudoscience, but Michael Blanford, Director of Educational Programs for the James Randi Educational Foundation, used the term "the pseudoscience of cryptozoology".[2] 98.210.160.166 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Economics

Cryptozoology is not taken seriously because it goes against economic interests...I think it's the best explanation to me why there are no more "big" animals discovered nowadays...— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

How so? people pay a lot of money to go and see big animals in Africa and elsewhere. I expect proof of Bigfoot or Nessie would draw in the tourists like anything. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Most cryptids reports come from forested areas, for instance from Central Africa, I don't think logging and mining companies would welcome well the discoveries of such animals, because the inevitable creation of natural reserves might cease their activities... Why no one has discovered yet the Mokele m'bembe when it is obviously a giant monitor lizard instead of a surviving dinosaur ? This is fishy to me... Type Crocodilopardus (CROCODILE-LEOPARD) in Google images and you will find a roman mosaic depicting a African giant lizard, Isn't this proof enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfinmako (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Obviously?" there's no evidence that it even exists, let alone that it may be a giant monitor. Also, cryptids have been reported through history (as you admit yourself), and in areas where large logging and mining companies do not operate. And how exactly would they stop cryptozoology being taken seriously? The credibility problems the field has are mostly of its own making. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To begin with , what is an evidence for you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfinmako (talk • contribs) 09:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What is evidence for you of your allegation? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the Malawi terror beast article on wiki. Wildlife and government Officials faked the true identity of the beast for economic purposes I suppose. I don't see other explanation... Locals know how to differentiate a hyena with an other animal because they are accustomed to them. I think cases like this one are globally widespread... I have another case which is more telling... http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptotourism/the-dodu-3/ § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfinmako (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I think those hunters were hired to suppress evidence of this beast before it become "a difficulty" for the logging concession. --Longfinmako (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't say the Malawi beast was called a hyena for economic purposes. Also, as the killer badger and Devil bird articles show, even a known animal can be misidentified. Cryptomundo isn't a reliable source (it's a blogging site). But let's cut to the point of this thread. Find a reliable source to say cryptids are played down for economic purposes, otherwise nothing you've said can go in the article. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When you have some park directors like him and some already existing tiger parks threatened by road buildings, I guess the dicoveries and protection of cryptids are something quite unbelievable : http://www.foei.org/en/get-involved/take-action/stop-the-destruction-of-sumava-national-park-czech-republic. Unfortunately I have nothing more to add about this subject, because economic priorities means sometimes confidentiality... Longfinmako (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying there's no source because people are hiding the truth, then we're entering the realms of conspiracy theory - make an assertion, fail to provide evidence when asked, claim information is suppressed. This is going nowhere, end of discussion. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not an assertion, this is an assumption. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is neoliberal capitalism. Longfinmako (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are just going to discuss without trying to improve the article following our policies and guidelines, it's time to end this threat. (And absence of evidence can of course be evidence of absence, just not necessarily proof of absence, although depending on the context it might be(. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Shermer

Why is Michael Shermer, a dedicated skeptic, considered a neutral source for declaring this a psuedoscience? yonnie (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Discoveries section seems to have a bias that undermines the credibility of the section text

The first sentence is framed to make it sound as if it is in question whether cryptids have been actually found to exist or not, setting up the pseudo-science sort of discussion, but then spends the next two sentences providing examples that show that it is not a claim, but rather accepted truth. It seems like the first sentence of a section shouldn't be that ambiguous when it is clarified and fact-filled so quickly. Spawn777 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Discoveries" is a misleading title for that section. It doesn't describe any "discoveries". It only describes cryptozoologists arguments that some legitimate species were initially considered "cryptids". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

The lead sentence currently reads "Crytozoology refers to the search for animals..." This seems to fall afoul of WP:NOTDICT, in that we are defining a word rather than describing a concept. An ip recently changed the lead to include pseudoscience, and (while their source was poor), I incorporated their change into the lead to fix this problem. My edit (here) was reverted because "pseudoscience doesn't need to be in the lede twice". I tend to agree; of course we shouldn't be repeating information. That said, I don't really think this is too much repitition, considering the concept is summarized (in one word) in the first sentence, and described in further detail 2 paragraphs later. However, I'm open to other suggestions. What is cryptozoology besides "a pseudoscience involving the search for animals..." We could move the psuedoscience bit up in the lead, or remove it altogether if that would help with repitition. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"Refers to" should be replaced by "is". Wily D 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that introduces a grammar problem. Cryptozoology isn't "the search". It is a field that involves searching... a pseudoscience that relates to the search. Crytozoology involves things other than simply searching, for instance. Take a look at Zoology; it begins "Zoology is the branch of biology that relates to..." We need something similar here. "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience that relates to..." seems to encapsulate the topic well. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. Cryptozoology is a very narrow pursuit; there aren't theoretical cryptozoologists or numerical cryptozoologists or anything. If someone is "doing" cryptozoology, they're trying to find animals that are unknown to science (well, or that are believed extinct but aren't, or plants or fungi, whatever, but it's still just the search for such things; Saying it's a field and so forth is being unnecessarily jargony. Wily D 07:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not jargon. Every other field of science or pseudoscience has a lede written that way for a reason. Phrenology: "Phrenology is a pseudoscience primarily focused on...", Alchemy: "Alchemy is an influential philosophical tradition... The defining objectives of alchemy are...", Acupuncture: "Acupuncture is an alternative medicine ... that treats...", Intelligent Design: "Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism...[defined] as...", Vitalism: "Vitalism is the doctrine...that...", Homeopathy: "Homeopathy is a system of alternative medicine... based on the doctrine of...", Biology: "Biology is a natural science concerned with...", Physics: "Physics is a natural science that involves the study of..."

All of them say "The subject is a field/belief/branch/noun that involves/studies/is concerned with/verb..." They do it for a reason. It is important to properly encapsulating and describing the topic in our first sentence. We can't just remove that noun and have the same article on Physics, for example. The same applies here. — Jess· Δ♥

It's been about two weeks, so I'm going to reinstate the change in order to either improve the article or spur discussion. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 07:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The only reference Jess has been able to provide that specifically says cryptozoology is a pseudoscience is an undergraduate essay. In contrast, this is quoted from the peer-reviewed journal Historical Biology:

The naïve view that cryptozoological research methods are only practised by people on the fringes of the scientific community, and furthermore consistently result in failure, is falsified by the fact that new species continue to be discovered following the investigation of eyewitness reports, deductive inference and/or ethnozoological knowledge systems. A partial list of vertebrate speciesthat have been discovered in this way would include ... [see source for listing of examples]

This peer-reviewed scientific source says cryptozoological research methodologies are proven to be scientifically fruitful. The citation quality of this source unequivocally supersedes an undergraduate essay. The other references Jess has cited in defense of this entry saying cryptozoology "is a pseudoscience" in fact do not make that claim, they merely cite a common opinion among scientists to that effect. This would be like supporting the statement "God exists" on account of the fact that most scientists hold the opinion that a higher power exists (source). So not only is the claim leading this entry that cryptozoology "is a pseudoscience" inadequately supported by the sources of this entry, it's also flatly contradicted by a higher-quality scientific source. So imo, the continuation of the claim in this entry would constitute obvious and willful editorial misconduct. 68.55.215.193 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Baler Twine

What in the world is "the Baler Twine"? I find no reference to it anywhere (except as a twine for baling crops). Maybe this should be removed. — A_Crotts 08:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.137.189 (talk)

Looks like someone snuck that in. Someone should go back and make sure it isn't replacing something that is supposed to be there. Not me tho cause I'm lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.35.176 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No, nothing was replaced, here or at the Akron Ohio article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Darren Naish articles

Some arguments for the validity of cryptozoology: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/12/22/inaugural-issue-of-journal-of-cryptozoology/ and http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2011/07/19/cryptozoology-at-the-zoological-society-of-london-cryptozoology-time-to-come-in-from-the-cold-or-cryptozoology-avoid-at-all-costs/ FunkMonk (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Those are two blog entries, in which Niash implies that the generally accepted view within science is that Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, but that he contends with that label. This cannot overturn the quality sources we have backing up that implication. We would need a source with some reliability (e.g. not self published, not fringe), which demonstrated a sizable portion of the scientific community felt that Cryptozoology was a real science before we could put that in the article. — Jess· Δ♥ 08:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Then it seems you've misunderstood the article. "Pseudo-science" means something that claims to be science, but isn't. That doesn't apply to cryptology per definition, as is implied here. Scientific methods can be applied within cryptozoology, that some cryptozoologists make pseudo-scientific claims does not affect the field overall. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We go by our sources exclusively, and our sources label it a pseudoscience. We need a better source (which I described above) in order to make the change you want. — Jess· Δ♥ 09:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that this is a debated subject, and there are references on both sides, shouldn't this be a more nuanced declaration? i.e. Cryptozoology is considered to be a pseudoscience by many in the scientific community, although some authors (or what have you) argue for its validity. Or something to that effect. Due weight shouldn't just work for the majority opinion. Given that it's not a single unified field with standard methodology, it seems a bit overreaching to apply the pseudoscience label without some nuance. 204.65.34.138 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No. We are biased toward the scientific consensus, and our sources indicate that the scientific consensus is settled on Cryptozoology being a pseudoscience. See WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. — Jess· Δ♥ 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the sources cited do not call cryptozoology a pseudoscience. And when the word pseudoscience is even used, it's not used in a sweeping sense. For example, this entry cites Shermer's classic text, The Skeptic, Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, which states: "Cryptozoology ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting, depending on how it is practiced." So it can contain but it is not per se pseudoscientific, and yet this entry claims that it is. So this entry appears to interject the uncharitable opinion of wiki-editors over the actual content of its sources. 68.55.215.193 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Jess' POV is obviously not the only valid one, so shouldn't be stated as fact. As a paper cited in this very article states: "Is Cryptozoology a science or a pseudoscience? A perusal of the internet shows that in the main it is definitely ‘pseudo’, but I don’t think that this covers all aspects of it. Example; A researcher working away in the bowels of a museum comes across an uncatalogued skin that she does not recognize. Documentation states that it was collected in the Amazon basin in 1893. A cross check of all available literature fails to turn up any further reference. However, the skin is real, and the animal definitely existed at some time. (Actually stuff like this happens often, and it will probably continue for quite a while.) If our hypothetical researcher decides to mount an expedition to find live examples, they are now stepping into the realm of Cryptozoology, as the search is now on for an unknown animal." Just because a lot of retards are interested in and contribute to this science doesn't negate its value as a whole. There is pseudoscience within cryptozoology, just like there is pseudoiscience within all other branches of science. All the sources we use that label all cryptozoology as pseudoscience seem to cater to "the skeptics", whatever that means in a general context, so is therefore only the POV of one specific camp. The lead should mention that some sources label it as pseudoscience, not that it is pseudoscience. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's take a look at the sources used in the first section.

1. Doesn't mention "pseudoscience" at all. 2. Is a pro-cryptozoology book which does not argue it is pseudoscience. 3. Does not mention "pseudoscience" 4. Explicitly says cryptozoology "ranges from the pseudoscientific to useful and interesting". 5. I have not got access to. As I argued two years back the sources really do not support the contention that cryptozoology is pseudoscience period. Indeed given that cryptozoological papers have been published in mainstream scientific literature (see the Naish blogs) the argument is falsified. Personally I think we should use the quote from 4. I mean it is from a skeptical encyclopedia of pseudoscience so can hardly be accused of pro-cryptozoology bias and seems a pretty fair summation/NPOV. Tullimonstrum (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't classifying all cryptozoology as psuedo science a bit harsh?

Considering we consider ethnopharmacology a reasonable science? Isn't this fundamentally the same thing?

See section above. It is the POV of one editor. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a respected and documented scientist with a contrary view: "As I have said many times in my writing, there are cryptozoologists who work with diligence at performing their work in as professional a way as possible. They deserve respect, but usually get ridicule and often because of what others in the field do rather than that of skeptics or debunkers. " Dr. Brian Regal, Professor of History of Science at Kean University, author of Searching for Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads, and Cryptozoology (Palgrave, 2011).

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1993-of-angels-and-blueberry-bagels-dna-bigfoot-and-the-classroom.html

The site is of origin is of particular interest since there are few people *more* skeptical of pseudo-science then James Randi ____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.6.236 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not "the POV of one editor". It's the POV of the sources. Sources 2 (pg 1) and 3 (pg 1) back up that it's not a branch of science or zoology. Source 4 (pg 251) and 5 (Page 77) back up the pseudoscience descriptor.

2) The pursuit of supposed mammals lacking objective evidence is not a science in an acceptable usage of that word.

3) It is not a recognized branch of the science of zoology.

4) Cryptozoology has aquired a bad reputation as a pseudoscience... Until detailed, methodological research becomes standard practice among Cryptozoologists, the field will remain disrespected by more traditional biologists and zoologists.

5) Pointing to this rampant speculation and ignorance of established scientific theories in cryptozoology, as well as the field's poor record of success and its reliance on unsystematic, anecdotal evidence, many scientists and skeptics classify cryptozoology as a pseudoscience.

There are many more sources, but those are sufficient for the claim. The randi source does not say Cryptozoology is not a pseudoscience; indeed, it says the opposite. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to say "cryptozoology is pseudoscience.", you need a source which says "cryptozoology is pseudoscience." hopefully with justification. Not a source that does not even mention pseudoscience, not a source that says "most cryptozoology is pseudoscience but...", not even a source that says "cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of zoology". Now as what most critical articles mostly say is "most cryptozoology is rubbish but..." so that would seem a suitable tone for the intro. Now if NPOV was "cryptozoology is pseudoscience." surely there would be texts that reflect this. None have been supplied. It seems bizarre that the Wikipedia article on cryptozoology takes a more extreme negative position on cryptozoology than informed skeptical articles on the topic. Tullimonstrum (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points. And it would seem that this is more a reflection of Jess' personal opinion than any scientific consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

FunkMonk, please stop saying things like that. It's not helpful. Keep the discussion on the topic, and not on making small jabs, please.

Tullimonstrum, source 4 and 5 say that this is the mainstream view within science, and that is what we need to reflect. They are not the only sources which do so, they're just the ones we're using. Do you have any sources which support the notion that this isn't the mainstream scientific view, with any more than a small, fringe following? Because right now, all the sources point in a single direction. — Jess· Δ♥ 12:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to state cryptozoology is fringe, fine, that is what the sources say but fringe does not equal "is a pseudoscience." If you want to argue it generally regarded as mostly/almost all pseudoscience fine. If you want to argue most scientists (with citations from representative scientists) say it is pseudoscience fine (although it would be best if there was a published survey) but what is simply misrepresenting is to have a lead with states cryptozoology is pseudoscience without hint of qualification given almost all the sources (including Regal quote you mention above) give a qualification. Minority/fringe opinions in science are not necessarily pseudoscience.Tullimonstrum (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Our policies regarding fringe theories indicate that we should not represent them as anything but a fringe theory. We do not say "the Earth is believed by almost all scientists to be round". We have more sources than we can use, and they all point in the same direction. Some sources have advanced novel arguments that Cryptozoology shouldn't be considered pseudoscience, such as the blog posts that started this section (here's another), but in doing so, they explicitly state that Cryptozoology is currently a pseudoscience:

This paper will attempt to place cryptozoology within its contemporary context by focusing on the factors that have prevented it from attaining scientific recognition and have subsequently confined it to its current state as a pseudoscience.
As such, cryptozoology—a pseudoscience—can be lumped together with religion and politics while science is conversely associated with research fields

We can't just gloss over the widely attributed label and latch onto the novel argument being advanced, or the passing reference to fringe support, and say "Aha! It's not universally accepted!" That would entirely fall afoul of our core content policies. We have sources backing up the label - lots of them, which indicate nearly universal support in the relevant communities, and none to the contrary. We must represent that with respect to its due weight. — Jess· Δ♥ 02:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, ignoring that your latest source is an undergraduate project paper...Flat earthers don't publish papers in peer reviewed mainstream science journals and they don't have a prominent advocate who blogs for Scientific American. Your equation of fringe=pseudoscience simply doesn't reflect what I learnt in philosophy of science 101 and does not make any sense because any new theory/position/approach in science would become pseudoscience. I note that parapsychology wikipedia article does not start "parapsychology is the pseudoscience of..." possibly because there are prominent scientists studying parapsychology in addition to ghost hunters. Or maybe it was written by editors who realize how difficult the demarcation problem is. But all this is largely irrelevant as the sources count. It is simply misleading to characterise a source which says "cryptozoology ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting" as "cryptozoology is an example of pseudoscience." (ref 4). Are you really saying that is a fair representation of the source?

You're mischaracterizing my position. We don't have just one source that says "cryptozoology ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting", and indeed, I've never once quoted that. We have many sources which say, explicitly, that Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience within the scientific community. I also did not say that fringe=pseudoscience. I said that the topic is fringe, so we need to report the mainstream scientific assessment, not the view of the fringe proponents. I also did not claim the latest source was anything but an undergrad research paper, or that it should be used in the article. I said that it was another example (like those in the beginning of this section) where the author advances a novel argument for Cryptozoology being "useful" and not a pseudoscience, but that such sources also back up the scientific consensus, despite their authors not agreeing with it. Please stop explaining my position for me, because you keep misrepresenting it, and that isn't helping. — Jess· Δ♥ 22:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing, if "many sources" say cryptozoology is pseudoscience within the scientific community, shouldn't it be possible to quote one? You know a good quote from a practising zoologist that backs up its argument with facts that explicitly address the pseudoscience question and reaches the conclusion, its all hokum. You've never really been able to produce that, have you? Or we could kind of do the obvious thing (which reflect the sources) and start with Heuvelmans' definition of cryptozoology, point out that the sources suggest that it mostly isn't science but bits are, probably not accepted by zoological community as a whole (which of course does not necessarily make it pseudoscience) yet there are some prominent zoological advocates (Goodall, Naish Attenborough etc) and even some peer reviewed papers. You know, old style NPOV.Tullimonstrum (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already quoted them, repeatedly. You want to discard the sources we have in favor of Cryptozoology practitioners. We can't do that. If you don't think the sources are sufficient to back up the claim, then the next step would be WP:RSN or WP:3O. — Jess· Δ♥ 22:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Indulge me, just one little quote from a good source of sufficient quality that it could be quoted in a book and I'll shut up. "Cryptozoology is all pseudoscience because..." That is all you need to cite. I've looked and I cannot find one. If there are "many" it should be easy.Tullimonstrum (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know I can do that better. It's bright green. It's in multiple sections. Go to RSN. — Jess· Δ♥ 04:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I’m not a wikilawyer, Jess just a skeptic with an interest in cz who thinks NPOV on this article should reflect the sources. Now given published skeptics like Ben Radford, Joe Nickell (who have published books on the topic) and prominent skeptical bloggers like Sharon Hill as well as prominent zoologists like Goodall and Naish think that some bits of cryptozoology are kosher then NPOV is clearly not "cz is pseudoscience." The misrepresentation of sources on this page is the sort of thing that gives skeptics a reputation for being close-minded. It is fine to say cz is fringe, minority and pseudoscientific but not all of it as that flies in the face of the *fact* there is published cryptozoology in mainstream journals. If the intro reflected NPOV, you should be able to find many clear sources justifying it (without the necessity of elaborate re-interpretation aka original research), you cannot it seems.Tullimonstrum (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The last point is all that matters on Wikipedia. Not what one editor thinks is true. Unless Jess can find many reliable sources that downright state all cryptozoology as a whole is pseudo-science, it needs to be phrased much differently in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Did Goodall, Naish, Attenborough, etc. specify which specific features of cryptozoology are not pseudoscientific and/or accepted by the mainstream? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You're getting the argument wrong. Cryptozoology is not pseudo-science per definition. But some cryptozoology is pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with "features", but with methods used by those who contribute to the field. Most use scientific methods. Some just make stuff up. The latter is pseudoscience. The former is not. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but "Most use scientific methods. Some just make stuff up" doesn't sound like a very reputable "field". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You miss the point. Those who "just come up with stuff" are the ones that are "pseudo-scientific", but they exist in all scientific fields,not just this one. Anyhow, opinion is irrelevant. Reliable sources are not. I will remove the word "pseudo-science" very soon unless someone manages to find several reliable sources that label it as such. You are pushing a specific fringe POV. That is not what Wikipedia is for. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I see an adequate number of sources in the lead that refer to CZ as a pseudoscience. If you desire to have the article call it a "science" I'm afraid you'll meet with no small amount of disagreement from a number of editors, however I DO support leaving pseudoscience out of the first sentence such as this version does. Pseudoscience doesn't need to be in the lead section twice, and that's something I think that everyone can agree with. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the sources used do not call it peudoscience. If one source claims this, it isn't enough to state as fact, it would need attribution. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"As has been pointed out" incorrectly. The sources are listed above, and in the article. I get that you don't agree they're strong enough, but ignoring them altogether isn't helping. The way forward isn't to change the article without consensus. Go to 3O or start an RfC to get more opinions, and try to establish consensus for your version. That's how we work here. I'll be happy to participate once you do. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Lucky the problem with the version you linked is it fails WP:NOTDICT. The article isn't about the "term" Cryptozoology, where the term refers to a subject; it is about the subject Cryptozoology directly. This may seem like nitpicking, but it's actually important, since it defines the scope of the article, and is a necessary fix as the article is improved to a FA. If you have other ideas for how to define the subject properly, maybe we could hash them out. Personally, though, I don't see a major issue with using a word twice in the intro; it's used only once without elaboration in the first sentence, and then expanded upon later 2 paragraphs down. IMO, that's ok. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So what is the Wikipedia policy for including claims that are not strongly supported? We include them cautiously, with attribution, not as undisputed fact. Why should this article be any different? We need several reliable sources that critisise cryptozoology as a whole, not just some specific cryptozoological claims/studies. Respectable cryptozoology articles do exist, for example, here is a recent paper[3] about a cryptozoological specimen, which has been widely reported in the news, and is published in a respectable source. More info:[4] Cryptozoology is not a distinct method, it is merely the search and study of "hidden animals", as stated by the man who coined the term, Bernard Heuvelmans. Some random guy claiming he has seen bigfoot is not "cryptozoology", by the way. Just like some random guy writing about tigers on his blog isn't actual zoology/science. But a study of hair samples claimed to be from bigfoot, but turn out not to be, are science as well as cryptozoology. FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "not strongly supported" is a fair characterization. All our reliable sources - every last one of them - which discusses cryptozoology with respect to pseudoscience says it falls within that category. A few lower quality sources argue that shouldn't be the case (while still admitting that it is the consensus view). Many of our sources don't discuss its status as a pseudoscience at all (which is to be expected, given the amount of coverage it gets). The paper you cite falls into that latter category; the only mention of Cryptozoology at all is in the footnotes once; as far as I can tell, to say that's a paper about Cryptozoology would be synthesis. If we had some debate in the scientific community, or technical writeups and respected works indicating that its status was in dispute, then I would agree entirely that we should attribute the statement... but the thing is, that's just not the case. Anyway, as I've said before, the next step is to get other editors involved and see what they think. — Jess· Δ♥ 06:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny, of the 24/28 sources used in this page I could find only three that mentioned "pseudoscience" at all (one a pro-cz book) and of the remainder, both say very clearly indeed that *some* of cryptozoology is pseudoscientific and some most definitely is not (see quotes above). I could not find *any* sources that said cz was pseudoscience period, let alone demonstrated that such a position was NPOV. P'raps some relevant quotes would put me rightTullimonstrum (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm leaning toward pseudoscience on this one based on the sources. I must admit, I'm surprised to see it characterized this way. I gather modern usage of the term is that it's applied only to mythical animals. Is there a journal/department/degree which specializes in cryptozoology? TippyGoomba (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard of that. Good point about the lack of institutional establishment. But a – perhaps naive – question, as a sort of unrequested third opinion: Why don't those who object to the current characterisation of the subject of the article as flat-out pseudoscience propose alternative ways to phrase the intro? Concrete proposals would be more helpful to get a constructive discussion going, I'd think. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Curiously, the German article does not even mention "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" a single time. Presumably, scientific cryptozoology is simply zoology, more precisely a very narrow specialisation. The classification of eyewitness reports like in Sea serpent#Classification systems does not immediately strike me as pseudoscientific the way Bigfoot research and the like may be, as it is conceivable that deep sea creatures include actually unknown large species. One may question the usefulness of such activities just like the classification of UFO sightings, but there is nothing inherently unscientific about it. My two cents. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point to Ufology for comparison. It handles the pseudoscience issue differently, in more detail, and in a way that is likely to satisfy the concerns voiced here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I recently read Abominable Science, which is hailed as the best modern book about cryptozoology. It does not specifically say that cryptozoology is pseudoscience per definition,

but that a lot of cryptozoology is pseudoscience, then proceeds to outline what is required by cryptozoological researchers for their work to be considered true science. I propose yet again that the intro ios biased, and needs modification, Sourced to Naish and this book. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Specimens" section

Is now just a list of species lacking any context. Are these specimens claimed to be "discovered" by cryptozoologists? Specimens claimed to be "cryptids" by cryptozoologists? An explanation of the connection of the species on the list to crytozoology is needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the very first sentence said "Examples of extant species that were brought to the attention of modern science are:" Then, the first few items in the list all mention that they were originally cryptids before being discovered. That seems pretty clear to me, personally... Anyway, I changed the first sentence to explicitly mention that they were originally cryptids. Does that help? — Jess· Δ♥ 15:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, thanks that helps a bit. May need to clarify more though. The "species" list could be interpreted as 'cryptozoologists brought these species to the attention of modern science'. I believe we have sources which explain cryptozoologists contention that (in a nutshell) because there are animals once thought to be legends/rumors/folklore, the search for species currently thought to be legends/rumors/folklore (Bigfoot, Chupacabra, etc) should continue/be respected/get funded, etc. IMO it's a flawed argument, but the article should clarify "what cryptozoologists think" without endorsing it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)- LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think our current sentence on that topic is sufficient though (it's in the criticism section now). We could expand on it, of course; do you think that is necessary? I think it makes sense to keep that bit in a section devoted to Cryptozoology's reception and acceptance, since that's the topic of the sentence. Ultimately, I'd love to rename the "Criticism" section to something like "Reception", and include mention of Cryptozoology's reception within other communities too, such as its impact on culture, and its interest within the general populace. We'd need sourcing for that first, though, so that will have to wait a while. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, cryptozoologists had nothing to do with the 'specimens' listed in this section. The concept that these specimens represent a rationale for cryptoozology is their own fringe view and only one of their many arguments, and is probably being given undue weight by having its own section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Cryptozoologists had nothing to do with the specimens, but Cryptozoology did, since the animals were featured within Cryptozoology before their discovery. I agree that we should be careful not to imply that Cryptozoologists discovered these animals (which is why I changed the wording from "brought to the attention of modern science", as though to give credit to cryptozoologists for doing so). Do you think we currently imply that? We have a sentence in "Criticism" that deals with it, but if it's an issue, we might be able to say something in "Specimens" too. Rather than be redundant, I'd prefer to clean up whatever wording problem led to the implication, though. Let me know what you think. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think you are giving this field of pseudoscience more credit than is warranted. Okapi for example. No record of it being "featured within Cryptozoology before its discovery." It was the subject of popular press reports, but "Cryptozoology", which did not exist in 1901, had nothing to do with it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, guys, the first sentence looks rather overly encrusted now, after the several additions, with an "edited by committee" effect. I want to simplify it, but I'm not really sure what it is you're worried about not expressing, so one of you had better do it.

On another note, though, I see the header "Specimens" is new, supplied by Mann Jess with a worried edit summary. Yes, I think there has to be a better word. It heads a list of species, but a specimen simply doesn't mean a species — ever, as far as I know. (Compare Specimen, a disambiguation page.) Not even a species that's an example of a larger category (cryptids), which seems to be the way it's used here. The word means a sample in the most concrete physical way, like for instance tissue, or, most relevantly here, a sample individual of a species. That could fit the Hoan Kiem Turtle — loosely — since apparently there is only one known individual — but not the others in the list, like the mountain gorilla. They're species — like the first sentence says, they're examples of extant species that were previously thought to be cryptids.

So... I've changed it to "Extant species previously thought to be cryptids". :-) Of course it's nice to keep it short, especially to fit in with all the other nice short headings, but accurate is better; please feel free to come up with something better. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC).

I meant specimens in the sense of "a collection of examples". But yes, I wasn't really sold on my title either. "Previous cryptids", "Discovered cryptids", "Extant cryptids"? I don't know. Maybe someone will come along with a good suggestion. :) Regarding the first sentence, I agree with you Bishonen. I'm not so sure about the "cryptozoologists say were previously thought to be cryptids" part. I wasn't going to say anything, because I didn't want to seem combative about minor details. How about "Examples of cryptids that were discovered..." instead? Does that work for you Louie? — Jess· Δ♥ 19:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the associations to the previously owned coffins in Monkey Island II, I quite like "Previous cryptids". :-) Bishonen | talk 20:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC).

Well, none of the linked articles discuss cryptozoology having anything to do with the specimens (e.g. the okapi discovered in 1901, long before the terms cryptid and cryptozoology invented.) So it would more accurately be called "Extant species cited by cryptozoologists as once having been Cryptids". - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it matters when the term was coined. What matters is its definition, because words and languages change over time. If Cryptozoology is "the search for creatures whose reported existence is unproved", then the specimens are good examples of this. A word is always created to describe a previously existing trend. For example, according to my dictionary, the word "darwinism" was created in 1855–60. Does it mean that Darwin wasn't a darwinist until there was a word to describe his theories? EternalFlare (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the section citing "Examples of cryptids that were discovered by modern science" is currently presenting a fringe argument "Examples of Cryptids that turned out to be real" i.e. "wins for the cryptozoological community" - as fact, and without any context to the mainstream view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Louie, above you said "I think you are giving this field of pseudoscience more credit than is warranted." You might be right. I was under the impression that this list of "old cryptids" were actually considered cryptids at one point. Here's the dilemma I have now: Cryptozoology as a concept apparently dates back to 1892, according to our article, and the term was coined sometime after that. So, it's recent. The concept of "mythical creatures", however, goes back much further, and it seems Cryptozoologists might be including some of them (particularly discovered ones) in their literature and 'searches'. Not mentioning those creatures would be an omission, since the contemporary literature discusses them... but you are correct that we should not imply that "the Cryptozoologists were right all along" if they're just claiming credit for stuff that wasn't originally in their field. I don't have any good ideas for fixing that. Let me mull it over. Do you have any suggestions in the meantime? — Jess· Δ♥ 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mann Jess, you got it right. I would prefer that this section be presented as cryptozoologists opinion, since they have framed the argument in a certain way to appear favorable to their cause. But I'll let others weigh in with their thoughts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll also add some interesting reading: [5] by David Quammen, [6] by Mittelbach and Crewdson, and [7] by Lett, who specifically comments on the cryptozoologists argument. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This section is incoherent now why not revert to version of say a couple of months back and just call it "Rationale of cryptozoology"? Even pseudoscientists are entitled to a rationale!Tullimonstrum (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. If the encyclopedia is going to put forth Cryptozoological rationales, then they need to be attributed to Cryptozoology. We wouldn't have a stand-alone section in our Fringe science article titled "Extant science previously thought to be fringe" that was just a bare list of things like continental drift, existence of Troy, heliocentrism, Norse colonization of the Americas, and Big Bang Theory. Or a section of our Conspiracy theories article entitled "Extant conspiracies previously thought to be conspiracy theories". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

How about something like:

A number of species appear in Cryptozoological literature as examples of animals previously thought to be cryptids, but now known to be extant species. These species are rarely anticipated by Cryptozoologists before their discovery by science, but are nonetheless often depicted as hallmarks of Cryptozoology.

The wording may need some cleanup, but that would make the case abundantly clear. We can source the 2nd sentence to David Bailey (he already has a similar sentence in "Criticism". We could then title the section "Hallmarks of Cryptozoology" (or similar), and include within our current list a number of other famous mythical creatures, (see List of cryptids, such as Bigfoot), which don't appear in the current article at all. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a few changes based on the above, which I think are an improvement. The list of cryptids would need to expanded in this version to include any prominent examples of cryptids. Our focus should be "what are notable cryptids?" not "what are cryptids that may give credence to cryptozoology". Feel free to expand the list, or make changes. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Looks good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Bird / Crocodile / Squid

In this edit, Bishonen said something about comparing a bird to a giant crocodile. I'm a little confused though, since it seems the comparison he's referring to is the giant squid and the Kraken, which are both big squids (AFAIK). Can you clarify? I'm not sure what to fix. Thanks~ — Jess· Δ♥ 20:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see how my edit must have been confusing, sorry; I was trying to do too much at once. The edit summary referred partly to the small copyedit I did, but also partly to what remained to do, which was to fix this:

The Spot-bellied Eagle-Owl, first described as the Devil Bird in Sinhalese legends.^[1] known as ora (land crocodile).^[2]

There's obviously something wrong there, perhaps a fragment left in the wrong place? Also the link in the second footnote didn't work (though its name suggests that it was indeed to an article about the Komodo dragon and not about an owl). Bishonen | talk 21:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC).

Ah! Gotcha. You're right, there's clearly something wrong. I found a cached copy of the 2nd source, but it looks like it was behind a paywall anyway. I'm not sure what the "ora" bit is supposed to go to (the Komodo Dragon seems probable), so I removed it outright. If anyone knows, please go ahead and put it back where it belongs. Thanks for that catch, Bishonen; my literacy must be slowly fading away, because I didn't see it at all! :P — Jess· Δ♥ 21:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cryptozoology IS Redundant

I recently made some edits to this page, and they were deleted. I said that cryptozoology is a redundant science, and I will now explain why I think so. You see, "normal" mainstream zoologists are always discovering new species of animals, all the time. However, I can't think of any major discovery in the past 200 years that has been made by a cryptozoologist. Also, cryptozoology is not timeless, like other sciences. It can't last forever. This is because, one day, all of the animals on Earth will be discovered. And when that happens, all of the cryptozoologists will lose their jobs! Therefore, the very foundation of cryptozoology is uncertainty. And, in my opinion, that is not a very good foundation for an entire field of science. Not at all.

Therefore, what I am suggesting is that cryptozoology is redundant. The discovery of new species, however, is not redundant, and is certainly not pseudoscientific. This world is still very far from being fully explored, and many new species of animals, even quite large ones, still remain to be discovered. However, if I had 100 dollars, I wouldn't bet that they would be discovered by cryptozoologists. Instead, they would most likely be discovered by "regular" zoologists. So, I have now explained why I think cryptozoology is redundant. And it would also be nice to have an explanation of why my edits were removed. SuperHero2111 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The long answer is here, the short answer is that Wikipedia is a collation of what good quality publications have said about the topic, not a forum to publish our own thoughts or opinions. Wily D 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

An editor's opinion is irrelevant here. This is not a personal blog. What matters is what mainstream, reliable sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion regarding the reasons for the placement of the "neutrality disputed" template has ceased, and so it was removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

duckbilled platypus

wasnt the Duckbilled platypus thougth to be a fraud at first, until a live specimen was brought to england?

--Patbahn (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the case for many animals when they were first discovered by Europeans. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

would the DB Platypus make a useful entry as a cryptid? --Patbahn (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In this article? Maybe, depends on the sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The term wasn't invented when it was discovered, and it was accepted as a real animal long before that also, so wouldn't make much sense. FunkMonk (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Folkloristics and Cryptozoology

Hey folks. I'm seeing very little discussion about folkloristics here, which is the primary academic field that handles these figures (and, for that matter, likely has a lot to say about cryptozoology itself). The lead should really make this clear. It's a similar situation with "ghost hunters" and folkloristics. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What changes would you recommend?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

We need some sources here on how folklorists regard cryptozoology. Right now the topic is completely skirted here. There's some discussion regarding, say, zoologists, but there's nothing on how folklorists regard this phenomenon. I wouldn't be surprised if cryptozoology is itself somewhere listed as an example of folklore. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallmarks

Before I put my foot in something -- why isn't the coelacanth listed in the Hallmarks section? Or mentioned elsewhere in the article? Sumpsipiter (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that section is devoted to animals that were already purported to exist through legend or anecdotal evidence before Western science discovered them. As far as I know nobody was suggesting the coelacanth still existed before the first specimen was found in 38. Capeo (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That, and from what I've read, the locals attached no legends or mythology to what they originally regarded as a useless and inedible trashfish.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Clutter

On Category:Cryptozoologists, there was a long heading on the page that said something like "William Jarvis..." I removed it. It was clutter. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I'm not sure what's going on as there's no discussion here, but most of the material that was deleted seemed well sourced. Dead links are not a reason for deletion, that doesn't mean the source isn't WP:VERIFIABLE. Nature, Scientific American, etc are all reliable sources. Amateur blogs were mentioned in an edit summary, which sources are they? I'm not clear why the see also links were deleted. Which link back here? They all seem related. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This article has had severe problems for a long time now, problems that have bled out to other parts of Wikipedia for years. Now we've got a lot of folklore articles where a being or creature is simply described as a "cryptid", for example, which is outright pseudoscience and definitely not OK. As it stands, the version you're reverting back contains cherry-picked quotes—the one from Nature News—to make the subject somehow more legitimate, broken internal links, dead links, and other poor sources and synthesis. The Scientific America article says nothing at all about cryptozoology and the same goes for the uktv article (the latter which isn't a good source anyway). That's outright WP:SYNTH. In fact, the article might just need to be rewritten entirely to approach something neutral and accurate. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You deleted the entire Hallmarks section, which is a summary of List of cryptids. Taking just the first example, you think that listing Bigfoot in this article is synthesis? What sources are being synthesized? — Jess· Δ♥ 19:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Parts of the section were merged and parts were deleted. Sources were employed that made no mention of cryptozoology, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Now we are discussing,good. I agree we can delete the Komodo Dragon until and if we find multiple reliable sources calling it a crypid. More specifics please. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I should also note that while I think much of the article probably needs to be rewritten, I definitely want to expand the article. Although it's a pain to remove "cryptid" in the first sentence of a thousand folklore articles, cryptozoology is definitely an interesting topic. I'll see what more I can add to the article here soon. A JSTOR search provided me some of the more recent additions and I'm sure there's much out there. I'm particularly interested in what folklorists have said about the topic (so far I get the impression that they've mostly ignored it). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rampant Synthesis

It looks like all articles relating to cryptozoology have had a problem with WP:SYNTH for a long time. Usually this means that an article from biology or folkloristics is tacked on to some claim regarding a "cryptid", while the article itself contains no mention whatsoever of cryptozoology (nor the term "cryptid"). This is standard fare within cryptozoology circles but is obviously not OK here. This needs to be rooted out whenever possible if we want these articles to improve. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you give an example of synthesis in this article? We can't be concerned with other articles on this page, so let's focus just on this article's content. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Before you and I begin any discussion, would you kindly restore the material I've added from reputed academics (a biologist and a folklorist) rather than edit-war it away? At the moment I'm not seeing you helping this article and a good faith move would go a long way. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What additions are you referring to in particular? My problem with your edit wasn't the addition of content, it was the removal of significant portions of the article (like the whole Hallmarks section), which I addressed above. I had thought we were on the same page with that, but per your revert of me today, it appears we aren't. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So you didn't bother to read what you were reverting before you edit-warred it away—seriously? Yeah, go back and look at what you reverted, and you'll find that I added a material from a biologist and a folklorist, just like I said. For that matter, I discuss WP:SYNTH above and examples of it on the article wrote Doug. Are you just here to revert war or what? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the "Hallmarks" section, actually read the section and you'll find that it's exactly what we were discussing. It's largely a mass of WP:SYNTH, using a pile of references that make no mention of cryptozoology nor use of the term "cryptid". That which was merged into other sections did not suffer from this problem. Again, I'm wondering if you're here to improve the article or edit war. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Are you talking about the content Doug re-added here, which you reverted yesterday? I don't have a problem with that content, and I think we can reintroduce it. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, you need to stop with the accusations of bad faith. I'm not going to continue working with you if you can't work collaboratively. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, keep an eye on what you're reverting and what others are reverting. That content has been on the article since I added and until *you* removed it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If you can show that you're here to help, then you're welcome to help. But until you refrain from deleting material from solid sources that I'm adding to the article and quit restoring blatant WP:SYNTH to the article space, I would much prefer that you focus on another article and let the rest of us attempt to get this one to WP:GA standards. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

GA? I thought you were going to try to bring Druid to GA standard. And Jess is right about the accusations. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've brought a lot of articles up to GA standards, as you know. As for Jess, pointing out that he's deleting solid and sourced material and restoring WP:SYNTH and amateur websites is not an accusation, it's a fact. Again, if you want to help, do it. If you want to get in the way, step aside. Wikipedia isn't a social network, we build articles here. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit-Warring and Restoration of Amateur Websites

I see that you've also restored deleted links to amateur websites, such as this one. In good faith, I'm going to assume that you just didn't bother to read what you were restoring rather than that you support the inclusion of this link. As a result, I am again going to have to ask you to refrain from revert-warring. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You hit 3RR yesterday. You've reverted 3 different editors. Probably not a good subject to bring up. And you'd probably get a lot further if you were more amiable. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A thinly veiled threat, nice. If you're interested in improving the article, you're welcome to do so. So far I'm not seeing anyone but me editing, adding, and bringing up issues surrounding the article. Enough with the edit-warring and spectating—if you want to help, do it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record... your first revert today put you over 3rr. I decided to post here instead of taking you to AN3, which would have resulted in your block, and you've been nothing but hostile to me since. You're currently at 5 reverts in 24 hours. Take a breather, and come back tonight or tomorrow to answer my questions above. I want a specific example of synthesis that we can address. That means a pointer to content in the article, plus two sources we're using which don't independently support that content. — Jess· Δ♥ 19:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll pass on the uninvited advice but I would recommend something similar to you: Take a break, read the article, read some discussion on the talk page. Dealing with users who are keen to restore amateur websites and synthesis while deleting solidly referenced contributions gets a little old and wastes the time of others. A user who is also keen on edit-warring while threatening another editor about edit-warring also doesn't much help. Again, some examples of synthesis are discussed above. If you want to contribute to the article, you're going to need to sit down and read what is being discussed and the take a look at the content of the article first. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Usage of Books Published on Cryptozoology Authored by Cryptozoologists

This and related article currently use a few published sources (non-self-published) that are authored by cryptozoologists as references, such as George M. Eberhart's 2002 Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (two volumes).

This presents a quandary: Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience—rejected by zoologists and folklorists alike—and yet here we have some items published on cryptozoology by cryptozoologists. This is probably because these pieces are not academic in nature (unless they're surveys on the history of cryptozoology, this isn't possible due to their unscientific status) but rather these books seem to be aimed at a general audience as 'fun' or 'novelty' pieces on monster hunting, more akin to a guide to finding and describing Pokémon than, say, a taxonomical inquiry or a folklore index.

These sources definitely need to be examined to verify their tone and content, as well as establish whether or not they are at all employable in the manner in which they are currently used on Wikipedia. I'll list some below and then take a look at them as time permits. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that fringe authors should never be used in articles on fringe subjects? Because that's what you seem to be saying. It isn't surprising they are aimed at a general audience. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Since articles on Wikipedia are written in etic voice as opposed to emic (as we're not cryptozoologists), I'm saying that unreliable sources should not be used unless they're being appropriately quoted from or otherwise referred to. Judging by their history, these articles have a high risk of slipping into the emic, probably because they've seen a lot of work by cryptozoology proponents (not a surprise given that such organizations seem to entirely exist online nowadays). We need solid secondary sources, like anywhere else. A lot of cryptozoologist work is extremely apologetic to cryptozoology, as one example, and is likely to be highly inaccurate as another concern. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Works by Cryptozoologists

Budd, Deena West. 2010. The Weiser Field Guide to Cryptozoology. Weiser Books.

Comments: Published by new age and occult publisher Weiser Books. Budd's book does not attempt to present itself as at all scientific nor does it make the pretense of being an academic work. No mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience but that's probably not surprising given the nature of the publisher.

Coleman, Loren & Jeremy Clark. 1999. Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras and Other Authentic Mysterious of Nature. Fireside.

Comments: Rejects the charge of pseudoscience (p. 18), while stating that cryptozoology is a "small subdiscipline" of zoology (Ibid.). Consist of an introduction followed by various figures from folklore (and some entirely internal to cryptozoology). A sample look at "abdominable snowman" states "the real animal behind the name is neither abominable nor a true creature of the snows. These beasts usually appear to live in a quiet retreat in the steamy mountain valleys of the Himalayas, using the snowy passes as a way to move from one spot to another, leaving behind huge mysterious footprints. …" (p. 24). Book is very much internal to cryptozoology. Not a remotely reliable source, not useful for anything beyond "according to X ..." situations when discussing the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Eberhart, George M. 2002. Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. 2 volumes. ABC-CLIO.

Comments: Volume 1 discussed here. Similar in nature and format to Coleman's and Clark's Cryptozoology A to Z but willing to admit that cryptozoology exists outside of science and that the field can assist it (cf. p. xi, xxi-xxii). Entries contain less fanciful comments than Coleman and Clark but still alrgely pseudoscientific nonsense internal to cryptozoology. Some discussion about zoology but the only mention of "folklore" in the book appears in footnotes (!). Not an academic work. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-Cryptozoologist Works on Cryptozoology

A reliable source is the sceptical book Abominable Science, by Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero. Some information about it here [10]. I am surprised this book has not been cited anywhere on the article. JuliaHunter (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Darren Naish has recently published an academic sceptical book on cryptozoology, some information here [11], I will probably purchase this book and try and help with the article. JuliaHunter (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant finds, Julia. It would be great if you did this. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, the Rossi article now cited in the article (Rossi, Lorenzo. 2015. "A Review of Cryptozoology: Towards a Scientific Approach to the Study of "Hidden Animals". In Angelici, Francesco M (Editor). Problematic Wildlife. Springer.) is available in full here. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cryptozoology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunting.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

quotes to the sourcers are misleading

Hi guys, I'm glad that my paper http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-22246-2_26 has been mentioned in wikipedia, but you have cited parts decontextualizated from the meaning of the paper. You have used only sentences that supports your point of view (See cherry picking...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.244.47 (talk • contribs)

The paper can be viewed in full on academia.edu ([12]), a fact which the author of the paper would be aware of. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear nice guy, my paper can be viewed in full also on researchgate.com, but I posted the "official" source, e.g. the website of the publisher.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.244.47 (talk • contribs)

I think we can find a less WP:FRINGE choice than Lorenzo Rossi to cite as a source for the opening of our Wikipedia article on cryptozoology. Rossi identifies himself as a "cyptozoologist" and has apparently hosted cryptozoology fan sites like xcreatures.com and criptozoo.com. His "paper" is actually arguing that cryptozoology can be defined as a science, new and extinct creatures are waiting to be discovered, etc. We shouldn't be citing fringe advocates totally out of context, if at all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Lucky, my paper is peer reviewed, so you can remove the quotation marks. My website (yes, I like to study the relationship between science and pseudoscience and as a naturalist, cryptozoology was a natural choice for me)is not a fan site (although when I was 20 I was probably more optimistic) but rather critical, as is the paper in question. I think my work reflects the thinking of other authors such as Paxton and Naish, whose works are not mentioned in the definition of cryptozoology on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.244.47 (talk • contribs)

For Wikipedia's reliable sourcing purposes, peer review is not a magic word that blindly guarantees respectability or verifies significant scholarly influence, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Your paper appears in a book of collected papers. Not exactly a high impact factor scientific journal. And anyone reading your paper can see that it advocates a point of view in favor of cryptozoology that deviates from present scholarly consensus. Not an appropriate source for the beginning of our Wikipedia article. Of course, the article needs to identify minority opinion while being careful not to give these WP:UNDUE weight, but Paxton or Naish are much higher quality sources for this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Lucky, even if my paper is not from "a high impact factor scientific journal" (as the majority of the sources used for the definition of cryptozoology in this page), it was first subject to a selection, then to a regular process of peer review and finally published in a high reputable academic book. So it is a properly paper and not a "paper". Even you are not agree in his contents, I think you should show more respect. Sincerly I do not agree that it deviates from present scholarly consensus: the paper is not a defense to cryptozoology. It reconstructs (for the first time completly) the history and story of cryptozoology and explains why is considered a pseducoscience. I imagine that the part in which you don't agree are the conclusion where I give my two cents about cryptozoology should do to be considered a science. Finally, I regret that the discussion between us is so harsh, it's probably because of the "not good tone" of my first post. So I really apologize to everyone and hope we can continue in a more friendly way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.244.47 (talk • contribs)

At the end of your comments simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Makes it easier to follow, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You opened the discussion by complaining the text was "decontextualizated from the meaning of the paper" so I think you understand your paper is essentially an apologetic. Yes, it reviews major criticisms. But then it attempts to minimize them and offer solutions toward the goal of legitimizing cryptozoology. The good news is that it contains an excellent source list that can be helpful to finding top quality sources for this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed—you're right. While the source appears to be appropriate, the issues you raise about the author—especially the Twitter link—make it clear that it's not OK. Let's get some better sources, particularly from folklorists and biologists discussing the topic. I think the article could still use a rewrite from the ground up and I'll be glad to help when I've got time. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So a point of view of a zoologist is not good? :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.244.47 (talk • contribs)

Article improvement

Probably due to the lack of folklorists contributing on Wikipedia, we've long had a serious problem on Wikipedia with cryptozoology articles being written by cryptozoologists. Elements from these articles have then bled into other articles, usually on the topic of folklore. This has resulted in, say, a creature from British folklore being described as a "cryptid" in its opening line (despite WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and various other policies aimed at keeping pseudoscience at bay). We especially need objective sources in disciplines that know how to handle folklore, which these beings are almost always entirely derived from. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems some editors circa 2006 or so were very busy adding "cryptid" to the lead of every hoax, folklore, and UFO/alien article in the encyclopedia. I also believe the article catagories that break down cryptids into an authoritative-sounding taxonomy ("hominid cryptid" etc) need to be removed since the only source for that stuff is cryptozoology itself, and the encyclopedia shouldn't be adopting the terminology of a pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I've tried to do a bit of this in the past. Sometimes I've despaired at the sheer amount of this stuff on Wikipedia and sometimes I've met with remarkably time-consuming resistance from editors unaware that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and that folkloristics as an academic field. Still, I'd be glad to help solve this problem, as it'd be a major step forward in getting our folklore articles up to snuff.

A few observations: Getting this article into shape might be the best place to start so that users along the way have access to the background they need on the topic. Given the huge amount of the articles in question, a bot de-cryptid-ifying articles might be the most efficient way to do it in the end. We can safely remove just about any mention of the pseudoscience from most articles—it's completely WP:UNDUE for all but a select few articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A bot sounds like a great solution for cleaning the categories out. Revising individual article text on so many articles might have to be done manually. Agree the article needs a rebuild; a daunting task. Have you checked the history to see if there are any previous versions that might be a good foundation? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and I've been watching the article for some time—I think the article will be easier to rewrite than build from. Looking at the history, I don't see much to work with. I did add some solidly sourced stuff recently that we should use, such as commentary from biologists and folklorists. I suppose we just need to identify some solid sources and build from there. Want to see what we can put together on a draft page using WP:GA guidelines? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I already have one neglected sandbox article, but would be happy to help you tweak your own sandboxed version of this article. I'm assuming high quality WP:FRIND sourcing is the goal and you don't want to restrict it to ONLY folklore references, right? For example, Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero's 2013 book Abominable Science has gotten some good attention. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep—and I think we should use any qualified secondary source, definitely. Your suggestion looks great. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see you reverted the "aquatic cryptid" on Loch Ness Monster with an UNDUE tag, yet I only see two of you talking about it here. Should it only have the tag "Cryptids" or "cryptozoology" instead of a specific tag? I rarely edit these articles but the fact that Yeti's and Dragons and Mothmen and Owlman, etc have these tags, what the matter with the Loch Ness Monster? You also mention that crypto articles have a problem be written mostly by cryptologists here. That's probably true and not the best thing for wiki, but conversely articles like global warming are written almost entirely by global warming alarmists to the point they tag team anyone out of editing the articles. So again, that's commonplace on wikipedia. I'm going to need some good reasons about why we don't want the categorizations or I'll certainly start an RfC on it to see where others stand on denying the categorization. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you just equate "global warming alarmists" with cryptozoologists, lol? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what you took away from that? LOL. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing Discussion at Fringe Noticeboard

There's an ongoing discussion regarding the state of this article and its satellites over at the fringe theories noticeboard: "A Long-Term Wikipedia Problem: Wikipedia as a Cryptozoology's Pokémon Database. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of Material Sourced to britishbigcats.org

This material was recently restored ([13]) by @Dkspartan1835::

Heuvelmans argued that cryptozoology should be undertaken with [[scientific rigor]], but with an open-minded, [[interdisciplinary]] approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and [[folklore|folkloric]] sources regarding such creatures, arguing that while often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have grains of truth and important information regarding undiscovered organisms. [[Phantom cat]]s (an example of living animals supposedly found outside their normal ranges) are a common subject of cryptozoological interest.<ref>{{dmoz|Science/Anomalies_and_Alternative_Science/Cryptozoology/Big_Cats/|Cryptozoology/Big Cats}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title= Big Cat evidence gets stronger, as society calls for government study |url= http://www.britishbigcats.org/news.php |publisher= British Big Cats Society |accessdate=2010-02-09}}</ref>

This material includes a link to the website britishbigcats.org which is "in the process of becoming a charity": [14]. Not only does this site seem to make absolutely no mention of cryptozoology nor employ the cryptozoology term cryptid but the site obviously isn't reliable. This is WP:SYNTH. Why was this restored after it was removed? Please remove it.

Also, this dmoz link is probably WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: it's just a dropped in category. It also needs to removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I had a few minutes, so I pulled up a reliable source and rewrote the section from scratch. Cheers. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.lankalibrary.com/cul/veddha/spittel.htm

[2] ttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-komodo-dragonl

[1]

[2]

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben: