Talk:Cryptozoology

Pseudoscience sometimes

While people are looking for sources, I think the most spot-on one I've found says the following:

"Cryptozoology ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting, depending on how it is practiced." -- The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by Michael Shermer & Pat Linse, 2002, ISBN 1576076539

If two of the world's leading figures in Skepticism only go so far as to call cryptozoology as sometimes pseudoscientific, I don't think this article can be any harsher than that. It might be useful to track down which parts are considered useful and which are not. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is logically a pseudoscience. There is already a scientific field for people who look for undiscovered animal species. Its called zoology. It seems to me that the entire basis for having the word "cryptozoology" is to distinguish from real zoological science. Any research that was actually following the scientific method in a search for new species would just be called zoology. This seems to be a definitional issue of demarcation. There is no accepted field of science called cryptozoology because anything cryptozoology did that was scientific would already fit within an existing field of science. Therefore the word can only be taken to mean things outside the sphere of science. "Fields of study" outside of science but purporting to be science are by definition pseudoscience. Locke9k (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For you to say it's "logically pseudoscience" is mere original research/POV. I'm not interested in debating the topic of whether it IS pseudoscience with you, I am interested in reflecting what the reliable sources say, per Wikipedia rules. This reliable source shows that even those strongly opposed to pseudoscience -- enough to write a book exposing it -- don't consider everything in cryptozoology to be pseudoscience. If you believe otherwise, you're perfectly entitled to that personal opinion... but you cannot force your opinion onto this article.

So, staying on topic here, do you consider Shermer & Linse to be reliable sources, or not? I think they obviously are. Are you going to try to argue against them just because they disagree with you on this topic....? DreamGuy (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not original research. You are free to include in the article their opinion that it is useful and interesting in some limiting cases. However, they are not the voice of the scientific community. Quite simply, the body of mainstream journals is the voice of the scientific commnunity. I am happy to cite web of science and google scholar to show that despite the fact that cryptozoology has existed for some time, and despite the fact that its proponents have characterized it as a science, it has recieved no acceptance from the mainstream scientific community in the form of mainstream publications. This is the definition of a pseudoscience. So, to clarify, my sources are web of knowledge and google scholar cryptozoology search. Simple searching these sources for the term cryptozoology or any related term shows that these mainstream, reliable, comprehensive, authoritative sources state that there is no mainstream acceptance of cryptozoological theories. If necessary, we can add these references to the article. Locke9k (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're clearly pushing your own POV onto the article. You are perfectly willing to accept what those authors say when they agree with you, but as soon as they disagree with you you're ready to throw them under a bus. And what they say certainly is not out of the mainstream of scientific opinion, despite your bizarre linking to search engine results instead of actual articles. I've given you more than enough time to try to do the right thing and follow NOV policy yourself, but since it's clear you are opposed to doing so, I have fixed it myself, both on this page, the list of page, and the pseudoscience template. I don't know yet if there are other refs that need to be updated, but if so they will be done in time I'm sure. Again, if you would like to create a section that tries to spell out WHICH PARTS of cryptozoology are considered pseudoscience and which are not, and use reliable sources to demonstrate it, go for it. But a blanket description of everything in cryptozoology as being pseudoscientific is clearly not appropriate and seems to be based upon your own personal opinions, which contradicting famous, well respected authors on pseudoscience. DreamGuy (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly am not trying to push any POV here. There is an RFC on this subject above, and I have focused my discussion there rather than in this senselessly isolated discussion section. This section doesn't get comment by the wider community, and I thus suggest that we focus on the RFC thread above. If you will look at the RFC section above, I posted the following:

"Third, it seems that you may have inadvertently cherry picked quotes from that source([2]). It also states that "Many...scientists think that the field is a pseudoscience" and "many scientists and skeptics classify cryptozoology as a pseudoscience". Considering these statements in the very same source you quoted, it seems that Shermer and Linse are saying that the mainstream view of cryptozoology is that it is a pseudoscience. They are then offering 'their personal opinion that at the fringes of pseudoscience there may be some people of a more scientific nature. Since, as I said above, the designation of a pseudoscience is based upon acceptance in the overall scientific community and not upon the highly caveated opinion of a few people, the designation should remain. I would have no objection to a nuanced summary of their opinion being included further within the article. Such a discussion should also include the part of their opinion that states that any element of science occuring on the fringes of cryptozoology does not include the rampant speculation that characterizes much of the field (paraphrasing their chapter). Locke9k (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)"

So in fact, the very references that you cite show that in the mainstream this topic is considered pseudoscience. In my opinion the quote you have used is taken out of context and does not represent their overall discussion of the topic. I am thus reverting your edits back to how they previously were in order to let the RFC continue. Please understand that if the RFC ends up reaching a consensus in agreement with your position, I will let an edit along these lines stand - I am not looking to edit war. I just find your edit to be premature and unwarranted at this point. Lets please move any further conversation on this issue to the RFC and keep things friendly. Locke9k (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC? Where?

The editor who was using this article to push his own personal POV, even though the only reliable source that directly weighs in on the question contradicts him, reverted my edits (on this article and a number of others) with the claim that there is an RFC going on and that we shouldn't do anything rash and therefore we'll keep his wording in the meantime...

..what RFC? I've not seen one, and none links to this page. Is there some hidden one somewhere? DreamGuy (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a section above entitled request for comment that has been longstanding. I have long assumed that this was an outstanding RFC on the topic. Apparently it is not actually set up as a real RFC for some reason. That rather changes things, and I withdraw my earlier remarks to the effect that your edits were premature given an outstanding RFC. I'll try to work on remedying the problem. Maybe the old thread needs to be archived at some point or have a title change to prevent confusion. Locke9k (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That RFC was more than a year ago. They don't stay open more than a month or so usually. People continued to post comments to it later, but the RFC was long gone. And the claim we can't edit during an RFC is bogus anyway. This is cited to a reliable source that is written by recognized experts on pseudoscience. DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tried to fix the pseudoscience issue

I think that once the various sides of the discussion can find cites for those three points...that it's mostly called a pseudoscience, that some followers never claim it to be a science in the first place, and that on rare occasion it does follow proper zoology stuff....that would be a summary that's both accurate and agreeable to all. 92.4.79.108 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's unlikely to be uncontested by the "is a" folks, but it looks alright to me. Possibly worth looking through some of the pre-"is a" versions for some better wording in the first sentence, and some of the attempts to cite "is a" might actually work for the cites required by this version. Artw (talk)

Yeah, my wording's always rubbish...feel free to change it however, just reckon that this is the way to go rather than either 'is' or 'isn't'....the rest of the article is crap too btw, shouldn't be divided into for and against sections....92.4.79.108 (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Expert

If this article is going to pass the GA review, we need to get some pros on this topic. We need a second opinion on the coverage of this article.--Gniniv (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

missing stuff

Discussion on the rhinoceros as genesis for unicorn myth for starters seems to be a significant omission. I'll check some more Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I have nominated this article for GA, and I am curious if there are any problems with that nomination...--Gniniv (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm..the expert tag is a little disconcerting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:GA? The article does not meet GA criteria. serioushat 05:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Should probably reword this...

"Cryptozoology proponents further cite as support instances in which they claim that species accepted by the scientific community were initially considered superstition, hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications.[4] For example, they claim that the Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) was previously dismissed as folklore/myth, owing to lack of evidence and fossils, before being confirmed in 1902.[12] Similarly, they claim that the Hoan Kiem Turtle was thought to be a local legend[13] before conclusive evidence for its existence was accepted around 1998-2002. The popularly reported European discovery of the okapi in 1901, earlier hinted at but unseen in his travelogue of exploring the Congo by Henry Morton Stanley later became the emblem for the now defunct International Society of Cryptozoology."

It says "they claim" here and "they claim" there, but despite the fact that I think Cryptozoology is a bunch of nonsense, they are correct in stating that the Hoan Kiem Turtle and mountain gorilla were thought to be myths before their discovery. See the articles on them. Claim should probably be changed to "states" or something similiar. I'd do it, but I just wanted to see what others think first. Plus, I'm an IP editor, and our edits tend to get reversed rather quickly. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and will fix that issue...--Gniniv (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: The overuse of claim, one of the words to watch, is discouraged per WP:CLAIM. serioushat 05:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

POV problems

From Talk:Cryptozoology/GA1 by J Milburn This article does seem to be strongly in favour of cryptozoology- if you'll note the comparative lengths of the sections, the section defending the discipline (which is, afterall, not the most respected scientific discipline...) is over twice as long. Lending too much credence to a discipline that is not widely respected creates serious problems concerning undue weight. The general tone is also a little non-neutral- to pick out some phrases at random- "countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects" and "often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence". To be honest, I think this is bad enough to warrant a maintenance tag...

This needs fixing. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree! would someone be willing to expand the criticism section? The article itself needs to be increased in length...--Gniniv (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Warring "criticism" and "defense" sections make for a very poor quality article, per WP:CRITS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh* here we go again. There was a big debate about this (strangely removed from this talk page) between one side that suggested NPOV was "cryptozoology is not a science" whereas the other side pointed out there were several prominent proponents of cryptozoology in the zoological community, published mainstream papers. In fact the "cryptozoology is not a science" position asppeared to be supported by assertions, no survey of scientists opinions on cryptozoology was presented to support the contention it was rejected as a field by scientists. So in the end the "cryptozoology is not a science" were forced to concede that their position was rather POV. The NPOV in my opinion is best covered by something like cryptozoology is "investigation of... . Its status as a science is controversial." or something like that. I think it rather sinister to delete all previous mentions of this on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.202.73 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is periodically archived. Have you checked the archived discussions linked from the top of this page? mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, unless someone can produce some evidence that the consensus of zoologists say cryptozoology is bunk, then the NPOV should be that it is controversial. I think CZ is mostly bunk, you may think cz is bunk but if there are some zoologists think it is not then it is POV to say that it is not a recognized branch of science and something more neutral is required. Some papers using cz ish methods I. L. Boyd & M. P. 2003 Stanfield Circumstantial evidence for the presence of monk seals in the West Indies Oryx Volume 32 Issue 4, Pages 310 - 316 Fitzpatrick etal Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America 2004 Science 308. no. 5727, pp. 1460 - 1462 Paxton, C. 1998. A cumulative species description curve for large open water marine animals. Journal of the Marine Biologists Association, U.K. 78, 1389-1391. Woodley, M.A. Naish, D. & Shanahan, H. P. 2009. How many extant pinniped species remain to be described? Historical Biology doi:10.1080/08912960902830210 That ignores the pro-bigfoot books by Meldrum Grantz et al. Thirdly a variety of scientists have stated that don't believe it to be total hokum (Goodall and others) Then there is the not exactly anti-comments made in the Nature editorial. The argument that NPOV is that it "is not a recognized branch of science" strikes me as rather POV and something more nuanced is clearly required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.202.179 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what all that is you wrote in the middle, or to what it's intended to refer. Please clearly cite reliable sources which back up the assertion that Crytozoology is a recognized branch of zoology within the scientific community. Jess_talk|_edits 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The refs in the article state that it is pseudoscience sometimes (see discussion above). I have cited papers that use cryptozoological methods (see above) and there is a reference in the article to a comment by Nature editor saying there may be something to it. Surely the onus is on those who believe it is not a branch of zoology, to justify their dogmatic assertion with a reliable sources that gives details of a survey of zoologists. One cannot just claim as LuckyLouie did "No controversy as to it not being recog. branch of the science of zoology". Not recognised by who? LuckyLouie? Just because I think cz is bunk does not make it NPOV that it is. But read the Talk archive for this page we have been over this before. Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Zoology is a science, and if (as you said) Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, then cryptozoology is not a branch of zoology; it's not even a branch of science. The burden is on you to provide a source which claims that cryptozoology is a legitimate branch of zoology before we can place that in the article. I see a bunch of sources to random statements in 132.251's comment. If one of those sources backs up your assertion, then please specifically point out which one and why. Ultimately, we need a scientist or scientific organization within the field of zoology saying "Cryptozoology is a branch of our field", or something similar. Jess_talk|_edits 17:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, since cryptozoology departs significantly from mainstream academic zooology, it falls under WP:FRINGE, which requires us to clarify its marginalized, minority status. While the article can and should describe the cryptozoologist's minority views, we don't represent those views as a significant "controversy" within mainstream science, or as having equal WP:WEIGHT to mainstream opinions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it (if it isn't a pseudoscience) is certainly a disputed science, with many amateurs and a minority of zoologists (See Bernard Heuvelmans and Karl Shuker) accepting it. I am totally agreed that all statements made need reliable referencing, but I don't think there is enough evidence to write this article off as a completely "fringe" view (See Lazarus taxon for a related field accepted amongst paleontologists and zoologists).--Gniniv (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that cryptozoology is a very good example of fringe: It is neither accepted as science nor completely pseudoscientific. And it has many of the problems described in WP:FRINGE. E.g. its notability derives mostly from summer hole news story topics such as the Loch Ness monster, which live somewhere between pseudoscience and entertainment. Hans Adler 09:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree but the issue is the statement that it is not recognised by mainstream zoology. That in itself may be true but it needs to be supported with evidence of zoologists saying that. Jess, myself and LuckyLouie may think cz is pseudoscientific rubbish but that does not make it NPOV that it is so. No evidence has been supplied so I inserted the weaker (but clearly justified by the current article) line that its status as science is controversial only to have it reverted. But surely the onus is on those that prefer a stronger position to justify it by reference to something that says cryptozoology is not part of mainstream zoology. Especially so given the article quotes zoologists as speaking favourably about it. No one has yet produced such evidence. 138.251.202.179 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

138.251.202.179 wrote that "examples of zoologists speaking favourably about cryptozoology" means that "NPOV is that it is controversial". No, a tiny minority view does not equal a controversy within science. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

LuckyLouie you have not given one source to back up your position. Is CZ supported by a tiny minority? Show me the evidence! Your personal opinion is not NPOV! 138.251.202.179 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A consensus of editors appears to disagree. Be aware that as a single-purpose unregistered account, your opinion may hold less weight in discussions, but you may want to bring up your concerns at a noticeboard such as the WP:NPOVN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope life is too short. I presented changes backed up by refs, they get deleted to be replaced by mere assertion (and indeed a deliberate partial quote from a source). Another triumph of the Wikipedia vox populi, *sigh*.138.251.202.179 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting well sourced neutral statements (e.g. "Cryptozoology is considered controversial") and replacing them with your personal opinion is absolutely against WP:NPOV.--Gniniv (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Gniniv Just noting for the record, that isn't what happened. The editor proposed a change (without proper sourcing, I might add), and clear consensus emerged in opposition. This is pretty clear-cut per WP:BRD. As I stated on my talk page, please feel free to muster support for a new version from other editors in your section below. As a note, references would certainly help. Jess_talk|_edits 05:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Mann jess My version (I don't know about his) was well referenced and presented two sides to the topic. If you can improve what I added or help that would be greatly appreciated...--Gniniv (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

We need to come up with a compromise solution to this edit war. I have attempted to put a trial paragraph in, and I am curious how it could be improved (it was reverted).--Gniniv (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Illustration by Theodore Jasper. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker is a supposedly extinct bird for which unconfirmed sightings are sometimes posted.

Cryptozoology is considered controversial by most zoologists. It relies heavily upon anecdotal evidence, stories and alleged sightings, and has been referred to as a pseudoscience.****Please add your negative opinion sentence here, remember that it will be rejected if it has no reference**** However, prominent zoologists such as Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans and Dr. Karl Shuker have supported it. . Scientists also use Lazarus taxon in cladistics despite its similarities to cryptozoology.

Above is the trial paragraph. Please comment on improvements. If it is polished enough please indicate your agreement for its placement in the article.--Gniniv (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, any attempt to call real animals by the term "cryptids" (a made up word used only by proponents) is automatic bias. And it's also biased to refer to mainstream scientific work as "using cryptozoological methods" to try to promote the field unless there is confirmed scientific consensus that those methods are actually cryptozoological and not just standard science at work. Otherwise it's like saying, hey, this guy wrote something up, cryptozoologists write things down sometimes, therefore any scientist writing something must be using cryptozoological methods. It's a personal argument clearly intended to push a view. You would need a real reliable source pointing it out, not just your own wording asserting it as such. Unless Boyd and Fitzpatrick or their editors say their methods were cryptozoological, then you CANNOT use them as a source. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for you to make your own original research and personal arguments. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph is written like a cryptozoology promoter's view of the subject, rather than a mainstream view. Its assertions that certain real animals are examples of "modern cryptids now accepted by mainstream zoology" is especially disturbing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the prominent POV issues you guys brought up. Please comment...--Gniniv (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to place this paragraph back in if there are no objections.--Gniniv (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I object. The problem is not just with the wording, but the context of the paragraph. It is a synthesis of reliable sources combined with unreliable ones. You need a reliable source that summarizes what is written above, otherwise it is still original research. AIRcorn (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay...I need specifics though, which references are unreliable (I need to remove them if that is the case.)?--Gniniv (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the paragraph's wording more clearly agree with the references. What do you think?--Gniniv (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean crytozoology's status is altered from "not a part of mainstream zoology" to merely "controversial". A couple of cherry-picked statements favorable to cryptozoology does not constitute a "controversy" within the academic or scientific communities. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The edits are making the article less NPOV, not more. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding on Gniv's part about how NPOV works. It doesn't mean an article must be altered so both positions get equal validity or are equally compelling. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on what information it is supporting. In general if discussing a scientific topic then scientific sources are best. I would think that [1], [2],[3] and [4] are not appropriate for the information they reference. Even more of a problem is drawing your own conclusions from sources. Refs [5], [6] and [7] appear to be examples of WP:SYN. If you want to write a neutral article the best way is to look for a review in a reliable source (i.e notable journal) that describes cryptozoology and summarize it here. That should help alleviate some of the problems you have with undue weight. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Found this. Might be useful. AIRcorn (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I removed the WP:Synth violation, and I am going to put the result in the article to see if it is accepted...--Gniniv (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't. You ignored the NPOV issues and proceeded as if WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if the vast majority of zoologists refer to cryptozoology as a pseudoscience or at best highly controversial then this must be presented in the article. Your paragraph is giving too much weight to the minority viewpoint. AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That fact is mentioned in the paragraph as "Cryptozoology is considered controversial by most zoologists". I think that is neutral and communicates the point without to much POV either way (To deniers or fanatics)..--Gniniv (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay...Please add a (referenced) negative opinion sentence where the asterisks are in the paragraph. Will that add to the WP:Weight?--Gniniv (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot problem

I think that a significant amount of effort has been expended trying to improve blanket statements of majority consensus on these articles (Bigfoot and Cryptozoology) by myself, and due to the fact this is seen as violating WP:NPOV (though in my book I am merely trying to give coverage to a significant minority view) I am imposing a one month ban on myself for these articles. I hope my absence will inspire others to work towards removing rule of the majority problems and WP:Systematic bias without having me to blame as the scapegoat. I appreciate those editors who are of a similar mindset.--Gniniv (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)