Talk:Cryptozoology

For older discussion, see: /Archive1 /Archive2

Not Zoology

Simply because Cryptozoology has the word zoology in it, does not make it a subfield of Zoology. Unless someone can point to sources indicating a consensus by the scientific community that cryptozoology is an accepted subfield of zoology, I'm removing the Zoology infobox. Justin ^chat 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It IS zoology, but nobody here will accept that. Elasmosaurus (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who and what exactly defines the "scientific community" and how exactly does it come to a consensus? --Nacnud298 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia for something to be notable with regard to mainstream science it should be published or documented in respected, peer reviewed, mainstream science journals. Cryptozoology is not a branch of zoology accepted by mainstream science within this definition. If someone would like to argue otherwise, please provide support with the appropriate citations. Locke9k (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with the above argument, I have removed the biology template and moved it to here. There is a related debate on the talk page of Template:Cryptozoology so please look there for more discussion. Feel free to address the points above and provide appropriate references if you disagree. Locke9k (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much discussion at that template... ClovisPt (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I assume you meant Template:Zoology? ClovisPt (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No reason for the template to even be here, just deleted it. Obviously does not belong. DreamGuy (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I meant template:zoology. My mistake.Locke9k (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment- pseudoscience

Who defines whether or not this is pseudoscience? This seems to be a relative classification, depending upon the observer.66.197.222.197 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice also this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 66.197.222.197 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Identifying pseudoscience can be done in an objective manner. Cryptozoology fails to use parsimony in its reasoning, it's theories are immeasurable, untestable and unfalsifiable, it relies heavily on testimonials and local legend, science by press conference, lack of progress, groupthink and misleading language (using scientific names for animals that aren't even known to exist). Zoology itself is responsible for identifying previously identified animals. Cryptozoology, at least in its modern form, simply ignores the scientific method and replaces it primarily with myth and legend. The most telling factor, is that modern science itself considers Cryptozoology more of a Paranormal / Parapsychology discipline than a Zoology discipline.

As for the ArbCom case, that had to do with behavior of editors, not with the content. However, in the findings of fact you'll notice something:

Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

There is no question Cryptozoology has a large following, but has effectively no mainstream scientific following. In fact, the only notable zoologist that supported the theory was the founder of the field (Bernard Heuvelmans). And the only reason he is notable, is because he founded Cryptozoology. To me, this field is pretty clearly pseudoscience. Justin ^chat 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Justin. Cryptozoology does not use the scientific method. It replaces the fundamental concept of falsifiability with belief not based upon evidence. It is indeed pseudoscience. Yes, occasionally, cryptozoologic organisms are discovered by science (for example, the (coelacanth]]). However, this fact does not negate the fact that the basic principles of cryptozoology are non-scientific. Aleta (Sing) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's further notable that such "cryptids" (and that term is often used incorrectly, such as the coelacanth) are discovered by accident, or by biologists, zoologists, anthropologists etc. To date, I'm not aware of any "cryptozoologist" discovering any species of animal. Justin ^chat 07:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, the name cryptozoology is the problem. The suffix indicates a science to most people. By and large, fans of the field do not normally call themselves scientists. They just enjoy thinking about the undiscovered "wonders of nature". As has been pointed out here, no schools offer degrees in the field. This is, I think, a telling point.
Since the main object of cryptozoology is to discover (or "re-discover") spectacular creatures, and since, as far as I am aware, no cryptozoologist has ever succeeded in doing so, as a science it would have to be considered a major failure.
Cryptozoology is a notable category of human endeavor, but it fits no conventional definition of science. One can avoid calling it a "pseudoscience" if one wishes by merely noting that it is a "hobby" or "calling" for most of its followers. It is not correct, though, to call it science. Tim Ross·^talk 11:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists, by and large, do study the field with the trapping of science but not the methods - classic "Cargo Cult Science" or "Pseudoscience". Certainly not everyone within the field is necessarily pseudoscientific - but just as some people study regular biology pseudoscientifically, and yet we call biology a science, so too can we recognise the cryptozoological community is pseudoscientific, even if it's not appropriate to so label each practitioner. WilyD 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience from an objective point of view, as it usually ends up presenting "evidence" that is later proved to be false. The animals or "cryptids" that are "studied" in cryptozoology can be studied by proper scientists (such as zoologists), but in this case it is not cryptozoology. --Merond e 06:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article may help: Anomalous phenomena. Particularly this section: Anomalous phenomena#One anomalous phenomenon. Science seeks to make universal statements and employs falsifiability in that pursuit. Cryptozoology, on the other hand, focuses on looking for anomalies, creatures thought not to exist. Science seeks to be practical.

A statement is only complete insofar as it accurately describes something free from anomalies. As in the example where the truth of the statement 'all swans are white' is falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan, any theory is shown to be falsified by a verified singular anomaly. For example, the statement 'dinosaurs are extinct' would be falsified by the discovery of just one remaining dinosaur. The burden of cryptozoologists, then, would be to find a single example of a cryptid to disprove the statement 'cryptids do not exist'. Of course, as cryptozoologist Loren Coleman notes, every time a cryptid is "discovered" (e.g., giant panda, mountain gorilla, okapi, coelacanth, megamouth shark, saola) then that species becomes part of zoology, and not cryptozoology.

Reversely, falsification is why various fields that pursue anomalous phenomena are often seen as not being worthwhile in mainstream science, or, by extreme skeptics, as pseudoscientific. If the aim of science is to move observations to laws, or to weed out singular existential statements in favor of universal statements through testing against falsifying propositions, anomalies suffer from a missing component of the scientific method. A falsifying proposition of anomalies as deviations from the norm would be the norm. Testing for the norm is seen as redundant.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, cryptozoology isn't pseudoscience. It's zoology, except it's studying animals who haven't been proven yet. I would put that in the article, but of course those annoying little skeptics keep undoing my edits. Elasmosaurus (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This subject fits the definition of a pseudoscience, including the arbitration committee's definition at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. With this in mind, it needs to be made clear up front, in the definition and introduction that this is a pseudoscience. The present article relegates this point to a subsection and doesn't make it at all clear in the introduction. This clearly does not satisfy NPOV guidelines with respect to pseudoscience and fringe theories. The mainstream standing of this subject needs to be clear up front, and at all points in the article where a fringe view is being descibed, it needs to clearly describe rather than promote that view. Since there seems to be some debate on these points, I am tagging this article with an NPOV dispute. Locke9k (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are strong NPOV issues here. Calling cryptozoology "pseudoscience" seems to me an assertion unjustified by reference to actual arguments made by zoologists in the peer reviewed literature. The only evidence given is a personal webpage. Many bona fide zoologists have taken an interest in zoology (e.g Meldrum, Krantz, Naish, the people involved in the old International Society of Cryptozoology) and I don't know many critiques of it as a pseudo-science made by biologists (or indeed anyone who has offered a full argument of cryptozoology as a pseudoscience). Now criticism has been made of the use of eyewitness accounts but that by itself does not invalidate cryptozoology. Unless those advocates of the pseudoscience position can offer strong evidence that the consensus within the scientific community is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience it seems to me unwarranted to call it by way of introduction a pseudoscience. It is not a priori obvious to me that that it is a pseudoscience, data can be collected so it does not fit the arbitration commitees decison. The fact that some people without scientific credentials go off into forests to hunt for bigfoot does not make cryptozoology less of a science. Perhaps they should not call themselves cryptozoolOLOGISTS but that does not invalidate cryptozoology as a field of study.Tullimonstrum (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse a scientist scientist interested in a pseudoscience with a scientist doing science. The scientists you mentioned are called scientists because of their work on other topics, not because they are doing science when they look at Bigfoot casts. The fact that this is widely known as a pseudoscience among the scientific community (specifically the second class in WP:PSCI) is itself widely known. I therefore don't think that immediate inclusion of more sources is necessary although it would be helpful. I currently don't have the time to search for this but I will when I get the oppurtinity. Anyone else who has the time, feel free to collect references. —Fiziker ^t c 17:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So much for being busy with work, I decided to procrastinate for a little while. There are some references where cryptozoology is considered as pseudoscience ([1] for example) however it would be nice to find something that deals with it more explicitly, which is why I haven't included that reference yet. Unfortunately I think it will be somewhat difficult to find something as explicit as I'd like but nonetheless I'll try to find something at a later time. —Fiziker ^t c 17:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK well that is an improvement in that it is a scientist saying it but again there is no explicit statement of *why* cryptozoology is not a science. Again it is no compelling argument that the NPOV is cryptozoology is a pseudoscience rather that it is a field of study whose scientific content is thought by some to be controversial.And it is a cop-out to argue "oh the NPOV is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, we don't need to add sources because it is widely known." and circular to argue that as soon as a a scientist works on bigfoot tracks they cease being a scientist so cryptozoology is not a science. Tullimonstrum (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is POV because it misrepresents the scientific consensus. It isn't just that it's controversial, cryptozoology is considered pseudoscience by scientists. —Fiziker ^t c 23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

About cryptozoology

The deletion was a mistake. Apologies 133.68.126.133 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Unlike what our "scientific textbooks" tell us there could be dinosaurs still alive. There is so much information on this topic I couldn't mention every thing. List: Ogopogo, Loch Ness monster, Champ, Mokele-mbembe, Mbielu-mbielu-mbielu, and MANY others. Anyone who disagrees please go to www.genesispark.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.141 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nessie and ogopogo aren't dinosaurs, they're plesiosaurs. Anyway, I believe in living dinosaurs too. Burrunjor and Mokele-Mbembe especially. I'm glad somebody FINALLY agrees with me! Elasmosaurus (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Zoology Box

If Cryptozoology is going to have a Zoology Box on the page, can I suggest that someone put in a picture of something "crypto" . When you go to any of the other Zoology catagory pages there is a picture of something from that catagory in the box. re: entomology shows an insect, mammalogy shows a mammal. Cryptozoology just shows the zoology mosaic (which is actually someone inappropriate since all the animals in the mosaic have been shown to exist). AJseagull1 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Giant Squid

Wasn't the Giant Squid considered a cryptid until recently? If anyone can find citations for it being "legendary" and then discovered, it should be mentioned here as a victory for cryptozoology. 64.81.161.45 (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Kracken is certainly either Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni or related to same.

216.254.28.72 (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like unpublished synthesis to me. Locke9k (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly not Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni, as that species has a circumantarctic distribution. The giant squid, Architeuthis, is a possiblity, but it has been known to science for over 150 years. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cryptozoology seems to be broken

Could somebody else take a look at the Cryptozoology template? It looks to be broken and is spewing bits of markup into the rendered page at the top of the navbox at the bottom of the page. --TS 23:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight

The length of the 'defenders' section relative to the 'criticism' section gives the non-mainstream view undue weight relative to the mainstream view. Refer to the wikipedia policy on fringe theories and pseudoscience for more on this policy. The 'defenders' section probably needs to be significantly shortened to correct the problem. Locke9k (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely correct about that. Your recent series of edits are dealing well with various flaws in this article; thanks, and please continue. ClovisPt (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Although the main focus should be winnowing down the defenders section by making sure to only include things that are really notable (taking into account that the fringe view itself is less notable than the mainstream one), if anyone has any more references or info that would add value tothe criticisms/mainstream science section, that would be great too.Locke9k (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reworked the defenders section. It is still somewhat too long and has undue weight and other problems, but this is a start. I have removed the reference to Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum for several reasons. First, according to their pages they are non biological anthropologists. Second, by not mentioning that they are sasquach proponents (and therefore possibly biased) their opinion is given undue weight. Third, there is no reference supporting the claim that they said these things, which is a big no-no under Wikipedia's policy on biographical information. The relevant lines follow, should someone wish to find relevant citations, correct the inaccuracies, balance it for NPOV, and reintroduce it. For example, biological anthropologists and Sasquach proponents Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum have cited what they perceive to be ample physical evidence in support of the existence of Bigfoot, suggesting a surviving population of gigantopithecines. However, their arguments regarding Bigfoot have largely been dismissed by other scientists. I had to remove the following line because it appears to be used in a way that constitutes unpublished sythesis - it leads the reader to believe that this study actually does support cryptozoological, which is not established in the cited reference. If someone can find a reference showing that this study is a central, highly notable argument of cryptozoologists, it could possibly be reintroduced in a way that makes clear that it is a belief of cryptozoologists rather than a fact. Right now its notability / relevance is not really established and it contributes to the undue weight given to this section. By plotting the discovery rate of new species, C. G. M. Paxton estimated that as many as 47 large oceanic species remain undiscovered. it is good to pay Its not clear that the section on the 'coelanth' has anything to do with cryptozoology. The article hasn't established that "paying close attention to natives' knowledge of animals" is a key trait distinguishing cryptozoology from anything else. In particular, its not clear that mainstream scientists would particularly criticize this idea as it is stated here, so its especially not clear why this point should be in the 'defenders' section of the article. The coelacanth, a "living fossil" which represents an order of fish believed to have been extinct for 65 million years, was identified from a specimen found in a fishing net in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. According to Dash, the Coelacanth is a good case for paying close attention to natives' knowledge of animals: though the fish's survival was a complete surprise to outsiders, it was so well known to locals that natives commonly used the fish's rough scales as a sort of sandpaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Intro

Artw: I appreciate your contribution; however, the intro as you have reworked it (actually you have essentially reverted it to an old form) has large NPOV issues. First of all, nowhere does it actually use the word pseudoscience in the introduction. If you look at the arbitration committee ruling on pseudoscience, (summarized at Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view for pseudoscience and fringe theories cryptozoology fits the criteria. The fact that 'cryptozoology' sounds like a science is already potentially confusing to readers, and by calling it "the study of..." you reinforce this non-mainstream view in the intro. Also "animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs" are weasel words. Its not at all clear what this means exactly, but it implies that the error is with the current categories rather than with cryptozoology. Same deal with "fall outside of taxonomic records" Note that Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view for pseudoscience and fringe theories requires an article to make very clear when it is describing a fringe belief, and it also must make clear what the mainstream belief is. Furthermore, the fringe theory must not be given undue weight: the article needs to make clear up front (not farther in the article) exactly what is mainstream and what is fringe. I am therefore reinstating my original edits as they have eliminated the problems above and repaired the NPOV issues in the intro. Thanks.Locke9k (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's right there in the lede. Because cryptozoologists do not typically follow the scientific method[3][4] and devote a substantial portion of their efforts to investigations of animals that most scientists believe are unlikely to exist,[5] cryptozoology has received little attention from the scientific community. In 2004, however, paleoanthropologist Henry Gee, a senior editor of the leading journal Nature argued that cryptozoology was of legitimate scientific value and could "come in from the cold." - That is, IMHO, sufficient and theres no requirement or justification to jam "cryptozoology is a pseudoscience" into the lede. Also Cryptozoology is not the study of "fictional" animals. Artw (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement that "cryptozoology has received little attention from the scientific community" is not the same as saying it is pseudoscience. Again, these are weasel words due to their vagueness. They can lead the reader to believe that maybe the scientific community just hasn't given cryptozoology a fair look or hasn't come to a conclusion on it. In fact, the scientific community has come to a conclusion, which is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. I will again quote from the arbitration opinion: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." In accordance with this ruling cryptozoology should be clearly and unambiguously labeled as a pseudoscience in its definition. It should not be relegated to a vague line at the end of the intro.

Furthermore, the mainstream view is that cryptozoology does in fact study mythological or otherwise 'unreal' animals. In other words, the majority of 'animals' that cryptozoology studies are considered to be mere folk lore or mythology by mainstream science. I'd accept "mythological" or "folk-lore based" in lieu of fictional, though, if your objection is that the primary source of cryptozoological evidence is word of mouth rather than written literature

Also, as far as that quote goes, he states that cryptozoology can come in from the cold not that it has come in from the cold. Furthermore, one scientist stating his opinion that it can come in from the cold is not equivalent to broad scientific consensus. My feeling is that including that quote in the intro actually causes the reader to overestimate the amount of support for cryptozoology within mainstream science by representing that one out of context comment as though it was representative of the scientific community. For now I haven't done anything about it because I think that point is more subtle and merits some more thought on my part before I act. Locke9k (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "fictional" to "mythological" to more accurately represent the kind of things cryptozoologists investigate, as per our above exchange. Locke9k (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, I am not saying that it is in any way your intent to introduce weasel words into the article, I am simply saying that the effect of that wording on how the reader understands the article can be characterized in that way. I know we're all trying to improve the article here. Locke9k (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Locke9k on most points although the term "legendary," which DreamGuy has already included, is a better choice than "fictional" or "mythological." It should be stated clearly that the scientific community believes that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. —Fiziker ^t c 21:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

TBH I don't see what was wrong with "animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs" - It was pretty direct, to the point, and didn't limit or exagerate the scope. Artw (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is weasel wording. Cryptozoology deals with supposed animals that have yet to be proven to exist. The use of "fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs" implies that those animals exist but zoologists classify them in such a way that they are excluded from the catalogs that contain non-cryptids. —Fiziker ^t c 21:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So the aim here is to slant the article to make it clear that no such animals could be found? Artw (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, thats not the aim. The aim is to primarily represent the mainstream viewpoint, which is that the focus of cryptozoology is on species that are considered at this time by mainstream science to not exist. Nore is the mainstream view that these species are likely to be found to exist in the future. Also I contest your argument that "animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs" is direct. That could mean almost anything. It could mean that they haven't been included due to a typo. It could mean that they are of a type of species that for some reason aren't included in those catalogs but are actually believed to exist (as Fiziker suggested). Also, the word 'contemporary' implies that they will be included in those catologs in the future, which is simply not the mainstream view as I point out above. The mainstream view is that these 'creatures' do not exist. Our personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant with respect to a wikipedia article. Even if we personally think that some of these species are real, we are restricted to primarily presenting the mainstream view until such time as it changes. As per wikipedia policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories, we can present the fringe view as being notable because of social notability, but we must make very clear what the mainstream view is, and the fringe view may not be allowed to 'swamp' the mainstream view or to be presented in a way that makes it appear more mainstream than it actually is. Locke9k (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I will note that the phrase currently used in the intro is "...search for animals which are considered to be legendary or otherwise nonexistent by mainstream biology". That is not the same as saying that they cannot be found. It is making a factual statement regarding the mainstream view of this subject; a view that due the the above points should be the primary one presented in the introduction. However, I do not agree that the current introduction 'slants' the article in a direction that suggests that these creatures universally cannot be found.Locke9k (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists would be much better off looking for the Higgs boson. No one has ever seen one of those, either, but the lip service paid to 'fair weighting' the possibility that it doesn't exist is pretty thin, and no one would dream of calling the Large Hadron Collider geeks 'pseudoscientists'. In physics, things that aren't there are 'not yet experimentally observed' rather than 'mythical'. You've chosen the wrong field of research, guys. I'd switch fast. There's a hell of a lot of money in God particles. Grubstreet (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you're sincerely saying that these are fringe theories or making fun of calling cryptozoology pseudoscience. BTW, some of what you said about the Higgs boson isn't correct but that's not relevant here. —Fiziker ^t c 03:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was being ironic, Fiziker. However, I must confess that something very, very weird has happened. Either I have started to experience hallucinations (for which there is no additional evidence) or my computer has found a way to load historical or alternative WP pages without me noticing, because some of the things that prompted my acerbic comments in the early hours of the morning simply aren't there this afternoon. Like the word 'myth' now reading 'legend' (which is an important distinction). And no, I hadn't been at the bottle, let alone the pill canister. Firefox has been behaving strangely over the last week or so (and in fact crashed at the very instant I posted that comment), but not that strangely. It's quite unnerving TBH.

I still think some of the editing here is openly hostile, mind. For example, an obligation to the mainstream would be more than adequately covered by the first sentence stating that "most biologists consider cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience". Even "the vast majority of scientists consider..." would be easily supportable. But by insisting on "is a pseudoscience" the editors here are not only joining in that debate, they are declaring a winner. Maybe I'm just an argumentative old bastard, but that doesn't feel to me like an encyclopaedic thing to do. There may be a jury of public opinion, but I'm not sure WP editors should be addressing it in the role of prosecuting counsel.

Similarly, who decides on the status of eyewitness accounts? Neutrality would be well enough served by saying that criticisms include cryptozoology's 'reliance on eyewitness accounts'. That's clear enough. At a pinch 'reliance on unverified eyewitness accounts' would pass muster. Or 'reliance on eyewitness accounts unsupported by physical evidence'. But no, eyewitness accounts must be declared unreliable to make it clear that the critics are right and the cryptozoologists wrong.

For the record, I do not 'believe in', let alone practise cryptozoology. My opinion is that it's an almost complete waste of time, money and brainpower. I just stumbled across this article and very quickly found my hackles rising at some of the wording. I could tell that there would be phrases akin to 'the mainstream must prevail' before I even turned to the discussion page. Well, IMO it isn't the job of editors to ensure that the mainstream prevails (they did that on behalf of the Pope in Gallileo's day), merely to inform readers what the majority view is, and not allow the fringe to present itself as if it were in fact the mainstream.

Oh, and I have nothing against the Higgs boson. If they find the little bugger, and it answers Life, the Universe and Everything, I'll be delighted. I think. Grubstreet (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Higgs boson isn't a good analogy to cryptozoology but that's not relevant so despite my desire to talk physics I'll move on. Saying that the eyewitness testimony is unreliable is correct an NPOV. Science considers all eyewitness testimony unreliable, not just reports related to cryptozoology. An eyewitness report might cause a scientist to investigate something but presenting it as evidence would just get a scientist laughed at. The current wording of calling cryptozoology directly a pseudoscience is correct. To do otherwise would be weasel wording in my opinion. Change cryptozoology to flat Earth theory or any of the even-more-fringe theories out there. Saying "most scientists consider flat Earth theory to be pseudoscience" would be ridiculous when "flat Earth theory is a pseudoscience" would work. —Fiziker ^t c 16:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You consider the wording appropriate because any and all activity related to Cryptozoology is directly equivalent to flat-earthism? Artw (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Flat Earth theory is the first pseudoscience that popped into my mind that would provide a clear example. This is an analogy, which could have been done with any clear pseudoscience, not a statement about the equivalency of cryptozoologists and flat Earthers. —Fiziker ^t c 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some sort of compromise wording is possible. Perhaps we should work toward that end. DreamGuy (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On the central point here I don't really think that a compromise position is necessary or appropriate. I quote from wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories. Here is the summary of the relevant arbitration committee decision. Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." (emphasis added) From that perspective, simply saying something like "most biologists consider cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience" or "the vast majority of scientists consider..." as Grubstreet proposed above would not be consistent with this ruling. It is subtle weasel wording because it implies that there is a debate within the scientific community when in fact there is not. It also subtly implies that perhaps just some biologists may personally rather than professionally have this opinion (perhaps unfairly), when this is also not the case. The overwhelming position of the scientific community is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, and per this arbitration committee ruling it should therefore clearly be labeled as such.

I will further quote from the guidelines in this section: "In pseudoscientific topics, the task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon...any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". Thus, the current wording is not, as Grubstreet implies, "declaring a winner" in a "debate." As this guideline points out, the first, most prominent definition of a subject should clearly and unambiguously reflect the mainstream view. In fact, the arbitration committee delineated a separate category for cases in which there is a true scientific debate called questionable science, into which cryptozoology clearly does not fall. It is therefore inappropriate to in any way present cryptozoology as being the subject of serious debate within the scientific community.

In summary, this general issue has been considered before and decided upon by the arbitration committee and addressed in the guidelines in a way that is pretty clear. Something that is generally considered pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community should be "categorized as pseudoscience" in the article. The present wording does just that, and the proposed alternate wordings do not. Locke9k (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are a little confused here. I am well aware of the proper treatment of pseudoscience and the rulings made about it, and I am not saying that this info should be removed (see my comments further up the page). I also consider myself to be strongly anti-pseudoscience, but I do think the wording could be improved through a compromise. If you're going to approach this as anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is trying to push an anti-science POV, you're off base. DreamGuy (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, allow me to clarify. I did not mean to suggest that you or anyone is pushing an anti-science POV. I think that there is a legitimate debate occurring over the best way to word the page to achieve a neutral view. Within the context of wikipedia, I am not actually personally anti-pseudoscience myself-I just support the principles engendered within the guidelines of clearly distinguishing pseudoscience and avoiding undue weight. Within those limitations, I am in favor of pseudoscientific ideas being clearly described on wikipedia. I am not flatly against changes of wording to the introduction as it presently stands; however, I am against any change in wording that would soften the presently clear distinction between pseudoscience and science. Based on the above debate, I do not believe that the position I have just described is amenable to a compromise position that would satisfy everyone. However, I could be wrong, and I would be perfectly willing to support such a compromise position were one proposed. In fact, my opinion is that the present wording is linguistically awkward in some respects, and I would be happy to see an improvement that retained the essential content.Locke9k (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Locke9k. I don't see a compromise that doesn't involve weasel words. If there is a compromise that doesn't make it seem like cryptozoology is a science then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I haven't thought of one that would work. —Fiziker ^t c 22:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can't think of one, then we can have the other side propose some. I think there is room for compromise. If I as a firm opponent of pseudoscience feel like the current wording is unnecessarily harsh, then I can certainly envision a way to tone it down without compromising neutrality in anyway. Frankly, I believe Locke9k's interpretation of the ArbCom decision goes beyond what it actually said. One can make it very clear that a field is considered pseudoscience without insisting that all scientists everywhere thinks it is and saying that they think everything any cryptologists believes can't possibly ever exist. Hell, that's not even accurate. It's not weasel words to accurately represent the situation. "No weasel words" doesn't mean "feel free to use alligator words". DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be possible to come up with a compromise; I look forward to suggestions anyone has. While you are right that no weasel words doesn't mean alligator words must be used, in this case the alligator words are correct. However, it still may be possible to come up with something a little less alligator like (lizard?) that would still do the job properly. —Fiziker ^t c 16:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The point of the present intro is not to say that the scientific community believes it is impossible for any of these creatures to exist. The thing is, that is generally not the way science works with these sorts of things. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative (for that matter, is is virtually impossible to 100% prove a positive as well). The point is that the scientific community does not have to examine every one of these claims individually for two reasons. The first has to do with broad facts about evolution, ecology, and the degree to which new large megafauna species have already been explored. The second has to do with self selection: cryptozoologists by definition are choosing to seek things whose existence is not supported by science. There are already people going around looking for new species: zoologists. The only reason for cryptozoologists to give themselves a separate name is to distinguish the facts that their methods are not scientific and the creatures they are looking for are not supported mainstream science. If those things were not true, then they would simply be an amateur zoologist Locke9k (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is one possible rewording that I am not necessarily endorsing, but that I would like to put to discussion before deciding on.

Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kriptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") is a pseudoscience focused on the search for animals whose actual existence is broadly considered to be highly unlikely by mainstream science due both to lack of empirical support and to strong generally opposing evidence and theory.

This is somewhat softer. The basic problem with it in my mind is that it may create in a lay readers mind the appearance of a scientific debate between the two sides (there is not) or it may give understate the strength of the scientific rejection of these proposed creatures. The basic question I have is: does the lede have to included the fact that no scientific conclusion is ever final? Are we to give this impression in articles about gravity and thermodynamics just because 'absolute certainty' is not the way science works? It seems to me that this is the question here.Locke9k (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You've lost the synonym for "Imaginary" but you still have "is a pseudoscience" in there. TBH I'm still of the opinion that the original pre:Pseudoscience version was superior. Artw (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also that the problems of tone extend beyond the lede, and need to be addressed. Artw (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the entire article has problems, but there are other discussion sections to address some of those (or there could be). I think the arbitration committee decision was pretty clear on supporting the use of the word pseudoscience, even if there is some legitimate debate (Dreamguy, above) on whether I am overinterpreting the ruling in other respects. So putting the use of that word aside, do you feel that the rest of the wording is an improvement in your view? As I said, I am not sure I want to endorse it yet myself but I am trying to throw out some ideas here. Locke9k (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is too wordy. The current version says something similar but does it more succinctly. I would also remove the word "mainstream" from science as it's just necessary in this instance (this is about a pseudoscience and science's opinion on the topic, not about two competing scientific theories). —Fiziker ^t c 21:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nature quote

I am leaning toward removing this quote from the intro for several reason. First, it is just an opinion of Henry Gee as opposed to an objective factual statement. Thus, placing it in the intro seems to be WP:Undue Weight. As further support for this contention, note that the quote appeared in an editorial article and not a peer reviewed paper. Secondly, this quote is now five years old. What he was saying was speculative, and if he was right there would have been at least some evidence of Cryptozoological papers creeping into mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific journals by this time. No such articles have been cited in this paper. This seems to indicate that Cryptozoology has in fact not "come in from the cold" as a result of the events he was discussing, again making inclusion in the intro [[WP:Undue Weight]. Thus the quote is misleading in the intro by assigning undue weight to an outdated opinion of one person. Normally I would just be bold and remove it, but I am posting this here before acting to avoid inflaming the above debate. I'll give it a bit of time for comment.Locke9k (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note, let me emphasize that this same information is included further down in the article and that I am not suggesting that we removed its second appearance. (Right now it is redundant.)Locke9k (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Locke9k, this sounds like a reasonable suggestion. As long as the information is still included in the body of the article, removing it from the introduction would be an improvement. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note that it rather seems to contradict the claim that any and all activities within the field of Cryptozoology are equivalent to flat-Earthism, unless Nature is staffed by flat Earthers. Artw (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand. What claim about flat-Earthism? Thats not in the article anywhere...Locke9k (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Artw is referring to something I said above. Needless to say the point has been lost on him or her. —Fiziker ^t c 03:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So long as as the second mention is kept, I don't see a reason to keep Gee's quote. I believe Locke9k's analysis is correct. —Fiziker ^t c 01:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, there seem to be a reasonable consensus in this discussion, I have removed the Nature quote from the intro and left it in the body. Locke9k (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to improve the balance in the intro I have also moved the more extensive scientific criticism discussed there to the criticism section. Just denoting it as a pseudoscience in the intro is is sufficient there. Going more into the specific objections is unnecessary; thats what the body is for. I think this change has yielded a tighter and more NPOV feeling intro. Locke9k (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)