User talk:Bloodofox

Hello! Please note that if you leave a post at the bottom of the page, I will also respond to it on this page. Thank you for taking the time to get in contact with me.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Myth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folktale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hey, have we ever actually established what would be a reliable source for something being a "cryptid"? Anyone, ever, calling it one? A "prominent" cryptozoologist calling it one? I suppose I should look at other pseudosciences and see if there's anything similar. --tronvillain (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we haven't, and therein is the problem: it may not be possible to do so. Right now the list seems to indeed be "anyone, ever, calling it one". Since cryptozoology is a pseudoscience with no academic support (and no evident institutional representation of any sort), it's hard for me to say how we'd establish any sort of scope or definition of reliability for anything to be included on list of cryptids. It seems to me that the best we could do is produce an article discussing how the limitations of what might fall under the definition of a cryptid among cryptozoologists varies by published work. It's a tough one. Confused editors, cryptozoologists, and edit-warriors only complicate the matter further. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's always the reliable sources noticeboard, but hopefully I'll eventually be able to move all the "clearly not a cryptid" entries off of the list before that becomes necessary. Anyway, I've been poking around, and I love that the "cryptid infobox" is {{Infobox mythical creature}}. Also, WikiProject Cryptozoology articles only has 635 entries, so at least it's not into the thousands.--tronvillain (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there's been some discussion at the RS board, to no avail. Maybe that'll change in time. I certainly appreciate the work you're doing to get those articles in order, and I'll be glad to help out.

Regarding the infobox, we're quite fortunate that it wasn't called something like cryptid infobox, and then spread to thousands of articles. Now that'd be a mess to clean up!

If you haven't yet read this write up, you might find it useful. I've also started building WikiProject Folklore, if you're interested. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the closest analogies I can think of is List of homeopathic preparations, but those entries are at least referenced.--tronvillain (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to me that the construction of a list like list of cryptids wouldn't be possible with today's criteria in place. The absence of quality references is a major problem. However, since there's so much confusion surrounding the list, I guess the best we can do for now is at least make sure it has some level of scope or criteria. At the end of the day, the list itself gets very little traffic, and I think we'll be doing readers more of a service by making sure there's no undue pseudoscience on individual articles, which readers are a lot more likely to find. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There might be an argument for moving/duplicating some of the cryptid definition/criteria onto the cryptozoology page and giving it a subsection, since that would mean you weren't redirecting to a list.--tronvillain (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's worth considering. Since the list can't be sourced, sooner or later it'll have to go. You might want to keep an eye on that. FYI, looks like we've got a user reintroducing cryptozoology fringe stuff back into article spaces (cf. [1]). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Interesting.--tronvillain (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured I'd just let that exchange go. By the way, we've got templates over at WP:Folklore now (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Folklore#Templates). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore

You recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore, but I do not see either a defined scope, nor an evaluation system for articles. Is this Project inactive?

How does it differ in scope from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology, which already covered folklore? Do you also maintain Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Mythology & Folklore? Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, does it cover folklore? Nothing in that scope appears to establish that. Mythology appears to define itself as a genre of folklore.--tronvillain (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Tronvillain is correct. Myth is a specific folklore genre, alongside genres like legend, jokes, recipes, and traditional games. The hotlist appears to mistake myth as a synonym for folklore, evidently due to colloquial usage of the terms. I still haven’t made, say, templates for the WikiProject, as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarifications

Hello BloodofFox, Although we may not see things eye to eye on the subject. I do feel that, pseudoscience controversy aside, that most of the articles on cryptids are in a state of poor development and have "unbalanced coverage" meaning that many articles do not contain theories from notable scientists on both the skeptic and non-skeptic side. Now what I mean by non-skeptic is that some scientists who are open to the possibility of unidentifiable species (not all of them are cryptozoologists). I was thinking that, if a source is legitimate enough that they can be added to those articles if they are specifically on that particular cryptid. I also wanted to clarify the meaning of the word Cryptid. The word itself means "hidden animal", please read the definition found on the List of cryptids article. In regards to your reference to Reptilian Humanoids, not only are reptilian humanoids a part of mythology and popular culture, but there are several purported humanoids that have reptilian characteristics which classifies them under that particular "category". being a (somewhat) organized person, I like to classify certain cryptids under different categories based on eyewitness testimonies on the physical description: Humanoid (several sub-categories pertaining to characteristics that each one has), Lake Monster, Primate (Also can go under the humanoid sub-cat as hominid), Living dinosaur, Mammal (a wide-ranged category), Abomination (A cryptid that has no characteristics that meet any known animal), Reptile, etc. Hopefully this helps if not (or if there are any questions) please let me know.--Paleface Jack 15:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to read anything more than Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from your comments here. You have now been repeatedly reminded by several editors that Wikipedia does not provide equal time for pseudoscience (once again, WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). Whether you agree or not, cryptozoology quite uncontroversially falls into this category. Wikipedia defaults to the position of mainstream academics. That means zoologists for zoology articles and folklorists for folklore articles.

If you want to contribute to these articles and not simply have your edits in these areas that violate policy washed away (whether tomorrow or over time), you're going to need to rethink your approach. You'll need to turn to reliable sources (WP:RS) in fields relevant to the articles you're editing. If it's folklore, then you should be looking at peer-reviewed works by folklorists. If it's an animal, then you should be consulting the works of zoologists. If you're drawing from cryptozoology sources on these articles and you continue to use cryptozoology-derived approaches, you are both wasting your time and the time of others. There is no dividing line between "skeptics" and "believers" here. That's not the reality of the situation. Additionally, terms used by folklorists like "legend" and "myth" do not mean 'fiction'.

Again, if you're sick of encountering resistance or having your edits in this area consistently reverted and you'd like to turn your approach around to meet Wikipedia guidelines, I can help you get started. It's not too late. Wikipedia needs more editors making solid edits, not less. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I was meaning more around the lines of the formatt/writing style similar to the article on Hoodening. Took me a while to find creditable reporting of this, but I've found some literary sources that suggest that the tagging of cryptozoology with pseudoscience was doe by skeptics and argues it's legitimacy as a science. Although the pseudoscientific tag sort of applies to some of its unevenness. (I don't know if these sources are solid enough but looking around, a lot of the sources arguing for Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience to me have been done by skeptics). http://www.academia.edu/10845682/Cryptozoology_and_Pseudoscience https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-22246-2_26 http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/boing-boing/ -- unsigned comment from Paleface Jack (talk · contribs)

Please take a look at Cryptozoology#Reception_and_criticism, where you'll find harsh criticism of cryptozoology from academics reaching pretty far back. Biologists tend to be particularly brutal about their assessment of cryptozoology, whereas folklorists seem to either just ignore cryptozoology or describe it as a sort of folk belief. Note that pseudoscience adherents frequently refer to non-adherents as "skeptics", it's usually a red flag. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks interesting. Skeptic for me is usually someone who is skeptical of a theory or point of view, not someone who doesn't share the same view..--Paleface Jack 20:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Nine Daughters of Ægir and Rán

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nine_Daughters_of_Ægir_and_Rán&type=revision&diff=831668905&oldid=831456648

You added a sentence beginning with the word "s". What is missing? — Nicholas (reply) @ 07:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Good catch! The sentence was missing a subject. I’ve fixed it. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Flatwoods monster

According to the WVU regional history center, this topic has been covered by folklorists:

• Baker, Amy.  2002.  “The Flatwoods Monster Goes to College” [Dr. Judy Byers, West Virginia Folklife Center, Fairmont State College].  Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 28 (Fall): 62-63.
• Griffith, Buddy.  2002.  “The Legend of the Flatwoods Monster” [Flatwoods, W. Va., supernatural creature; 1952 sightings].  Goldenseal: West Virginia Traditional Life 28 (Fall): 56-61.
• Horner, Kathleen May, informant.  2002.  “The Legend of the Braxton County Monster/Flatwoods Monster.”  Collected by Judy P. Byers and Dennis Deitz.  Traditions: A Journal of West Virginia Folk Culture and Educational Awareness 8: 30-31.
• Moerk, Alice.  2002.  “The Flatwoods Monster: A Musical Drama: Creative Interpretation in Text Form.”  Traditions: A Journal of West Virginia Folk Culture and Educational Awareness 8: 31-32.

If you have access to these journal articles, you may wish to add appropriate content to the article. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)