Talk:List of cryptids

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• イッシーの像.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

New Cryptids for inclusion

The Hodag should be included in this article. It is centered around Rhinelander, Wisconsin. One of many references to it: https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Hodag

I apologize for not editing this in myself, but I don't know how to edit tables without destroying them.

Mikerios (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Michael Rios

@Mikerios:, fandom.com is not exactly a reliable source. You need to find some solid, reliable sources that refer to the hodag as a cryptid. - Donald Albury 15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Hodag isn't a cryptid, it's a fearsome critter. Stop trying to appropriate folklore. --tronvillain (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Two inclusions by Nayerb

Hey Bloodofox. Thanks for patrolling the page for poor sourcing. Just commenting here because I'm not sure I agree with your rationale for reverting Nayerb on these two inclusions: diff. Both entries have their own wikipedia articles (and so presumably meet WP:N), which contain several references to reliable sources, news articles, books, and so forth. It's been many years since I've edited this article, so if there's inclusion criteria I'm not aware of, please point me to it! Otherwise, could you explain in a little more detail? Thanks   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Loveland Frog article makes no mention whatsoever of the subculture/pseudoscience. This is a WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE article and requires solid sourcing (just like anywhere else, WP:RS applies here). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean I haven't perused that article, I'm only really talking about its mention here. I referenced it just as a comment on notability. The skeptoid reference (which I planned to include here before hitting an edit conflict with you) is excellent, and covers the subculture/pseudoscience in detail. It's also covered in several news articles, and explicitly referenced (by skeptoid and others) as a cryptid.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The website you're referring to is for a podcast hosted. Anyone can say anything about anything on a podcast. And what scholastic background do these individuals have making these claims? We need something that complies with WP:RS, ideally peer-reviewed and from experts on folklore, like folklorists. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Skeptoid is a generally well respected source on topics of folklore, ufos, and so on. See RSN. It's not "just a podcast". The author is an expert in the field and his articles are, themselves, well sourced.

If we're looking for a published book: Hidden Animals: A Field Guide to Batsquatch, Chupacabra, and Other Elusive By Michael Newton covers the topic on page 163, but with a much less skeptical POV.

We're talking about Cryptozoology here, a psuedoscience... so it's not like we can expect respected academic references for most of this content. Outside of big names like Bigfoot, individual cryptids are only going to be referenced by self proclaimed Cryptozoologists in fringe sources, or in news articles about supposed sightings. Several news articles should sufficiently meet WP:RS for the question of "is this creature a figure in cryptozoology".   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The blog source is indeed very lightweight, and including something on the strength of that ref would not fly. However, the high-handed demands for Professional Folklorist(tm) coverage start sounding a little more fatuous than usual when a dozen entries on this list are sourced solely to this Salon article. Skeptical Inquirer would do just fine as a source in that league. The main issue with that goblin critter is that there seems to be nary an indication that it is regarded as a cryptid - all the wild theorizing is about aliens. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Newton book is obviously also an WP:RS fail. And regarding academics, folklorists regularly write about topics like monsters, including their history, development, and cultural implications. This all often adds to be more complex than one might expect.

It's not hard to find coverage from them on notable creatures. They also write about cryptozoologists. And so do other academics in fields in which the pseudoscience bumps up against, like Donald Prothero, a well-known biologist. We cite them throughout our coverage of these articles.

If there are no reliable sources—that is, material from experts, like any other Wikipedia article—then that's a good indication that it's simply not notable enough for inclusion (again, like any other Wikipedia article). Under no circumstances should we be directly citing pseudoscience adherents for their claims—they are by no means reliable, including for their own claims. Some "skeptical" guys with a podcast won't cut it here (or any other Wikipedia article).

Finally, if the source doesn't even mention cryptozoology, it's totally useless for this article—which is explicitly about adherents of the subculture/pseudoscience.

As a side note, the bar is already far, far too low here: The Salon "coverage" really needs to go. This is a super dubious primary source. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment of Brian Dunning (skeptoid), and so does RSN. I also strongly disagree that we should only be using the work of folklorists to source this list. That standard is unnecessarily harsh and is not in line with our content guidelines, including WP:PARITY. All the sources I've cited have used the words "crypid" or "cryptozoology" explicitly. I can start an RfC if we need to get additional input, but I suspect an RfC would result in a similar outcome to the RSN discussion I linked above, and favor a less stringent requirement than you're proposing.

Our goal in this article is not to claim that these cryptids exist or back them up with academic coverage. Our goal is to list notable examples within Cryptozoology. We're essentially acting as a category, and removing a substantial number of articles from our list does a disservice to readers looking to explore the topic fully.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You can also cite biologists like Donald Prothero or, well, any academic in a relevant field that writes about these topics. You know, reliable sources or experts. If you want to start an RfC thread about including a podcast as a source, be my guest. Feel free to also take it up over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, where such a discussion will inevitably end up, particularly as this is a WP:FRINGE topic at high risk of WP:PROFRINGE slants (and historically hovered over by adherents, like every other fringe/pseudoscience/Young Earth creationism-connected article on the site). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, did you read the RSN thread I already linked to? It was posted only 4 months ago, and the consensus seems fairly clear to me. It received a lot of input from a lot of experienced editors, and the source was used to back up significantly more than we're looking to source here.

You're responding to me as though you're not reading the things I'm writing. I'm sure that's not the case, but it's frustrating; nothing I'm suggesting is introducing a pro-fringe slant. The source we're discussing is explicitly anti-fringe slant. The only claim we're trying to source is that these creatures exist in the eyes of Cryptozoologists, and we have books by Cryptozoologists backing that up, respected skeptical articles backing that up, and news articles backing that up. WP:PARITY allows us to cite adherents about opinions of the adherents; we're doing that, and then more.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, sorry I missed your reply in the mix of indenting. I'm not really familiar with that article (or the frog we're discussing). It looks like skeptoid also covered that incident, but never used the word "cryptid" or attributed it to Cryptozoology. Our news articles also attribute it to ufo stuff. So off the cuff, it seems entirely reasonable to exclude it from here. I think you're right! I'm mostly concerned with the frog and some of these other entries right now. They explicitly reference cryptozoology and (at least the ones I've checked) have adequate sourcing to back up their existence (as an idea).   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What was the closure result of the diff you provided? Again, some guy's 'skeptical' podcast is an obvious WP:RS fail, just like a YouTube video from Uncle Ted would be.

The big issue with this article has always been that literally every entity in the folklore record is perceived as (or at least described as) a Pokémon-like critter to be 'found' by a small circle of cryptozoologists, with a significant amount of them hellbent on finding "proof" that those darned atheist are so very wrong about evolution. And this is why it's important to keep this list restricted to the creatures the subculture has historically particularly fixated on, like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.

We assess what those monsters are by sticking to what experts say. Right now we've got a bunch of random media stuff on here, which is bad, but clearly a podcast website is even worse. Additionally, if you're concerned about the removal of Loren Coleman and Bernard Heuvelmans items, please review WP:PROFRINGE—as adherents, their work here makes for an obvious WP:RS fail, although cryptozoologists and other assorted driveby editors keep adding them back into the article. It's the same situation as with the Newton book you suggested adding. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Of the diff I provided... to RSN? The conversation wasn't "closed" as in hatted, but it had an extremely clear result; almost everyone in the thread supported skeptoid as a RS for this kind of content. The main opposition to it was not based on its reliability, but the author's personal history with alleged wire fraud, which is irrelevant to WP:RS. I can't see any other possible interpretation of that consensus.

We've worked together in the past (quite some time ago) and never really butted heads, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE in this instance. I'm sure you're working to clean things up here, which is a daunting and respectable task, but the standards you're applying aren't consistent with our content guidelines as I understand them. I think we're going to need to solicit broader input from the community, so I'll post an RfC or to a noticeboard when I get a chance. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to weigh in, please do.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that you take this to the Loveland Frog article. If the references are sufficient to keep the article up, they should be sufficient to support inclusion on this list. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

But not if they don't discuss the subculture at all—and there's the rub. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what that means? I'm not sure what the subculture of cryptids is. Can't really weigh in without that. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(Edit to be clear: I'm aware that it's mentioned in the cryptozoology article but that also doesn't provide an explanation of what the subculture except for the findings of one(?) reference... For the purposes of this discussion I'd just like to know where you're coming from Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC))

Still an abomination

Oh, Jesus, just looked at this article again, for the first time in a while, and it's still an abomination, of course, and a magnet for kooks. What else could it be? I can hardly imagine a more useless lot of drivel, with the most pathetic illustrations imaginable (what else could they be?). Such a waste of time and bandwidth. Carlstak (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire academic field of folkloric studies would like a word...Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you conflating the academic field of folklore studies with the pseudoscience/subculture of cryptozoology? That's like conflating geologists and Flat Earthers. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think "cryptids" are a part of the folkloric traditions of a lot of cultures. Not everything on this list, obviously, but a lot are! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Many monsters upon which cryptozoologists have fixated are indeed from the folklore record, although some are from literary sources (like The Monster of "Partridge Creek"), and others still are essentially inventions of cryptozoologists. All are considered "cryptids" in the subculure. In reality, the term "cryptid" means, as OED puts it, "any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist". FYI, scholars don't use the subculture's emic term, "cryptid", except when discussing the subculture: See extensive discussion at Cryptozoology#Terminology,_history,_and_approach. This is because "cryptid" implies a monster is 'hidden' (and therefore waiting to be found), which is, uh, not the position reliable sources (like scholars) take on these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, it is a place where we can tackle the issue in a way that enables us to put a more neutral slant on things than you would get at a Cryoptozooolgy site.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure which "issue" you're talking about, but regarding your point: that is what the cryptozoology article is for. This article is unnecessary, and consists of little more than goofball trivia illustrated by junky, badly done images. I know a lot of people like that sort of thing, but those people generally have little respect for actual science, and prefer speculative nonsense about cryptids, ufos, and ghosts. They may even be the majority of people in the US.;-), but their preferred entertainment has no proper place in an encyclopedia. Carlstak (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This is why we write this to include the actual science. Remove it and they will go to the bad sites to find about about specific Cryptids. Our task is to inform, even about fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Reintroduction of a few entries

I reintroduced the Loveland Frog, the Fouke Monster, the Michigan Dogman, and the Thunderbird with new sources. I also removed several entries which don't appear to have wikipedia articles, and therefore I will presume are not notable. If sourcing for those entries is pretty good, please feel free to reintroduce them!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure about this as I think RSN said we needed an RFC to determine consensus. I am not sure the RSN discussion came down strongly in support of these sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It came down pretty strongly in support of Skeptoid (and similar). It didn't come down strongly with respect to Cryptozoology sources. One person at the end suggested an RfC, and if that seems to be necessary, I'll start one up (or anyone else can feel free to start one now!). Now that we have a few eyes on the article, it seems like it might be productive to simply discuss content normally and see where that takes us. Ultimately, I think we need to come up with a specific inclusion criteria for the article, especially if it is ever to be expanded, and that may require an RfC all on its own. I don't have time to throw myself into that right at the moment, however.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

As it seems that you're keen on ignoring the strong consensus in the responses that noted that fringe sources are obviously not acceptable, go ahead and start the RfC. In the meantime, the addition of fringe sources will be removed (such as strangark.com). I also maintain that a podcast is not an acceptable source—we need clarity about Skeptoid. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, you reintroduced several entries I had removed without a relevant edit summary. These entries don't have wikipedia articles. One is cited only to Salon. Are these entries notable? Can you please explain why you're making these changes instead of hitting undo?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

And now you're edit warring instead of trying to work together collaboratively. This is extremely frustrating and exhausting.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You got consensus for the obvious: Fringe sources are unacceptable. Do not reintroduce fringe sources here or elsewhere on the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

So you're not willing to answer my questions or work together collaboratively. Do I have that right? Nothing you just said has anything to do with my edits, or my comments here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What are you going on about? You keep inserting fringe sources into the article, that's the issue here. Find WP:RS-compliant sources and we can talk. Add WP:PROFRINGE sources, and you can expect them to be removed—here or anywhere else on the site. WP:RS is not optional. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The edit you just reverted didn't have any sources in it. You made a change, I made a partial undo, and you edit warred back to your version. Can you please answer my questions above? I don't know why you're acting so aggressively here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you did: You introduced and then attempted to reintroduce several fringe sources into the article, which I've again removed (Newton, Halls, Offutt). Knock it off. You've been angling to insert fringe sources into the article for days now—you even pointlessly received consensus over at WP:RSN pointing out the obvious fact that fringe sources are obviously a problem–and went ahead and just reintroduced them anyway. Complying with WP:RS is not difficult: Find WP:RS-compliant sources and you will not run into issues. Repeatedly attempt to add fringe sources and expect your motives to begin to come into question. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

So no... you're not going to answer my questions or work with me collaboratively. Got it. I'm sorry you feel that way. For what it's worth, my plain reading of RSN is that skeptoid is a reliable source, and that we should prefer independent academic sources (note prefer). Editors were divided on whether Cryptozoologists could be used in any capacity at all, and one suggested an RfC to suss out that question.

You're under no obligation to discuss these issues amicably, but I'd ask that you please stop removing entries from the article and then edit warring to keep them removed. Please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox is absolutely right to remove these unreliable fringe sources, including the Skeptoid podcast. And seriously, the New York Post? You should not be adding these cringe-worthy sources; they have no place in the article. Carlstak (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm against the "reduction" of this article (including vanishing of a lot of images created by me, with sources). Wikipedia is not a merely scientific enciclopedia, it deals about mythology and questionable topics as well.--Carnby (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

A WP article must deal with those subjects using reliable non-fringe sources like any other article. Carlstak (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Does a reliable non-fringe source exist for e.g. astrology? Should we delete all pages dealing with astrology because there's no scientific evidence of stars/plantes influence on human beings (astrologers even use outdated star maps)? I don't believe in cryptids, but I think they are interesting, just like mythological cretures.--Carnby (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Have you even looked at the astrology article? It has 165 reliable sources, as far as I can see. You really should know by now that what you find personally interesting has no bearing whatsoever on what belongs in the article. You're wasting our time here. Carlstak (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to waste your precious time. I was just thinking about the former list which I found (probably wrongly) informative. I would like to know exactly what "fringe sources" are to avoid them use in the future.--Carnby (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I did warn you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

Please add Hoop snake to the list of terrestrial cryptids. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC) 139.138.6.121 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 07:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Dude, the link to Hoop Snake is an article on Wikipedia (did you even look at it). If that's not sufficient, I'll go delete the Hoop Snake article. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)