Jump to content

Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

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" ([1]) 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: [2]. 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)

Please see this write up regarding ongoing efforts to cleanup Wikipedia's coverage of folklore-related articles, in which cryptozoology plays a major role. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"According to Paxton"

@Slatersteven:, you've just added "according to Paxton" to the article ([3]). However, that isn't in my original addition because it's without context for the reader. Please either identify Paxton or remove it from the text. Remember, we're writing for the reader, and this isn't helpful for them. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The one mentioned on page 579 of the book, the source you are using ("according to Paxton (2011) even though the zoological community does not use the word 'cryptid'..."). Even the source says this is one person view, so we should follow suit and say what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The source doesn't say this is 'one person's view', it cites an academic saying it. There's a big difference. Again, we're writing for readers. Again, please identify the source or remove the caveat, as it looks like gibberish to readers. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Err it only cites this person, it does not say how widely held it is. Also I have identified the source, the one you used, all I did was add the caveat the source itself uses. I really do not understand what you are talk about. We cannot put words into sources mouths (say as saying that "Fred said X" means the same as "everyone says X").Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying dropping a last name into a text without context is bad form: it's bewildering to the reader. Anyway, this appears to refer to Charles Paxton, who is an apologetic cryptozoologist. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Not as much as claiming that something is a fact when it is just one academics opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
He is a ecologist and skeptic apparently see https://www.skeptic.org.uk/about/eab/ and he does not self-describe as a cryptozologist see https://twitter.com/CharlesPaxton4 although he writes on it. The relevant cite is Paxton, C.G.M. (2011) Putting the “ology” into cryptozoology. Biofortean Notes 1, 7 - 20. As I have said many times in this forum, informed skeptical writers on this topic do not quite take quite the dim view of it as the more extreme editors here. That's why the tone of this article is so not NPOV. Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Darren Naish says, "In fact, the whole 'science or pseudoscience' issue is so complex with regard to cryptozoology that I don’t think it's possible to make a simple decision one way or another...", but the scientific consensus is that cryptozology is pseudoscience. Lack and Rousseau (2016} write, "Cryptids are the focus of study in cryptozoology, a field most scientists label as pseudoscientific." As Brian Regal wrote in an essay that appeared in Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art, "One of the difficulties faced by cryptozoologists is explaining just what they do and how they go about it. Where zoologists, biologists, botanists, and the like have established methodologies for studying living things and general paradigms for making sense of what they are doing, cryptozoologists as yet do not. Though many practitioners attempt to be as scientific as they can, there are no accepted, uniform, or successful methods of pursuing cryptids." Carlstak (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not really a question of how valid the study is. Whether it's the study of ghosts, cryptids, mythology, folklore, Scientology, etc ... they're about as valid as wrestling. But the people who study them exist, the terms exist, many books are written on the subjects, therefore we explain it here at wikipedia but with the caveat that valid scientific methods are not used. Heck the term cryptid is about to be entered into law in the state of Washington. So we explain who these people are and what they believe here in this article, and we explain what type of creatures are considered cryptids over at List of cryptids. That's pretty much it on the front except for any individual creature that has its own article because of notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, yeah, per a buffet of policies, the "validity" of the study greatly influences how topics are presented on Wikipedia, from global warming denialism to flat earth theory (most notably WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, in this case). You've been reminded of these policies many times. And what's this about "Heck the term cryptid is about to be entered into law in the state of Washington"? The bill you're talking about didn't happen in 2017, we'll see what happens in 2018. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
HUGE difference between the items you mentioned. So huge it's humorous. As for being reminded, you've been reminded about your hatred for anything crypto-related and your blanket non-consensus removal of the article List of cryptids, so you're in the deep weeds of wiki protocol. I'd be wary of reminding editors about wiki policies (of which WP:FRINGE is not a policy). Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Huge differences? Flat earth theory and global warming denialists are on the same footing here on WIkipedia, because they're both overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream scientists. The same goes for cryptozoology. I feel pretty indifferent about anything "anything crypto-related", but if you've got a problem with Wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE or Wikipedia's general approach to WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, you're best served taking them up at their respective talk pages. Find a protocol I've violated and we can talk about it (on my user talk page, rather than clogging up this talk page further). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
For starters you can stop redirecting articles, calling things mergers when it is really a deletion, and calling WP:FRINGE a policy. That might help. But when you start prefacing sentences towards me with "You've been reminded of these many times" when you are hip deep yourself in controversy, it raises eyebrows. And yeah, huge differences. Keep things crypto, truthful, and stop mixing up policies with guidelines, and all will be well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Eh, when editors deal with pseudoscience on Wikipedia, particularly embedded pseudoscience, it's the same situation — you get editors with wacky ideas looking to grasp at straws to maintain their pseudoscience promotional platform (and going to great pains to worm around or split hairs about WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, etc.), confused editors unfamiliar with the topic caught in the middle, and policy-minded editors looking to solve the problem. Same old, same old. Since there's WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, eventually the problem is solved. In the end, editors who don't abide by Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience eventually realize they've wasted a bunch of time trying to get around it, and that their time was really best spent elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
And that policy is very clear that when handling pseudoscience articles we have to be very clear to our readers that it is not true science, and that any "pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." We don't banish things, but we point out so that it's clear to readers that it is a pseudoscience. We have to do that whether it's ghosts, cryptids, mythology, folklore, legends, religion, etc... so that our readers understand what they are reading. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "banish things", but we've definitely got WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, which means we neither adopt pseudoscience POV in article spaces nor do we provide fringe theories undue weight. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
And I'm not sure what you mean. As your UNDUE link says "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." Same with cryptozoology, list of cryptids, ghosts, folklore, etc... Every time I read one of your links it all fits well as long as it is explained that it isn't a science. There is no problem here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The headline proposal is about the merge of the List into the main article. In the course of the discussion, other issues have been raised as well, but they should concern us only to the extent that they affect the orientation and the outcome of the process.
The claim of lack of sources has been raised. The claim can trivially be confirmed since many items have indeed been listed without proper attribution. Naturally, what to do is not a matter for debate: Either proper sourcing is cited or the unreferenced items are to be deleted outright.
The question of the subject's scientific validity has also been tabled, in the context of a possible violation of WP:FRINGE. There is once again some confusion between presentating pseudoscience and supporting pseudoscience: The article "Cryptozoology" is as explicit as it can get about the subject being part of the pseudoscience pantheon, so that no reasonable argument can be made about the article promoting fringe theories, nor one about the List.
The issue of sources, in general, is important, in every article concerning subjects that the community has confirmed as being part of the pseudoscientific canon, e.g. ones on Cryptozoology. Per WP:FRIND, the best sources to use when describing fringe theories are independent reliable sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. As long as the content in the article and the List is presented according to that guideline, there can be no violation of WP:FRINGE. (Therefore, any item, in either text, that is presented without following WP:FRIND is to be deleted outright.) Again, we should not be confusing promotion with presentation.
The main proposal can be examined on the basis of the above, then. Should a stand-alone list of "cryptids" exist in Wikipedia or should any such list be merged into "Cryptozoology"?
Guided by WP:MERGEREASON, we see that there is no duplication, no overlap, no issue about context, nor a case of a very short page, unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time. We also note, guided by the same information page that states established practice, that, following a merge, the resulting article would be too long or clunky. Finally, the List meets the WP:CSC criteria; in particular, it satisfies the criterion for encyclopedic and topical relevance, since users interested in the specific branch of the Cryptozoology pseudoscience would quite obviously be interested in the specific objects of this kind of self-proclaimed research. (Some of these arguments have been largely made by participants in the discussion.) The outcome then, can only be, to Retain as separate Wikipedia entries the List and the main article but with caveats: The first is that every listed item must be properly sourced, as already specified, and the second is that in case the list dwindles down to a small number of items, such as 5-6 (e.g. see AfD discussions about the List of housing cooperatives in Canada), a Merge into an appropriate section of the main article would evidently be the best course of action. The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I propose that the article List of cryptids be merged into Cryptozoology. As has been noted by Bloodofox over on Talk:List of cryptids, the List of cryptids page may present unjustified promotion of fringe theories, and the majority of cryptids included in the list are unsupported by independent reliable sources. I feel that the "Definition" section, along with perhaps the "Eberhart's classification" subsection, of the List of cryptids article should be integrated into the Cryptozoology page. In regards to the latter element, I think we should consider if devoting such a subsection to Eberhart's definitions would be placing undue weight on his authority. The actual list of cryptids itself can be limited to a section in Cryptozoology under a heading like "List of notable cryptids", only including those whose status as such can be supported by multiple verifiable sources. –Matthew - (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

These four editors are by far the most active editors on Wikipedia on the topic of folklore and overlapping pseudosciences like cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
It's canvassing no matter how you slice it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Have you taken the time to read WP:CANVAS? See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, for example. I've had disagreement with all of these editors in the past, for one. Second, like I said, they're all by far the most active on these and related topics on the site. Finally, if I recall correctly, only LuckyLouie previously voted on a proposal relating to this topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't care who you've had disagreements with, it's canvassing when you leave out the last merge people which happened only a couple months ago. Anyone closing needs to take this into account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
So where does it say that in WP:CANVAS, exactly? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
You mean where does it talk about bias? When we have an editor who has been biased in the past, admonished by administrators for being biased about List of Cryptids, has tried to remove the topic in the past without any consensus... and then they link several editors from folklore without linking anyone from the recent failed merge on this same topic... you can bet people will think canvassing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Fyunck, it seems to me that you're making up things as you go along, and I doubt it's helping your case. I get that you've got your heart set on this list remaining exactly as it is, but so do (and so have) a lot of other fringe advocates for a lot of promotional stuff about fringe on this site (which is we have guidelines like WP:FRIND and WP:PROFRINGE). Like the rest of us, you're expected to stick to Wikipedia guidelines and policies when you're dealing with fringe and pseudoscience stuff. Shouting "canvasing!" and being unable to back it up with anything in WP:CANVAS doesn't dispel that. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I don't want this list remaining as is. I want the individual creatures sourced as cryptids/cryptozoological beasts. No source for that term and it should be gone. Could it be merged, of course it could be, but it would be a long article. Your canvassing and your bias against the entire topic as has been proven in the past over and over again, so your motives are extremely dubious on this subject. But anyone can look that up at the talk page and archives at List of Cryptids, so this discussion is pointless. I think this long list warrants an article of its own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Like anywhere else, if you can find sources that meet WP:FRIND, then we can use them. However, you can't, and that's because they simply don't exist. Myself and other editors have looked. Where they exist, we've built articles around them. As I point out above, academics note that cryptozoologists fixate on the same group of entities from the folklore record over and over again. In their Abominable Science, Prothero and Loxton dedicate a chapter to each: the Bigfoot-yeti complex, Nessie and what cryptozoologists deem to be Nessie-like creatures, and the notorious Mokele-Mbembe. Add chupacabras to the mix and there you have it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
But you have to take their biases into account. You would expect them not to discuss reptilians, since most of them probably are reptilians and don't want the secret to get out. Agricolae (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): As stated in my proposal, I suggested that List of cryptids be merged into Cryptozoology, not the other way around. –Matthew - (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - while at first look the list appears too long to merge, a closer look shows the list includes not only cryptids as defined on Cryptozoology, but also an odd and seemingly arbitrary mix of extinct animals and urban legends (or their rural equivalents), plus at least one conspiracy theory, and this essentially represents a content fork. Better to trim, then harness them. Agricolae (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • at a minimum, each member of the list needs a source indicating that reliable sources consider it part of the "cryptozoology" sphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The list of cryptids article seems to include anything that anyone claims is a cryptid. Just by going through several of the articles linked, I've found a few that have no mention of cryptids, or cryptozoology—there's no source on the list article that claims these things are cryptids, and no source on the specific article stating it's a cryptid. That list violates several policies, particularly WP:FRIND and WP:OR. Perhaps the reason that article is so poorly sourced is because independent, reliable sources don't discuss cryptozoology in depth. If that's the case, then that material should not be on wikipedia. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • NOTE - I just let the List of cryptids talk page folks know about this merge request. Perhaps they'll think it's a good fit to have everything in one giant pot, or perhaps not. Either way the talk page has been notified and the previous merge and deletion participants at that talk page have also been pinged. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A friendly reminder: after many threads on the question, for better or worse, there is no consensus that cryptozoology sources are unreliable for verifying that something is considered a cryptid (i.e. when not being used to make a scientific claim). The list is too long to merge, is a notable stand-alone list, etc. I don't have it in me to rehash what has already been said in countless talk page threads, discussions of blankings, merge requests, AfDs, noticeboards, etc. Debating whether to take it off my watchlist because it's just exhausting to see one side (typically bloodofox, whose battleground approach to this page I've found problematic for a long time) taking every possible angle to try to nuke the page while others keep adding OR and garbage sources to it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Note this version of this vote, where the editor evidently opposes the vote simply because he thinks I proposed it. He realizes his error, then slightly modifies it to the vote above. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Kindly strike the above nonsense. I undid because I wrote a comment worded as though you proposed it, realized you didn't, then rewrote it. If it were you who proposed it, I would say "see all the many, many past threads where I've responded to your arguments to nuke the page". As it wasn't, I've elaborated a bit. As much as I think you take an exhausting battleground approach to the list (for example this effort to discredit my !vote despite years of commenting on this article), it's not all about you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can click the diff. Both versions focus squarely on me, but protest votes are not the way to improve the project. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The point is you are not owed a thorough response every time you renew your efforts to kill the list. Anyone can likewise click through the dozens of other threads on the same subject you initiated and/or dominated, where you have presented the same arguments, and where I replied in more detail (but more briefly summarized above). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Once again, I didn't make this proposal. I'll thank you to please drop your endless fixation on me and stick to the topic at hand. We're here to build articles, not grind axes. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. My god, that goofball "List of Cryptids" page is an abomination. Merge it with this one, removing the superfluous text that dignifies all the nonsense (i.e., most of the page). Carlstak (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (Repeat last time) Oppose merge, but clean up the crypids - eg Japanese wolf should not be there, being neither cryptic nor legendary, just extinct. A new list of possibly-not-recently-extinct-after-all animals might be split off (but only recent extinctions, so alleged but unconfirmed Lazarus taxons). That's a very different situation. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Which is (bizarrely) the conversation that led to this merge proposal, the idea that the list needed some tidying up by removing unsourced material.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course, as we've seen, there exists no sources that meet WP:FRIND for about 95% of the extant list entries. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Bunyip - Canberra Times. Beast of Bladenboro - Published Book, and anther published book. These have just not been properly sourced, which they must be in this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, I've tumbled into an alternative reality where the very poorly sourced "List of Cryptids" is seen by some otherwise respectable editors as fit for an encyclopedia. Its scanty sources include The Journal of Scientific Exploration, a pseudo-journal published by the Society for Scientific Exploration, which, according to Kendrick Frazier, Editor of Skeptical Inquirer, publishes "scholarly" articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. The tiny portion of reliably sourced content can easily be merged into this one. Carlstak (talk)
As I said the last time, this is why I come to Wikipedia. If I want facts I use books. What I want is articles and lists about twaddle so I do not have to waste time I might otherwise spend reading sensible stuff. This is just what Wikipedia should be about, the information you do not find is proper encyclopedias (indeed why I would argue it was set up, to end academic control of knowledge).Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename the list to List of folklore creatures or something similar, and remove all entries that don't have stand-alone Wikipedia articles. I'd support a merge if the list is short, but in this case merging would make the target article far too large and unwieldy, especially for a topic like this. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    FWIW, there exists Lists of legendary creatures. Also, merging this list into the article would necessitate pruning (something that I think just about everyone agrees the list needs), and so it wouldn't be as long as it is now. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    It seems to me that pruning would be minimal. Most of the entries have Wikipedia articles. If you remove the ones that don't, and the ones that aren't really "cryptids", then you still have a very long list. As the list stands, it's a good list of creatures having a folklore background (which is different than "legendary") which is why I support renaming. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
"Most of these entries have Wikipedia articles", true, but those articles also make no mention of cryptozoology and no WP:FRIND sources exist to back their appearance on this list. Additionally, some of these entities stem from fiction, conspiracy theories, or the fossil record. To get an idea about the "criteria" for what led to this list, compare, for example, this and, after receiving scrutiny, this. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've been through this merger discussion multiple times before. The consensus has always been in favor of keeping the article. I seriously don't know why people keep on pushing this. Doesn't make any sort of sense. We should be focusing on what on the list should or shouldn't be classified as a "cryptid".--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This user has engaged in off-site lobbying regarding this topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Apparently, I've tumbled into an alternative reality where the very poorly sourced "List of Cryptids" is seen by some otherwise respectable editors as fit for an encyclopedia. Its scanty sources include The Journal of Scientific Exploration, a pseudo-journal published by the Society for Scientific Exploration, which, according to Kendrick Frazier, Editor of Skeptical Inquirer, publishes "scholarly" articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. The tiny portion of reliably sourced content can easily be merged into this one. Carlstak (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There are now more mainstream sources that dismiss “Cryptid” as a pseudoscientific concept than there were when this list was created. I feel for those who maintain “cryptozoology is an acceptable source for what is a Cryptid” but the problem is, ‘’everything and anything’’ can call itself cryptozoology, and no one can distinguish between Bernard Heuvelmans and crypto-mystery.org. So we have a list that includes myths and nonsense alongside longstanding CZ beliefs. This needs a solution, and a merge and culling is a good start. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, but to Lists of legendary creatures#cryptids. New to this discussion (saw at ANI) and no horse (unicorn?) in the race, but it seems the inherent issue here is that the proponents of the idea of cryptids treat it as science, while the opponents treat it as folklore. Yet, all cryptids are legendary creatures, with a place in our cultural history that can be easily sourced through texts, but not all legendary creatures are considered cryptids. My suggested merge acknowledges that there is a subset of folklore creatures that is treated differently by some, but keeps everything that isn't sourced with scientific vigor, in one place. Now we just have a merge and format problem. I think the list can be merged for now en masse onto a new section Lists of legendary creatures#cryptids, below the current alphabetical lists, and the cryptozoology article can be edited to point to this list in a more visible way than just as a "see also" entry. I kind of like the table format and wish the Lists of legendary creatures article was the same way, with a photo for the entries, but that's an editing chore. Until an enterprising editor (or editors) can make the list formats consistent, they would sit on the same page. How to handle duplicates? One idea - add the phrase (cryptid) to each relevant entry in the various alphabetical lists, which would link to the cryptozoology article? If all the entries were turned into a table, the cryptid field could be sortable. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
We've previously had a merge discussion regarding merging it in with Lists of legendary creatures, but it didn't pass. Another issue to consider here is that many of these entities stem entirely from the folklore record, but some come from the fossil record. Additionally, since this is an obscure pseudoscience, bringing this stuff out of the cryptozoology sphere inevitably raises issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:ONEWAY. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd be curious to see that discussion. If there's a fossil record for a cryptid, then they aren't folklore or pseudoscience anymore, right? Would they then still technically qualify as cryptids as defined in this discussion? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no technical definition of a cryptid as you are trying to apply. The List page gives an extensive lists of the types of things that might qualify, but this is just one person's opinion. Basically, a cryptid is simply any legend/myth/fossil/recently extinct/hoax/conspiracy theory/alien life form any self-declared cryptozoologist is interested in and/or personally thinks may still roam the planet, but which is not accepted as an extant organism by the scientific community. That makes 'technically qualify' a non-sequitur. If there is a fossil, then the existence of the species is not pseudoscience, but its classification as a cryptid (implying survival beyond the time period accepted by mainstream science) often is pseudoscience nonetheless. Agricolae (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Agricolae. If anyone can declare themselves part of cryptozoology, then anything can be defined as a cryptid (e.g. "slenderman") - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can we just keep this focused on the merger for now?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the inclusion criteria for the list have always been relatively undefined, essentially amounting to "anything with an article ever mentioned by a cryptozoologist" as well as "anything fitting this particular cryptozoologist's criteria as 'under the cryptozoological umbrella'." It's allowed the list to balloon almost endlessly to include known hoaxes, folklore, mythology, and ancient reports, while a list of subjects described by reliable sources as "cryptids" would be a fraction of the size and be easily included on the cryptozoology page. --tronvillain (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support In general list of X articles add little of value that couldn't be better used in a more complete article on the subject. The fact that this is, being kind, a list of folkloric story characters, doesn't do anything to improve its independent notability. Merge per WP:DUE Simonm223 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there are a lot of cryptids out there, and cryptozoology as a subject could use a lot more coverage than it has now. Keep the two articles, in hopes that someday a knowledgeable editor can expand wikipedia's coverage of the subject. Cryptozoology might be a pseudoscience, but it is also very popular.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm choosing to interpret, "there are a lot of cryptids out there," as, "the monster in the woods / in the lake / on the tundra is a common folkloric trope," and you'd certainly be correct that's true. But it doesn't follow that Wikipedia needs to include an exhaustive catalog of examples of the trope; that's what TV Tropes is for. We should be discussing how this meme has evolved through history, providing relevant examples as needed. But that's what's going on in the Cryptozoology article already, which renders the list article redundant. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
As I have aid before, this is just want I want Wikipedia for, to provide me with an easy to access list of "the stuff people believe". I want lists of ghost sightings, UFO encounters (with or with out Aryan babes wanting to sire children by inbred farmers), lists of lake monsters ect.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTCATALOG disagrees with you on that. Suggest you go here for your list of stuff needs: [4] Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
You know how many "list" articles there are on Wikipedia?.... countless. Whether it's concerts, book characters, tv episodes, umpires, songs, etc... Many of the individual things on lists have never been notable, but together they are notable as a list. Consensus is far and away to keep lists, and this is just another list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It may be popular (I myself find cryptozoology interesting), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be subjected to scrutiny as a pseudoscience. As a pseudoscience, we should strive to give information presented in cryptozoology-related articles due weight per WP:PSCI, and this List of cryptids can be shortened and integrated into the Cryptozoology article. Many of the cryptids currently on the list are not even supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources, and that's clearly a major problem. –Matthew - (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can I also ask that we only discus merger with this article, anything else only confuses the issue and makes it hard to determine consensus. Any renaming suggestions should be made at the list of Cryptids. and merges with any other pages should be discuses at those pages, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
You can ask, but if someone has a better way to addresses the concerns raised with the page while still satisfying those who want no change, I would rather that possibility be part of the discussion, so that we can perhaps (I know, wishful thinking) arrive at the best solution rather than just the least inferior of the original two options raised (or worse, another 'no consensus'). Agricolae (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
For the purposes of this discussion, a "Rename" or something similar would pres umably be an "Oppose" unless subsequently clarified along the lines of "or a merge". --tronvillain (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It would all be merged, but it would still need a massive amount of sourcing. If Cryptozoologists don't discuss these critters then they should never have been added to this list to begin with. The last deletion discussion was a snowball keep, so that's out. Whether it's located separately or all together in one article is all we are determining. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
A proposal for a partial merger (as so many mergers are) is still a merge proposal. --tronvillain (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@ApLundell: This is most certainly not a motion for deletion. As stated in my proposal, I'm suggesting that List of cryptids be merged into Cryptozoology. Essentially, any verifiable information currently present on List of cryptids and not on Cryptozoology should be added to Cryptozoology, and the list of cryptids itself should be limited to one well-sourced section within the Cryptozoology article. –Matthew - (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly support merge I did not initially support this proposal because I thought that, even though cryptozoology is obviously bunk, it was still notable enough for us to have a "List of cryptids." My initial view was that the list merely needed to be cleaned up, sorted out, and everything removed that was not cited to reliable, scholarly sources. There are scholarly sources written about what fringe theorists believe, so I thought that keeping a highly revised version of the list was reasonable. However, I have given this a great deal of thought and I have now come to the conclusion that the list is unwarranted, but for entirely different reasons than what Bloodofox and MatthewHoobin have already enumerated above.
The problem I have with the article "List of cryptids" is summed up in this question: "What exactly would go in the article 'List of cryptids' if we kept it?" Fundamentally speaking, the definition of the word "cryptid" is "a creature that some proponents of cryptozoology believe in but whose existence is not accepted by mainstream science." We could also define it as "any hypothetical creature whose existence is unverified." The problem is that both of those definitions are far too broad for us to make a definitive list on the subject because there will always be so-called "cryptids" that people come up with that are too new or too obscure for us to know about.
Having a "List of cryptids" is like having a "List of imaginary animals"; quite simply, the fact that they are imaginary means that people will always be coming up with new ones and that it is impossible to catalogue all of them in any manner resembling a comprehensive approach. An encyclopedic list can only be made on a subject that is finite, such as List of Mesopotamian deities, List of Greek mythological figures, List of valkyrie names, or even List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events, because, in all those areas, while the number of entries may be vast or even growing, at any given time, the number of entries belonging there is finite. Boiled down: the number of cryptids that could possibly exist is infinite. That makes it impossible for us to list them all encyclopedically.
Furthermore, from casually looking around, while I have found reputable sources discussing cryptozoology itself, I am not finding any reputable sources specifically listing individual cryptids like our article currently does. I think that, really, in order to have a case here, we would need to find at least one academic source that attempts to list notable cryptids and, as far as I am currently aware, no such source exists. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Technically, lists don't have to be complete if (WP:CSC) Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. The relevant consideration here is probably WP:LSC, which says Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. Relatively few of the entries on the list of cryptids would meet this, which is what makes it possible to merge the rest into Cryptozoology itself. --tronvillain (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that's only one criteria for lists. We also have lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. That is what this list is also about. Now the good thing is we can probably source most of the list per cryptozoology, just like Dilbert characters, but they do need to be sourced. There are many many lists like this at wikipedia. However whether we want the list to be included at the parent article is the discussion. It was deemed by a snowball that we keep the list just a couple months ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
But this brings us back to the same problem. There is no reliable source for Dilbertology that is going to do more than list a few of the main characters. All the rest are dependent on Dilbertologists digging through the primary record and deciding for themselves which characters they think should be there. The result is an arbitrary list based on each editor's personal criteria, mostly uncited with most of the cites that are there representing original research. Yeah, let's emulate that - or have we already? Agricolae (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
We don't want them uncited. There are Dilbert books where characters are found, and posting those to a Dilbert character article is fine. We have lists of Nirvana concert dates too. No one complains and the articles are no big deal.... EXCEPT anything cryptozoology related. It's unfair to the consensus on these articles at wikipedia. We have lists of non-notable Grand Slam tennis chair umpires. Very tough to source and no articles for any of them individually, but it serves a purpose. And it's not arbitrary if the items in question can be found in published works, be it news, magazine or books. These creatures had better be listed in one of those or we should throw it out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): It seems like you're implying that there is some sort of conspiracy going on to target cryptozoology-related articles on Wikipedia. I can assure you that, for me, that is not my intention. The reason that I suggested this merger proposal is because I feel that such a merger would be an improvement on the current state of things, and also, I find cryptozoology interesting. I have no personal interest in Dilbert, Nirvana concert dates, or umpires, and so I'm not involved with those topics. If someone wants to go clean up those articles, then they're more than welcome to do so. –Matthew - (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@MatthewHoobin: Not you in particular, but there has been recently where administration had to step in to fix things. I have no quarrel with it being merged into a single article, I just disagree. Usually when a list on a main article gets too big you split it off to create a separate article, not the other way around. We already merged "Cryptid" into "List of cryptids", to me those items belong in this separate article. The article a couple months ago was important enough for a snowball keep, so it can't be a sidestep to deletion. A sidestep was tried another time with a different merge request and also failed. So do I think that's the aim of some here again... yes I do, so I'll be watching for that closely whether it stays or gets merged. I don't like shenanigans when they go on at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
That there was consensus to not merge to List of legendary creatures is irrelevant to merging to Cryptozoology. --tronvillain (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I completely understand that discussions and disagreements on Wikipedia can be frustrating, but we have to keep in mind that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. Per WP:PSCI, it has to be subjected to a certain level of scrutiny in order to ensure that information therein is given due weight. –Matthew - (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Undue weight when talking anything science related, I agree. It's not science. It's fantasy like ghosts, mythology, Game of Thrones, folklore, Dilbert, tv show characters, etc. We make sure readers know it is a pseudoscience when creating such lists. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, you seem to be conflating and expressing confusion about some key concepts here. The umbrella of folklore includes subjects like recipes, jokes, and games, as well as topics like ghosts and genres like myth. Pseudoscience is when stuff like ghost hunting or Young Earth creationism is presented as science by proponents, which is where WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE come into play. You'd help your case by getting your concepts straight. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you left out mythology. But essentially you are correct with "presented as science." Don't present it as science and all is well. The problems arise when we have a science article on Earth geology and pseudoscience wants to jump in with all their ridiculous theories. That's fringe, that's undue weight, that's what we don't want. A couple articles on crypto-crud and the beasts they like to talk about is just fine when presented as such and nothing more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
"Left out mythology"? Take a closer look at that response. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Not entirely fair. I'm in favour of merge on the grounds that I am a bit hardline on WP:NOTCATALOG and have expressed that opinion elsewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Fyunck(click): You may want to take note of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have a list of something does not necessarily mean we should. Furthermore, in all the cases you have listed, the number of items belonging on the list is finite. The number of Dilbert characters is limited by how many of them Scott Adams creates; whereas with cryptids, anyone can invent a new one at any time in any place for any reason and anyone can go hunting for them. Furthermore, in the case of folkloric creatures that cryptozoologists have hijacked as "cryptids," there is the problem of demarcation: Which of them are "cryptids" and which of them are not? Are unicorns "cryptids"? How about leprechauns? Pixies? All of those are creatures from traditional folklore that, at least at various times in the past, many people seriously believed in. It is certainly plausible that someone today might think they are real and go hunting for them, but none of them are currently listed at List of cryptids. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fyunck(click), you realize that the criteria for lists like Dilbert characters is "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria", right? Though with Dilbert characters it's "most" rather than "every", which may or may not be problematic. This is not an analogous list - there is no canon strip which could in principle be combed through to verify the existence of an entry, and regardless, Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item" still applies. --tronvillain (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned Dilbert, but there are probably thousands. And we do need inline sources, I didn't say otherwise. I don't think many of those thousands have the inline citations, but they should. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can we stop commenting on users please, it adds nothing to the debate. If you have a complaint about a user take it to their talk page or report them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (partial): List of cryptids, despite its name, is not actually a list of cryptids - it includes all kinds of legendary, mythological, folkloric, anecdotal, misidentified, etc creatures. Obviously it makes no sense whatsoever to merge all of that into this article, since the vast majority of it is not relevant to cryptozoology and would have to be deleted. From reading the arguments here, I get the sense that that's the point of this proposal: editors are so frustrated with the disagreements and slow progress on that article that they've concluded deletion is the best course of action. Personally, I absolutely do think this article should include a brief overview of the notable cryptids, but what to do about the rest of list of cryptids is an entirely separate issue and has nothing to do with this page. It should be discussed there, more comprehensively. -- bornLoser (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Why the hell has this not be closed yet? How long do we need?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC) And 2 months later, why the hell is still open?Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a request for closure on the admin noticeboard as of today. --tronvillain (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
No one's answered the request for closure yet I guess. --tronvillain (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor terminology improvements

In the section Terminology, history, and approach, a few changes were made, as follows:

  • Struck "colleagues" from the introduction of Bernard Heuvelmans & Sanderson, in the paragraph about the origin of the term "cryptozoology" ("cryptozoology originates from the works of colleagues Bernard Heuvelmans, a Belgian zoologist, and Ivan T. Sanderson"), since the pair were not colleagues in all their works.
  • Amended sentence about origin of the title term (from "The term cryptozoology dates from cryptozoologist circles from" to "The term cryptozoology dates from"), since those who invented the term "cryptozoology" cannot already have been cryptozoologists.
  • Changed letter from cap to lower case ("in the Summer summer issue of the International Society of Cryptozoology newsletter") according to MOS:SEASON.
  • Replaced loaded word ("hunt") with common one ("search") in "In their hunt search for these entities, cryptozoologists may employ").

Also tagged paragraph for the need of citations. -The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go over that, The Gnome. I've removed the citation request because it is in fact referenced—the entire paragraph is cited to the reference provided at the end of the paragraph (Loxton, Daniel and Donald Prothero. 2013. Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids, p. 304-305.). :bloodofox: (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That's just fine, :bloodofox:. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicki Park and the Canadian Encyclopedia

So, recently Fyunck has been adding here and elsewhere quoting this definition of the term cryptid from a rather poor entry on Sasquatch in the Canadian Encyclopedia:

"Sasquatch is a cryptid — a creature whose existence is suggested, but has not yet been confirmed by the scientific community." ([5])

Not only is this exactly how cryptozoologists define themselves and not at all how independent sources define the term, the Canadian Encyclopedia article does not at any point mention that cryptozoology is a psuedoscience. The entry is authored by Nicki Thomas, about whom we're provided no information other than that she's authored three other totally unrelated entries for the Canadian Encyclopedia ([6]). In our article, this definition is presented alongside an entry by the Oxford English Dictionary, the English language's most esteemed dictionary. This is undue emphasis on cryptozoologist self-definition. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, the reference has been in the Cryptozoology article for quite awhile. The reference was only deleted just yesterday for some reason. I assumed an error, but it is now clear it was no error. It was a deliberate removal of an encyclopedia source because someone doesn't like it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
That source hasn't been on this article for a very long time, if ever. When did you think you added this dubious source, exactly? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I re-added it right after you deleted it yesterday. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Care to provide a diff of me removing it? It appears from the article's history that you just added it. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see, it was a part of a note ([7]), and you expanded it to make it more prominent in the article ([8]). Welp, if you think it's reliable, you'd be doing yourself a favor by engaging in discussion as to why, as it sure doesn't look reliable after I checked it out, and an edit war isn't going to get you anywhere (especially when you decide to remove uncontroversially reliable material while reinstating Thomas's entry—not a good look). Was it you who introduced this dubious source to begin with? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
No it was not him [[9]], you could have bothered to check this yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
See below. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
So @The Gnome: why did you add this, is it an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Who are they?Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Now I also see what happened. This was originally on the List of cryptids article and someone (The Gnome I think) merged some contents into Cryptozoology with no accreditation or acknowledgement of where it came from, who wrote it, etc... that could actually be against wikipedia policy. Then bloodofox deleted it. That type of thing should never happen, but it may not be BFs fault in not having noticed the bad error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Was it you who originally added it to list of cryptids? I can't recall at this point. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Why not look, I did here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather ask. If you want to sort through a thousand edits, go ahead. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Then please stop making unsubstantiated accusations you have not conformed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Nor can I, but it could certainly have been me. Yeah, I could have been the one screwed out of both dictionary and encyclopedia credit, since it sounds familiar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I added the OED entry (and nearly everything else on this article), but I would not have added the Canadian Encyclopedia articles for the reason I outline above. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hasty generalization?

I'm not sure if the entire field of cryptozoology can be classified as pseudoscience. Cryptozoologist's claims range from obvious nonsense to theories that could reasonably be true. And I think there are actually cryptozoologists who adhere to scientific conduct (but also examples of the outright opposite). One should not hastily dismiss all claims made by those people, because doing so without one's own scientific evidence would be pseudoscience itself. The tragedy about cryptozoology is that many people spam the world with fake evidence and contrived stories about the alleged creature, no matter if it really exists or not. There are also numerous horror stories about known animals, like wolves, for example - the "big bad wolf" folklore. One the other hand, there are cryptids which are definitely known not to exist, like the slender man, which have nevertheless caused huge hypes. In summary, due to many (but not all) self-declared cryptozoologists uncritically spreading fairy tales and conspiracy theories, we can never say whether they are right or wrong. But that does not mean that everything they claim is nonsense. And the few cryptozoologists which take their subject serious are oftentimes drowned and unheard in these mass hysterias, whatever their result is. In addition, should a cryptozoologist actually proof a cryptid to exist in reality, he/she is no longer a cryptozoologist as the creature is no longer a cryptid.

So: Yes, one has to be very critical about the claims of cryptozoologists. But declaring them as bullshit based only on personal disbelief is not what the scientific community should do. This would not be scientific conduct. --2003:E7:7727:B678:1495:47C1:5F30:F615 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

How would you prove the non-existence of the non-verifiable scientifically? For science and critical thinking, it is more constructive to not assume its existence until evidence exists, as well as to accept evidence that disproves previous hypotheses (which should be falsifiable too). In any case this is not a forum to discuss the topic (WP:NOTFORUM) and the articles should not be based on editor opinions but shoud instead summarize reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:CITE). We also have the WP:PSCI policy about clearly indicating when sources show a topic to be pseudoscience. You are welcome to cite reliable sources to make your point. WP:FIXBIAS contains other suggestions. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Well as far as I know the scientific consensus is that it is pseudoscience. It is telling that most (are there any who are not) are not Professional zoologists or professors of zoology. They tend to be professional cryptozoologists.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
That should be easy to verify, "scientific consensus is that it is pseudoscience", do that and there is nothing more to say. And the discussion of shortcomings in the presentation of this topic is the purpose of the page, that is how articles that are labelled pseudo-science ever got improved; it is a forum for discussion of that. cygnis insignis 12:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Look at the history of this talk page and you will see all the academic sources on this subject. That is because the subject is largely ignored by genuine scientific zoologists (a sign its not take seriously).Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
This has been proven over and over by a couple of zealots on this talk page to their own satisfaction is not a source, it is an example of individual's self righteous indignation that another belief contradicts their own. I have watched similar pages for years, occasionally I put an endorsement when someone points out the what is obvious to a reasonably well informed reader. Some one has a bug stuck in their ear, heard something implausible defended as cryptozoology and has determined that cryptozoology must only be about implausible hypotheses. There is no counter to what actually happened, that the label cryptozoology was appropriated by those promoting their idea. Is is nothing to do with science, those who defend some rigid nineteenth century idea that everything is known and explained in a canon of knowledge determined by some infallible authority. This is not about scientific method and has nothing to do with presentation of facts at wikipedia. My rant, the flaws of which will be seized upon, no doubt, but I have little patience for pseudosceptics and their personal attacks on other users. There is a world outside of wikipedia talk pages, I know a little about both and how to edit sources. Nothing personal in this Slater, excuse where that is not clear. cygnis insignis 14:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a world outside of wikipedia talk pages Indeed, Wikipedia is not the place for that debate, scientific journals or usenet, forum sites, etc, should be. Frivolous name-calling ("pseudoskepticism") also goes against WP:AGF and WP:NPA: discuss the content, not the editors (WP:FIXBIAS for more information). —PaleoNeonate – 14:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
As long as you you are equitable in calling out users who cross that boundary, the article should improve. Is that what you are putting your hand up for, moderating the discussion here to facilitate the article improvement? cygnis insignis 14:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I am one of those who say that the scientific consensus (based upon what the RS say) is that it is a pseudoscience. And your characterization is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Disputing there a scientific consensus in not a PA, some one disagreeing is not a form of negotiable wiki-currency. I respect that it is an article of faith for another flavour of 'believers'. Calling unnamed users pseudo-skeptics is a PA, those I had in mind are not present if that matters, probably not if it gains leverage for an absent consensus. I personally envy believers, for their self assuredness, but not those who seek to root out heresy and use wikipedia to propound what irks them enough to perpetuate discussion until serious editors walk away. The page is an essay, not a wikipedia article. cygnis insignis 15:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
No saying that users are "a couple of zealots" is. I oppose any attempt to change this to say anything other then this is a pseudoscience, and that is my lat post.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I never objected to article improvements here, I only object to leave aside independent sources and the policy on pseudoscience. You still have not proposed a reliable independent source that contradicts that it's pseudoscience. I just did a search here in a directory about pseudoscience and come up with 427 matches for cryptozoology. Assuming that authors like Shermer, Prothero, Regal, Pigliucci, Boundry and Smith are all "faithful pseudoskeptics" (if that even exists) and drop their works about skepticism and pseudoscience, one of those sources is a tertiary encyclopedia, SAGE Encyclopedia of Time, which has a short article. This article is interesting in that it first describes cryptozoology as a mix of biology and anthropology to investigate and attempt to find creatures hypothesized to exist but without evidence of it yet, then mentions cases of old reports about animals which have since been found, like Koala. It then notes that it has acquired a bad reputation as a pseudoscience because of the lack of critical thinking and solid research done by many of its proponents. It also says that it should not include the supernatural (my note: yet in the popular literature finding such associations is not difficult). —PaleoNeonate – 17:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not disparaging published authors, the article's first assertions are not supported by the content. I'm not asserting that anyone who breathes the word is an unreliable source, or that those interested are in a cult, others are referring to the first line of this article as carte blanche to damn any published, respected and utterly uncontroversial author who use a reference cryptozoology in even the most benign and factual way possible. Which field of science determines what is pseudo-science? And a subculture? A subculture of what? Anthropology has its own discord, it is or is not science according to 'anthropologists', and those who claim verifiable results in the field are likely to claim other anthropologists are pseudo-scientists if given the opportunity to print that without repercussions. cygnis insignis 18:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
You said your ramblings about pseudoskepticism, faith or believers were neither about us nor about the source's authors. Then what were they about, and what about this use of zealot? You are an editor was well as we are and can certainly participate to improve the article by editing it, proposing alternative sentences or providing sources, instead of only complaining. You didn't even comment on the source I proposed that may allow changes such as mentions of biology and anthropology and perhaps instead of "is a pseudoscience ..." something similar to "has acquired a bad reputation as a pseudoscience ...<reasons>", etc. As for the subculture, I think that it relates to the popular culture surrounding it, including sensationalist TV shows (a bit like for the UFO subculture). Various authors refer to it as a culture or subculture, or focus on its American cultural aspects. —PaleoNeonate – 00:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
A trend that locks articles, "pseudo-science" is little more than a cudgel and license to bypass regular process. I'm commenting on zealotry, but I had a couple of users in mind and vented on their actions. Do you wnt me to name them, it won't be helpful. Who are you speaking for, who is "us"? This is what I am opposed to on similar articles, an "us and them" approach. I didn't comment on what I already know, and I am not proposing to edit it. There is nothing stopping you, as a wikipedia editor, from correcting an absolute assertion yourself, with your source. Popular culture is a subculture? cygnis insignis 06:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I have led the discussion somehow away from the topic of the article. I wanted to point out that some formulations in the article give me as the reader the impression that cryptozoology is generally some sort of 'chasing rainbows'. What would be a very premature conclusion, because the extent to which we can rule out the existence of the cryptids varies among them. And in fact, there have been true scientists working on such theories, e.g. there were sonar searches for "Nessie" (which found no evidence for its existence). And there are certainly psychologists who are interested in the social phenomena around cryptozoology (like 'Why do people believe in the Bigfoot?'). I'm not a "friend" of cryptozoology in general, rather someone who asks 'Do we really know everything we think we know?', and I try to see such theories from a neutral and logical point of view.

I also can't rule out that my perception of an overtly critical article is distorted somehow, and that the descriptions are actually perfectly fine. I'm on the autism spectrum and sometimes interpret such things differently from most others, although I don't really know why. And my social skills aren't that great in addition (which would explain if my previous post was somehow offensive or out of line). I basically know Wikipedia Talk Page rules, but struggle at times with realizing if I'm right now sticking to them or not...

What I definitely didn't want is starting a heated unobjective debate, if this should be the case here. If I am being a troll here it's right now unintentional. --2003:E7:7727:B648:B182:B73B:453E:15D2 (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for my part, the perspective is well rounded, coherent and not in the least objectionable to me. cygnis insignis 03:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I have stumpled over an interesting theory that tries to explain many telltales about cryptid animals. Instead of insisting on the present-day existence of those creatures, the theory claims that they are leftovers of a cultural memory about now-extinct species that humans have met millenia ago. For instance, the ebu gogo and related small cryptid apes in indonesia are claimed to be telltales about encounters with Homo floresiensis (or Homo luzonensis??) some 50000 years ago. And all bigfoot-like cryptids shall be cultural memories about gigantopithecus, perhaps mixed with misidentified bears (or, in case of the Yowie, kangaroos). Is this cryptozoology? I guess so. I've read about this theory in articles which appeared 'half-scientific' to me, but no serious scientific papers. A partially accepted theory is that of the poukai in New Zealand being identical to Haast's eagle.
I just wanted to show that many people try to explain the 'sightings' of weird surreal creatures, and they take various approaches from different disciplines of science and pseudoscience. It's more than just a subculture of crackpots. --2003:E7:7727:B606:B8A3:AE38:4E5C:6714 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that is akin to something I read that suggests that we try to fill in the blanks, the diversity of other animals that any thoughtful animal would expect to have around. I'll try to remember where that was. cygnis insignis 03:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
When it comes to Mokele-mbembe, Nessie or dragons, the theory you are talking about becomes what you called "obvious nonsense". It would mean that early humans still witnessed live dinosaurs, which science agrees upon is absurd. In this case it's more likely that humans found dinosaur bones which fuelled their fantasy. Maybe it was the same with Homo floresiensis. 50000 or 100000 years of verbally transmitted information sounds rather unlikely from a scientific point of view, and if it occured it probably got modified a lot over time, so it will be largely counter-factual nowadays. Which means your theory fits well into the field of cryptzoology. Haast's eagle is different as it is just a couple of centuries ago, a much more realistic story.
The more generalized theory mentioned by cygnis insignis is familiar to me. It says like: We are uncomfortable with knowing (nearly) everything in the world, we still seek mysterious places and unexplainable phenomena, and we pull them out of our fantasy when they are no longer in the outside world. (Not that we really know everything, but the universe has lost much of its "magic" during the last centuries. Which then would explain increased interest in cryptozoology, ufology and so.) I think this is a point of view from psychologists which has a relatively high reputation among scientists. But this theory essentially makes cryptozoologists crackpots again. --130.83.182.66 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That is not the theory I was referring to. The article, to me, ought be about cryptozoology, not cryptozoologists, not some crass reaction to sources that has users damning some sources and elevating others, with sweeping generalisations, and a reversal of the credential mongering that the "sub-culture" of "crack-pots" (or 'fellow travellers') are accused of doing. cygnis insignis 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

wp:or and wp:forum

Please read wp:or and wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This was not a reply to one user (the clue is ion the indentation), this thread is getting a tad to ORy and forumy. We should only be talking about how to improve the article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Yes, I remember, I think my comments relate to the improvement of the article, I'm outlining how it is essay-like and mis-focused on serving heavy-handed actions elsewhere. There is an obvious fallacy in the premises that are used to remove content that is otherwise unobjectionable. cygnis insignis 16:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
And you are not the only person commenting here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I suppose other can join this discussion, but it seems to be tangential to the main thread. And not relevant if my contention is halfway correct, more a distraction that made it difficult to insert a response, so I gave it a subsection. How are you today? Serious question, are you looking for something to do or someone to interact with. I've said you can say hello elsewhere. cygnis insignis 16:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Also this is not about me, so how I am is irrelevant (and a distraction, please stop). My point was this thread was drifting into a discussion about the subject, not the article. I asked users to keep focused.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note, some of the comments I was replying to have been moved to another section.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's difficult to discuss this topic without getting lost in theories and theories over theories. But the word pseudoscience is generally a matter of debate, not only relating to cryptozoology but also other "pseudoscientific" fields, e.g. homeopathy or (already mentioned in article) ufology and ghost hunting. It seems more appropriate to regard science-like things on a spectrum ranging from hard-proven science to outright fraud or crackpottery. On this spectrum, most of cryptozoology is closer to the latter end than to the former, although it may still contain some truth. A common phenomenon is that pseudoscientific claims are prone to logical fallacies, but when trying to reject a pseudoscientific claim, one easily falls into logical fallacy traps oneself, like the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". And discussions for vs. against such claims often become emotion-laden and unobjective from both sides, effectively preventing people from finding a consense (beware if you answer to this thread!). By that definition, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. Although that word sounds like an insult. --2003:E7:7727:B652:5124:1536:AC33:DC07 (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, so if no RS say this is not a pseudoscience we cannot say it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
If a source uses the term without stating that it is a pseudoscience, it is not reliable … according to those who believe it is. If I make several thousands of edits to the RS noticeboard, am I then qualified to determine which sources are reliable? cygnis insignis 12:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
No, the community does, it is not the number of posts you make, it is the number of other users who agree with you. And a source not saying something is not the same as a source saying it is not something (the sea it wet, not matter how many sources that discus the sea fail to mention it is wet). So I take it form the above, that no you have not one RS that says this is not a pseudoscience.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
According to what I said above, I could not have a reliable source. cygnis insignis 12:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Then this whole thread is pointless, as without an RS no change can be made.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Or could it be that the point I was making has been missed? cygnis insignis 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for distracting from my side. I have re-read the article and its counterpart in the German Wikipedia. The point is not really if cryptozoology is a pseudoscience - it is, given its similarity with many other subjects dubbed "pseudosciences". The problem is rather that the English article tends to argue from fallacy, saying that because cryptozoologists almost universally make methodical errors, their claims must be false. In some cases the "crypto" theories indeed have self-invalidating tendencies (a population of large plesiosaurs in a relatively small lake??), but this is not always the case. Yeah, and there are scientific frauds and counter-rational ideologies within this "subculture". But in general, proposing a new yet-unknown animal or plant is not a fraud or crackpottery, otherwise theories like the fifth force were to be treated the same way. Lastly, how relevant is the connection to creationists, which is cited multiple times?
The German article - although much shorter - tries to be more neutral and informative in that way. It warns you not to take cryptozoology too serious, but does not include a lengthy collection of exclusively critical opinions, unlike ours. These give you the impression that cryptozoologists are generally a crazy and potentially dangerous community that you should avoid getting associated with, at least as a scientist who wants anyone to take anything you say serious. (My impression, as I compared the articles - yours may differ.) Furthermore, the German article mentions - in one sentence - different "sub-disciplines" inside cryptozoology like the "mythological cryptozoologists" who want to know the true origins of mythological creatures, be them real or just fantasy. Altogether a short, almost somewhat "stubby" article, but it tries to give a more differentiated view on the topic.
My conclusion: If there is something to criticize about the English article, it is not the mentioning of the word "pseudoscience" - rather it is a tendency to report a biased picture of its topic. I guess this is also what cygnis insignis was pointing to. I hope I'm not committing "verbal arson" here once more - please cool down before you answer. This thread is already quite long and full of distractions. --130.83.182.66 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
All of this may well be true, but policy says we say what RS say. End of story.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
For example? cygnis insignis 15:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
That is not an example. Something in the article maybe. cygnis insignis 15:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I said policy says X, you said you wanted an example. So what do you want an example of?Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
You don't seem to give other editors much credit, I'm familiar with policy. A reliable source for what you have said is an incontrovertible truth that dismisses any other source, like a sacred text can be used to discount any other as heresy. cygnis insignis 15:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why I didn't think to look, short is better than puffery, over-reliance on quotes and that credential mongering that is ascribed to the alleged cult. It was good of you to share this view, I'll read it again after looking at the German article (with dictionary in hand). What you describe is the how the field was grounded. cygnis insignis 15:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Can someone close this now, it is clear there is no valid (policy based) reason to make the suggested changes. There are no RS backing the claim this is not a pseudoscience and any other points should be discussed seperatly from that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I dispute that simplistic view, and think that more views should be welcomed; attempting to edit the article would still be a waste of time. Those series of last words could become your the last word, your contributions have only been concerned with shutting down discussion of improvements. Others think otherwise. You could take it off your watchlist. cygnis insignis 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Don't become personal please. Otherwise that could harm your credibility as well. Who wants to further listen to someone who is personally attacking him?
Interestingly, the article itself has a similar problem: arguing ad hominem that cryptozoologists are often very unreliable sources, and then concluding that the entire idea of cryptozoology is a hocuspocus. But yes, that is actually a new thread. We could close the argument about "whether or not pseudoscience". --130.83.182.66 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think I got it. Whether a discipline is science or pseudoscience is a matter of methodical correctness and logical reasoning rather than actual truth. Pseudoscience is based on believes and not facts (but the believes are cloaked as facts). And I must admit that cryptozoology largely fulfills these criteria. But it is not hard-separated from zoology and folkloristics. I don't think zoologists generally dismiss anecdotes from local people when they examine populations of some large animal (e.g. gorillas), they are just cautious and aware that these anecdotes are not necessarily true. There is no solid separation between what is likely and what is absurd, the border is blurry. The scientific community must be critical about "cryptos" but not to the point of being guided by prejudices. For further discussion, it might be better to start a new chapter that deals with neutrality of the article. Let's close that pseudoscience thread, it's not the first one by the way. --2003:E7:7727:B655:54AA:F4EE:C1D0:9A3C (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive_5&oldid=1148110518"