Talk:Cryptozoology

Lead Sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Baler Twine

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

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

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

Darren Naish articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• So what is the Wikipedia policy for including claims that are not strongly supported? We include them cautiously, with attribution, not as undisputed fact. Why should this article be any different? We need several reliable sources that critisise cryptozoology as a whole, not just some specific cryptozoological claims/studies. Respectable cryptozoology articles do exist, for example, here is a recent paper[1] about a cryptozoological specimen, which has been widely reported in the news, and is published in a respectable source. More info:[2] Cryptozoology is not a distinct method, it is merely the search and study of "hidden animals", as stated by the man who coined the term, Bernard Heuvelmans. Some random guy claiming he has seen bigfoot is not "cryptozoology", by the way. Just like some random guy writing about tigers on his blog isn't actual zoology/science. But a study of hair samples claimed to be from bigfoot, but turn out not to be, are science as well as cryptozoology. FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Specimens" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll also add some interesting reading: [3] by David Quammen, [4] by Mittelbach and Crewdson, and [5] by Lett, who specifically comments on the cryptozoologists argument. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

How about something like:

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

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

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

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

Bird / Crocodile / Squid

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

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

• The Spot-bellied Eagle-Owl, first described as the Devil Bird in Sinhalese legends. known as ora (land crocodile).

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

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

Cryptozoology IS Redundant

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

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

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

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

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

duckbilled platypus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading

One book published by Coachwhip[6] and now 2 by the Centre for Fortean Zoology. A self-published book by Ronan Coghlan (is he really notable?) And something from Paraview Press[7] Is this what we want and the best available? The ones I don't mention seem ok. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy to avoid self-published sources like the Plague unless absolutely, totally, end-of-the-world-sort-of necessary, due to quality control issues.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Folkloristics and Cryptozoology

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

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

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

Hallmarks

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

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

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

Clutter

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

Recent reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rampant Synthesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit-Warring and Restoration of Amateur Websites

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

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

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

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

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

Usage of Books Published on Cryptozoology Authored by Cryptozoologists

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

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

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

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

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

Works by Cryptozoologists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Cryptozoologist Works on Cryptozoology

A reliable source is the sceptical book Abominable Science, by Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero. Some information about it here [8]. I am surprised this book has not been cited anywhere on the article. JuliaHunter (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Darren Naish has recently published an academic sceptical book on cryptozoology, some information here [9], I will probably purchase this book and try and help with the article. JuliaHunter (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

quotes to the sourcers are misleading

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

The paper can be viewed in full on academia.edu ([10]), a fact which the author of the paper would be aware of. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing Discussion at Fringe Noticeboard

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

Restoration of Material Sourced to britishbigcats.org

This material was recently restored ([11]) by @Dkspartan1835::

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

This material includes a link to the website britishbigcats.org which is "in the process of becoming a charity": [12]. Not only does this site seem to make absolutely no mention of cryptozoology nor employ the cryptozoology term cryptid but the site obviously isn't reliable. This is WP:SYNTH. Why was this restored after it was removed? Please remove it.

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

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

Removal of Mention of Folkloristics in Lead

In addition to the above restoration of poor sources, the mention of folkloristics in the lead was also recently removed as "not sourced" ([13]) by the same user (@Dkspartan1835:). This is not a challengeable statement—there's no room for argument regarding the statement—and is relevant in the context of the article. It also needs to be restored. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

After adding a bunch of material, including some more from folklorists, I've simply adjusted the intro to take care of this issue. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Association for Science and Reason Reference?

Hello folks. It looks like a lot of the article is now employing secondary, academic references. However, something sticks out: there's currently a reference to scienceandreason.ca: [14]. Is this a reliable source? Is this an amateur website with an official-y name? From the looks at their internet trail, I'm thinking this isn't a solid source to be using. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry about that. I was using Wikipedia at my cousin's house and walked away for a bit, and he edited this under my account. I didn't know he did so until yesterday, when his sister ratted him out. (He must have casually mentioned it to her.) So, yeah. I am very mad at him, because I told him specifically not to do anything with my account without my permission. For the time being, I'm keeping this on my watchlist in case of something similar happening. Please do not un-delete (undelete?) my cousin's comment, that's not what I want to be known for. I strive to keep a completely passive attitude, and he was not meeting my expectations. So, I beg you. DON'T reopen that embarrassing discussion. If you want to see it, go into the page history. DO NOT reopen it. Also, I made sure that this comment kept him anonymous, but if I didn't, please let me know. I respect his privacy, even if I am mad at him. Sea Captain Cormac 16:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried to protect this comment, but I accidentally protected the article. My bad. I've reverted it back. Sea Captain Cormac 16:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, Cormac Nocton, you can't protect a page, only admins can. The template you used is actually for requesting a change to a protected article, so it's good that you removed it. I'm still not happy about your unilateral blanking of a whole discussion, most of which was between other people. On the other hand, it was pretty much the usual discussion — not remarkably useful — and, assuming that the other people who took part are OK with the removal, I'm going to let it stand. If anybody disapproves, I suggest they restore the discussion and collapse it, with the {{hat}}-{{hab}} templates. Cormac Nocton, please change your password and be more careful with it. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC).

Thank you. Sea Captain Cormac 17:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Removal of my changes by Bishonen

@Bishonen: Hi... was surprised to see the wholesale reversion of all the changes I made. Was nothing I charged in your opinion an improvement? I think as it stands the sentences are not as well constructed as they could be, and I thought my grammar and other (wikilinks, etc) changes were all improving it. I did start out just fixing minor grammar issues (hence the description I wrote first), but as I read more about it as I was editing it occurred to me to do a larger fix and the scope of what I changed increased!

I will outline here why I changed what I did by taking the time to point out the issues one by one...

Current version:

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience with the goal of identifying and describing beings from the folklore and the fossil record, which cryptozoologists refer to as cryptids. These include creatures that are otherwise considered extinct or beings from folklore, such as Bigfoot and chupacabras.

Cryptozoology is not recognized as a branch of zoology and is not considered a science by the academic world. Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience because it relies upon anecdotal evidence, stories, and alleged sightings.

My change (for reference):

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience which has the goal of proving the existence of creatures derived from folklore, such as Bigfoot and the chupacabra, as well as extinct animals known only from the fossil record which cryptozoologists claim to be extant. These creatures are collectively referred to as cryptids.

Cryptozoology is not recognized as a branch of zoology, and is not considered a science by the academic world. Cryptozoology is classified as a pseudoscience because it relies upon anecdotal evidence, and ignores dis-confirming evidence that indicate a hypothesis has been falsified.

(I also added a wikilinks which are not replicated here.)

So here are my issues with the original version:

• "with the goal of" is incorrect grammar as used here. "...which has the goal of..." is better
• "beings" seems an odd word in this context. It implies human intelligence... Is "Nessie" a being? Is a chupacabra? For that matter,we do not even call REAL animals beings. "Creatures" seems more accurate.
• "that are otherwise considered extinct" is also a badly constructed clause here. I attempted to fix this with my version.
• Regarding your comment in the edit history that ONLY cryptozoologists use the word "cryptids"... In a discussion of Bigfoot, to put it in the larger context, someone disparaging those who believe in the reality of such creatures would call them cryptids. Just because I describe a dragon as a dragon does not mean I believe it is real. And beyond skeptics, I can guarantee that plain believers - not just people studying them (cryptozoologists) use the word! I know a few.
• That it relies on "anecdotal evidence, stories, and alleged sightings" is not the only reason it. Another big one is that, like all psuedociences, it does not accept falsification. (So I added that part.)
• Also, both "stories", and "alleged sightings" ARE anecdotal evidence so that is redundant after saying "anecdotal evidence." (Maybe using "...such as..." works, but that is probably unnecessary.

So please take a look at these one by one and let's discuss! I don't want to get into an editing war, but I do think most if not all of these changes make the text better. Perhaps we can get other interested editors to chime in as well. RobP (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006: I have two comments. 1) With one exception, I do not see major differences in meaning/content between your version and Bishonen's reversion. The exception is the redundancy in wording that you removed. I agree that the redundancy is not needed. But, using wording giving the extra items as examples is acceptable. 2) Why are we wasting time arguing over who uses the term cryptid? I looked at the Oxford definition in the cryptid article that Bishonen pointed to and do not see a substantive difference in that definition and the one given in this article. And, neither definition suggests that ONLY cryptozoologists use the term. Of course, others use the term. Specifically people that are critical of the field. I have heard it used in that context many times. Shortsword (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shortsword: I believe you misunderstood. In my edit summary I said "Fixed grammar. Not ONLY the psudo-scientists refer to them as cryptids!" and Bishonen reverted giving in his edit summary as the reason he reverted: "Yes, only pseudo-scientists refer to them as cryptids, see definition in List of cryptids." RobP (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006:,@Shortsword: I think Rp2006's changes changes were constructive and better than the original, with a much better flow. Not too much difference in overall meaning, but clearer. I don't think the original statement saying that cryptozoologists, specifically, use the word cryptids is helpful. Milkshake60201 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A few comments. Use of cryptid is restricted to cryptozoologists (where it was coined) and individuals either discussing cryptozoology or influenced by the pseudoscience. It is not used in folkloristics—folklorists don't assume that they may stumble upon a 'hidden' dinosaur, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: We disagree on this, and although @Shortsword thought he/she was disagreeing with me, they were actually with me on this point. (I bolded the section of their comment above I am referring to.) I just mean that people in general critiquing this "field" of study use the term in conversation as well. I know I do, and I am NOT a cryptozoologist. So I maintain that saying "...which cryptozoologists refer to as cryptids." is too unnecessarily narrow. I maintain that "These creatures are collectively referred to as cryptids." is more correct. RobP (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no room for disagreement with this. Cryptid was coined by a cryptozoologist and even patterned after cryptozoology. I'm not here to make any judgments about your personal idiolect, but you've been influenced by cryptoozology in your usage, directly or indirectly. The simple fact is that the term cryptid is pseudoscientific by its very definition—the term and concept are both rejected in academia, only used by academics when discussing cryptozoology, and is obscure in general usage. In other words, academics don't expect a hidden creature behind entities from the folklore record, and if they did, they wouldn't use the term cryptid to discuss it. The assumption isn't that a being from the record isn't just hiding somewhere. The reality of how these figures and entities develop is far more complex. To the general public, the noun cryptid is all but totally unknown. Its use is restricted to the far corners of the internet (like here, where it was once heavily promoted by cryptozoologists). :bloodofox: (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of, what gives with the repeated removal of folkloristics from the lead? We have folklorists discussing how non-scientific it is in the body. Folkloristics (or folklore studies) is the science of folklore. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I have no idea what this question is referring to! Is this about a previous change? Was this question directed at me? RobP (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a user that recently removed it, see article history. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Third, "being" is a term that applies to all living, well, "beings". In common use, "creature" is generally restricted to animals. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Exactly! Are not most if not all cryptids animals?? Even if BF existed, it's not clear it would be any smarter than say a gorilla, which is still an animal - a creature. And all the rest of the criptids - Nessy, chupacobra, etc - would certainly be animals ("creatures"). To be clear, people do not call a raccoon a "being." Not unless it's name is Rocket and it carries a plasma riffle. "Being" definitely implies human level intelligence (or above), hence "the alien being flew the spacecraft up to the Pentagon to say nanoo nanoo." sounds appropriate, whereas "an unknown being ate through the electric wires in my wall and started a fire" comes across as odd usage. RobP (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No, they're not. Generally speaking, all entities from the folklore record are fair game for cryptozoologists, that includings anthropomorphic, "sentient" entities like Bigfoot as well as little gray men. Some figures in the pseudoscience have attempted to veer cryptozoology away from little gray men but pretty much all seek humanoid Bigfoot-like creatures, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Just looked at List of cryptids which says: "This is a list of cryptids notable within cryptozoology, a pseudoscience that presumes the existence of animals and plants that have been derived from anecdotal or other evidence." Animals. = Creatures. Not beings. Plus, the list itself is also filled with animals. Plus it says that the term cryptid means hidden animal!!! It also says: The Oxford English Dictionary defines the noun cryptid as "an animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist". Some dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term "cryptid" as an animal whose existence is questionable. This argument is getting ridiculous. RobP (talk)

@Rp2006: Now I think I see where I went wrong in my comment. I started that part of my comment by asking why we were wasting time arguing this point. You took that to mean I was taking you to task. Which was not my intent. I really only trying to agree with your point that we should be free to state that people other than cryptozoologists use the term cryptid. Which was the point that you were also trying to make, as you acknowledge in one of your responses.

Unfortunately, I now think that I am tending to be persuaded by bloodofox' argument that the term cryptid is understood by cryptozoologists and those of us that criticize them, but that the vast majority of readers will not understand the term. WP's should be written to best inform the vast majority of readers without confusing them. So I am now thinking that you could add that bit in, that the term is used both by cryptozoologists and their critics. But, I am not sure that the extra bit really adds enough to the content of the article to be worth while. Shortsword (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006:, yes, it also says that on this article. It's also on this one. I put it on both. However, plenty of other sources show cryptozoologists focusing on non-"animal", humanoid entities, including that list (which should simply be deleted, imo). That's the reality of the situation. Besides, most entities from the folklore record aren't referred to as "animals", they're usually something far more complicated in their respective cultures. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot to cover here, so instead of adding my views in line with comments, I'll just write all I have to say in one go, here. Sorry if it makes the discussion messier. I think the change overall was an improvement and the revert was a bad move. As for the points RobP made regarding his changes:

• "with the goal of" is incorrect grammar as used here. "...which has the goal of..." is better - Agreed.
• "beings" seems an odd word in this context. It implies human intelligence... Is "Nessie" a being? Is a chupacabra? For that matter,we do not even call REAL animals beings. "Creatures" seems more accurate. - "Beings" does not imply human intelligence, I don't know where you get this idea. I would understand if you had said it implies existence, but I'm not sure it really does. I have no problem with the usage of "beings" in this context, the word has a very broad definition, including, as far as I know, plants and fictional things, while "creatures" seems somewhat more specific and doesn't include plants. And seeing how Cryptobotany redirects to Cryptozoology. I'd say keep it as beings.
• "that are otherwise considered extinct" is also a badly constructed clause here. I attempted to fix this with my version. - Agreed. Much better now.
• Regarding your comment in the edit history that ONLY cryptozoologists use the word "cryptids"... In a discussion of Bigfoot, to put it in the larger context, someone disparaging those who believe in the reality of such creatures would call them cryptids. Just because I describe a dragon as a dragon does not mean I believe it is real. And beyond skeptics, I can guarantee that plain believers - not just people studying them (cryptozoologists) use the word! I know a few. - Of course not only cryptozoologists use the word, anyone when discussing cryptozoology does. Cryptids are the subjects of "study" (if we're charitable enough to call it that) of cryptozoologists. That it means "hidden" is irrelevant. That folklorists don't use it is also irrelevant. As it stands now, it doesn't mean "ONLY cryptozoologists use it". My suggestion would be to go with "..., referred to as cryptids."
• That it relies on "anecdotal evidence, stories, and alleged sightings" is not the only reason it. Another big one is that, like all pseudosciences, it does not accept falsification. (So I added that part.) - I think the addition was an improvement.
• Also, both "stories", and "alleged sightings" ARE anecdotal evidence so that is redundant after saying "anecdotal evidence." (Maybe using "...such as..." works, but that is probably unnecessary. - Agreed. Either lose "stories and alleged sightings" or add "...such as...".

Hope it helps. VdSV9•♫ 20:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @VdSV9:. I guess I'll have to refer to cryptids (and other animals) as "beings" from now on. LOL. Is everyone OK with the other changes I made and others agreed to?

The new version would read as follows (changes to my original are bolded here):

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience which has the goal of proving the existence of beings derived from folklore, such as Bigfoot and the chupacabra, as well as extinct animals known only from the fossil record which cryptozoologists claim to be extant. These are collectively referred to as cryptids.

Cryptozoology is not recognized as a branch of zoology, and is not considered a science by the academic world. Cryptozoology is classified as a pseudoscience because it relies upon anecdotal evidence, such as stories and alleged sightings, and ignores dis-confirming evidence that indicate a hypothesis has been falsified.

Current version (for ref):

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience with the goal of identifying and describing beings from the folklore and the fossil record, which cryptozoologists refer to as cryptids. These include creatures that are otherwise considered extinct or beings from folklore, such as Bigfoot and chupacabras.

Cryptozoology is not recognized as a branch of zoology and is not considered a science by the academic world. Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience because it relies upon anecdotal evidence, stories, and alleged sightings.

RobP (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the current version of the article. I don't see this as a correction over the current lead. Your proposal looks a bit weaselly regarding cryptid ("These are collectively referred to as cryptids"), oddly contorts around simply referring to the folklore record and the archaeological record together, and altogether drops out a link to folkloristics for no apparent reason (the article is full of folklorists discussing the pseudoscience's approach to folklore, for example). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Correction... That was "current" as of when I made my edit. I was showing what it looked like before I made my change (which was quickly reverted). Folkloristics was NOT in the version I was editing and this is the first I am seeing it. (But have no prob. with it.)

For the record, this is the version I was working with:

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience with the goal of identifying and describing beings from the folklore and the fossil record, which cryptozoologists refer to as cryptids. These include creatures that are otherwise considered extinct or beings from folklore, such as Bigfoot and chupacabras.

Cryptozoology is not recognized as a branch of zoology and is not considered a science by the academic world. Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience because it relies upon anecdotal evidence, stories, and alleged sightings.

I then made my edit (which was quickly reverted), but it was as follows:

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience which has the goal of proving the existence of creatures derived from folklore, such as Bigfoot and the chupacabra, as well as extinct animals known only from the fossil record which cryptozoologists claim to be extant. These creatures are collectively referred to as cryptids.

Cryptozoology is not recognized as a branch of zoology, and is not considered a science by the academic world. Cryptozoology is classified as a pseudoscience because it relies upon anecdotal evidence, and ignores dis-confirming evidence that indicate a hypothesis has been falsified.

As of RIGHT NOW the lede is:

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience that seeks to identify and describe beings from the folklore and the fossil record, which cryptozoologists refer to as cryptids. These include creatures that are otherwise considered extinct or beings from folklore, such as Bigfoot and chupacabras.

Cryptozoology is not recognized as a branch of zoology or folkloristics and is not considered a science by the academic world. Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience because it relies upon anecdotal evidence, stories, and alleged sightings.

Considering the recent edit which improved it, and the discussions on my previously reverted edit, I am now recommending a bit less changes. So here it is... (wikilinks not shown):

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience which has the goal of proving the existence of beings derived from folklore, such as Bigfoot and the chupacabra, as well as extinct animals known only from the fossil record which cryptozoologists claim to be extant. These are collectively referred to as cryptids.

Cryptozoology is not recognized as a branch of zoology or folkloristics, and is not considered a science by the academic world. Cryptozoology is classified as a pseudoscience because it relies upon anecdotal evidence, such as stories and alleged sightings, and ignores dis-confirming evidence that indicate a hypothesis has been falsified.

What do you all think?

@Bloodofox: I saw your comment that "Your proposal looks a bit weaselly regarding cryptid ("These are collectively referred to as cryptids"). Please explain how this is "weaselly." Seems like a straightforward description to me. And what about the rest of it as it is constructed above?

@VdSV9:?

@Shortsword:?

@Milkshake60201:?

RobP (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your proposal of "These are collectively referred to as cryptids" does not indicate that this is a term internal to the pseudoscience. That's weaselly (WP:WEASEL). We've had users on here trying to take the term—and the pseudoscientific approach behind it—and run with it, for example. We need to be clear. Right now "... which cryptozoologists refer to as cryptids" makes it clear that it's a term internal to the pseudoscience. I don't see the rest as improvements over what we have now but I wouldn't have a problem with your proposed "Cryptozoology is classified as a pseudoscience because it relies upon anecdotal evidence, such as stories and alleged sightings, and ignores dis-confirming evidence that indicate a hypothesis has been falsified". :bloodofox: (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006: @Bloodofox: I think your proposed change looks fine. Perhaps Bloodofox would prefer the last sentence of the first graph to be more like, "These are collectively referred to as cryptids by cryptozoologists.". Or maybe even better, "These are collectively referred to as cryptids within cryptozoology.". Shortsword (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006: @Bloodofox: @Shortsword: I can understand how Bloodofox and Shortsword feel that the word "cryptids" should be specifically called out as a pseudoscientific alt-fact term, but even as a nonbeliever in such things I really don't think this is necessary. For example, people don't clarify that gods, angels, and demons do not exist when they use these terms since the alt-reality nature of these terms is part of their definitions. The use of these terms and "cryptids," by definition, signals fantasy.

I recommend RobP's latest revision (although I agree with him that "creatures" was better than "beings"). Milkshake60201 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an invalid comparison. This has nothing to do with "alt-fact"s, whatever those are. The word cryptid is simply a specialized term within cryptozoology, nothing more, nothing less. It represents a core tenant of its pseudoscientific approach: the search for 'hidden' monsters. Angels, demons, gods, and similar entities are folk concepts and irrelevant to our discussion here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I take your point about the folk concepts. I was just giving examples of other words (1) with definitions of things that do not exist and (2) that are not continually reframed as going against reality. Yes, "cyrptid" comes from cryptozoololgy, but the term is also used by non-cryptozoologists when discussing the non-existent evidence of cyrptids, so RobP's "These are collectively referred to as cryptids" seems best to me, but you and RobP have been through all of this above. A possible compromise would be: "These are collectively referred to as cryptids by cryptozoologists and their critics". Milkshake60201 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A passive construction isn't an improvement. I see no reason to alter the current wording. It's perfectly accurate and leaves no room for misunderstanding. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So it seems we have several editors agreeing that some (most) of my changes are advantageous, and one (who reverted all of my original edit) saying no change at all is appropriate. Where do we go from here? RobP (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I second Bloodofox. The phrasing "which cryptozoologists refer to as cryptids" is correct. If someone else uses the term "cryptid", they are using the term coined/used by cryptozoologists, because there is no other term for this concept, just like people who discuss UFOlogy use the terms coined by ufologists, and so on. This does not mean that ufology or other kookery is endorsed by mainstream science. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

At the same time I have to say that your dispute about the definition is pointless because you are trying to introduce original research into the very definition of the term. Therefore, please step back and please start citing sources which define the term "cryptozoology". Now, we have a historical definition, from "1959 or before" ('the study of hidden animals') Anything newer and better? If you ask me, something like this should be the primary definition, the rest is elaboration. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In any case, both suggested definitions are wrong in the part "and the fossil record". Cryptozoologists do not "identify and describe beings from... fossil record". Basically, they take a tall tale, postulate a cryptid and use fossil record as an evidence for the cryptid. But not other way around. They are not saying: hey, there is a trilobite fossil; lets run around and find us some trilobite cryptids. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a lot there...

Bloodofox said "I see no reason to alter the current wording.": I totally disagree, per all my points. No shock there.

Staszek Lem said I am trying to introduce original research? Really. Man is that a stretch of a criticism. Where specifically? I was the one pointing to the def including "the study of hidden animals" as a reason NOT to use "beings". Wow. And, again, no one would say "Some unknown beings ate through my wires" It's creatures. So saying cryptids are "beings" DOES apply something above animal. (Yes, I know humans are animals, but language is funny.) But I gave up on that, didn't I? And what ARE you talking reagarding "both suggested definitions are wrong"? "Cryptozoology... seeks to identify and describe beings from... the fossil record..." is the CURRENT lede which is what I was trying to fix by my (I thought) minor grammar fixes which are so controversial with some here.

And what about my point regarding "...stories, and alleged sightings." being redundant with anecdotal evidence. As other editors agreed, at a minimum it should be changed to "...anecdotal evidence such as stories and alleged sightings." Or just end it at "...anecdotal evidence." IS that controversial also? Or are folks just hell bent not to have one jot or tittle changed on this page? RobP (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please forget for a moment about you being insulted and address my criticism in its essence: you are not citing reliable sources for the definition. Another story is that the original definition is no better in this respect (and I mentioned that too). So instead of venting your frustration, just dig into the books. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Did not consider myself insulted. My frustration is that some of my specific points have either been deflected and just not addressed - numerous times. It seems purposeful. The leading one being the issue of redundancy of "stories and alleged sightings" for example. Other editors agreed a change was warranted there, but a few others ignore that - repeatedly. No matter how much I bring it up again. Other issues I pointed out were dismissed with illogical replies... saying I was introducing original research is the worst example. That goes with the "dig into the books" comment. One does not have to be an expert in a field to point out bad writing... excuse me... how writing can be improved. The best scientists are not necessarily wizard with the written word. In short, it seems to me that a small group of editors feel possessive about this page and do everything they can to dissuade improvement if it originates outside that group. This is the "not invented here" syndrome" on full display. In any case, the recent changes to the lede have made some of my original complaints about its structure ("grammar") obsolete. The other flaws that remain you folks simply do not want to correct as has been made clear. So I am done wasting any more time on this. RobP (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Archaeological record

The mention of the archaeological record in the lead is in reference to how cryptozoologists interpret folklore. The cryptozoologist's pseudoscientific conclusion is generally: hey, maybe it's a hidden dinosaur. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Rephrasing The Lead Sentence On "Pseudoscience"

It is demonstrably untrue that the reliable sources all state that cryptozoology is inherently a pseudoscience. For example, the Skeptic's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by Michael Shermer literally contains the following sentence: "Cryptozoology ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting, depending upon how it is practiced." That is the last source you would expect to have a pro-cryptozoology bias, as it is literally an encyclopedia written by a notable skeptic with the expressed purpose of defining and enumerating what is known to constitute pseudoscience. Matt Bille has also pointed out that cryptozoology is not intrinsically a pseudoscience due to the reason that it passes Karl Popper's falsifiability test to determine whether or not a given field of inquiry is science. According to Popper, a field must contain assertions that are capable of being falsified to be truly scientific. While creationism and intelligent design can never be falsified because it is impossible to disprove the existence of God or an Intelligent Designer whom created life on Earth, and anything supernatural cannot be falsified as its putative existence, by definition, lies outside of what can be tested using naturalistic means, rendering these subjects pseudoscience if they are attempted to be passed off as scientific, the same cannot be said for cryptozoology. This is because cryptozoological assertions can, indeed, be tested and falsified, at least in principle. The cryptozoological assertion that "Extant members of the order Plesiosauria currently inhabit Earth's oceans" can be falsified by thoroughly searching every square centimeter of the Earth's oceans and not finding one single extant member of the order Plesiosauria, for example. Even if this is not practically possible to do, it is still theoretically possible to do, so cryptozoology is not inherently pseudoscientific. In the same way, although it is not practically possible to search every square centimeter of the Milky Way Galaxy to attempt to disprove the astrobiological assertion that "Macroscopic extraterrestrial organisms exist in the Milky Way Galaxy", as this would still be hypothetically possible to do, this statement is not pseudoscientific in nature. It would also do well to note that astrobiology involves many of the same factors that cause many to label cryptozoology as pseudoscientific -- the search for new, exotic species in the absence of physical evidence, imaginative speculation about what they might be like, the lack of definitively positive results so far -- yet it is accepted as a valid branch of science, rather than pseudoscience. And Wikipedia rightfully acknowledges this in its Astrobiology article. So why the double standard with cryptozoology, especially when the sources do not go nearly as far as Wikipedia in assigning cryptozoology to the pseudoscience category? It makes little sense for the Wikipedia article on cryptozoology to explicitly label it as a pseudoscience, without acknowledging the fact that the field exists on a spectrum that is sometimes pseudoscientific, and sometimes genuine science, which is acknowledged by reliable outside sources, including overtly skeptical ones dedicated to the debunking of pseudoscience. Indeed, Wikipedians labeling cryptozoology as a pseudoscience, as it is going beyond what the sources say, is an example of Wikipedians inserting their own opinions into an article, which constitutes original research. 205.202.253.66 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is literally a quote I have just copied-and-pasted from Wikipedia's above-linked article on astrobiology: "While it is an emerging and developing field, the question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe is a verifiable hypothesis and thus a valid line of scientific inquiry." 205.202.253.66 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please. Finding new species, "hidden" or not, is already covered by actual fields of science in the various schools of biology. Cryptozoology is not one of them. Capeo (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, wall of text. Anyway, we have no shortage of academics taking cryptozoology to task in the article and no doubt plenty more could be produced. The fact that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience isn't up for debate. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It rather should be, given the references used on this page (2,3,4) to justify cz as a pseudoscience don't actually mention pseudoscience at all (may be I am the only person who has read them), oh, and there is peer reviewed cryptozoology in amongst others the Journal of Zoology and the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK. Also, I am pretty sure Loren Coleman has never argued that cryptozoologists don't follow the scientific method (ref 10 and 11). Lots of contributors here have claimed that it is unequivocal that cz is pseudoscience yet they cannot produce any references that say this, despite me asking again and again. Academics taking cz to task is not the same as saying all cz is pseudoscience especially if no informed source says that. Despite all this we are told the tone of this article is NPOV which seems just bizarre when its initial claim "cz is pseudoscience" is supported by a misuse of sources and is demonstrably falsified by the existence of peer reviewed cz in mainstream science journals. If cz is unequivocal pseudoscience then a reference is needed that says that. The nearest quote is from the Shermer encyclopedia mentioned above "Cryptozoology ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting, depending upon how it is practiced." That would seem a good fair NPOV tone for this article. Tullimonstrum (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Here we go with this guy again. We're well beyond this. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing new in this argument that's not been covered on this Talk page before. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, and you still haven't got references justifying the POV of this article apart, weakly, from an editorial from a teaching magazine! Well I suppose it is better than the undergraduate essay people wanted to use before. Also the current definition of cz in the lead is a strawman and original research in that no cryptozoologist or even critic, has ever defined cryptozoology "as proving the existence of animals from folklore" as not all the animals of cz enquiry are folkloric (e.g. coelacanths, manatees in St Helena etc.). Of course Bloodofox actually thinks some cz is scientific, he amusingly says on the wikipedia "Hypothetical Species" talk page "This (hypothesising species) appears to be rather more scientific in nature than, say, cryptozoology, a classic pseudoscience." Apparently not realising that hypothesising species is exactly what some academic cryptozoologists do, see for example Colarusso, J. (1988) Waitoreke, the New Zealand "otter": a linguistic solution to a cryptozoological problem. Cryptozoology 7, 46-60. Anyway it still makes sense to start this article with Heuvelmans's actual definition of cz followed by critique rather than Bloodofox's personal and somewhat confused opinion.Tullimonstrum (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh? What are you going on about? From the article's lead to its references and to my own opinions, none of that is accurate. The simple fact is that cryptozoology is rejected by the academic world and the reason why is just as simple: as reference after reference attests, it's a pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hypothetical_species for your comments on hypothetical species. Only one dubious reference is supplied that explicitly says cz is pseudoscience. And the lead descriptor comes from you, not from any source. QED. It isn't rocket science, if you want to claim cz "is a pseudoscience that aims to prove the existence of entities from the folklore record" (OK sorry I slightly misquoted the lead before) you need an authoritative academic source (an editorial in a teaching journal really does not count) that explicitly says that, not your own original, idiosyncratic interpretation of sources that don't say that. It should be easy to cite one of these numerous references, you keep mentioning. Or we could go with something like "Cryptozoology is the purported "scientific study of hidden animals"" which is a direct quote from (Heuvelmans B.,1988 Sources and Methods of Cryptozoological Research .Cryptozoology 7, 1-21). and then discuss its controversial nature based on skeptical source material which is pretty consistently critical but admits some of it is kosher (see the quote from Shermer's encyclopedia above), I can supply multiple similar quotes from Regal and others but no informed commentator says it is unequivocal pseudoscience. Why would they, there is peer reviewed cryptozoology in mainstream journals.Tullimonstrum (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. Identifying new species is something zoologists do all the time. Folklorists analyze folklore. Cryptozoology is to animals (and other entities) as ghost hunting is to ghosts. In 2017, academia rejects cryptozoology. It's not recognized as an academic discipline in any academic institution—anywhere. It's just not a science. It is, however, a pretend science: a pseudoscience. We've got a whole section dedicated to academics discussing exactly this. It's very well referenced. If you're going to help with the article, you're welcome. If you're here to try to convince us how we should ignore academia and just roll with monster hunting, you're barking up the wrong tree. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It is clear nonsense to call it pseudoscience. Some cryptozoology is and some isn't. It is a blanket generalisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.78.108.102 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is a science fact

First of all, evolution is a plan, not a coincidence. (The coincidence is a pseudoscience). Skeptics, atheists and scientific methods have nothing to talk about, since the truth is that chupacabra exists and there is evidence of unknown genetic material to any creature. Cryptozoology is full science, just like ghosts. As well as numerous descriptions of the Creative; just like a werewolves ' which also prove to be true. It is doubtful that a few people have come up with something and feared it all night, they saw close up and heard the noise, and then they moved out the other day. This lasted for a dozen or so hours, so the hallucinations are gone. On the other hand, the hypothesis that they could be the victim of a joke is very unlikely, because nothing points to it. Mermaids exist. Barack Obama saw them in the government lab and many eyewitnesses are not wrong. More objectivity. Yes, cryptozoology is science, used by some as a pseudoscience. The whole article to the trash. Criticism and science recipe don't explain anything. In addition, cryptozoology is often successful. Annually, about 5,000 new species are discovered, sometimes even in the puddle. Satellites every see - are you so serious? And who does it, skeptics, scientists? No, cryptozoologists. Still your skepticism, a skeptical, and skepticism, skeptics claim skepticism and skepticism; What do you care about skeptics? The skeptic is not a scientist. Every fool can undermine everything. The world is not for skeptics, not belongs, nor the future. So much in the topic.

W. AlexTrevex, 8 August 2017, 12:17 (CEST, Europe, Poland).