Talk:Cryptozoology

71.90.25.96 removing well-sourced information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and/or

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

and/or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So to summarise then

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pseudoscience Assertion Is Too Strong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated Definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience ref

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