Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

differentiated description vs. "it's all just psychological"

As it already has come across during the lengthy discussion above, the article tends towards giving just two explanations for the phenomenon of cryptozoology: Sightings of cryptids are either intentional frauds that are used by the claimer to catch public attention, or they are the product of unconcious self-deception. Of course, fraud and 'vivid imagination' are possible explanations. But there are more possibilities:

• In a small number of cases an unknown creature similar to the cryptid may really exist (example: giant squid).
• Furthermore, misidentifying a common animal as a mysterious creature need not have anything to do with attention seeking, or just being 'crazy': Eye wittnesses are known to be prone to phenomena like selective perception and false memories, a general problem that can in principle happen to anyone.
• Another explanation for cryptid sightings may be common animals which are disfigured by rare diseases (e.g. bears and coyotes with mange can get misidentified as bigfoots and chupacabras, respectively, and some 'monster' sightings may be known animals suffering from pathological gigantism).
• And cryptids seem to often "lurk" at places that are not well-explored and where sight is impaired, e.g. by a dense jungle or frequent fog. This can make it hard for people to correctly identify an animal that rushes by, and gives opportunities for speculation.
• More explanation attempts exist, like the before-mentioned 'cultural memory' theory.

By conclusion, if you believe you have seen bigfoot, nessie, orang pendek or whatever, this is not a reason for being stigmatized as a crackpot, as it could be the result of a common perceptual error.

I no longer argue against cryptozoology being a pseudoscience, see above (any proposed cryptid at least violates the principle of Ockham's razor as it leaves no traces which imply the necessity of its existence). It's more about the 'tone' of the article which is at times a little derogatory. It's like writing an article about homeopathy that says "it is a harmful quackery" backed up with several expert opinions. Although that may be right, many people believe in it or had "positive" experience with it, and don't want to be labelled as somehow crazy. The best is giving them a number of rational explanations why a probably useless medication seems to help them.

I would like to back up my own, hopefully neutral opinion with some good sources or expert opinions, but that's very difficult. I mainly find cryptozoologists defending what they call their 'science' (often losing themselves in fantastic anecdotes), and skepticists complaining about the overall low credibility of cryptozoologists (often concluding it must all be nonsense), similarly to this article. All in-between opinions that I read I found on non-scientific sites, such as in forum discussions. With that scarcity of sources, what I do here comes unfortunately close to original research... --2003:E7:7727:B605:CDEB:B170:FB4:5FE8 (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Folkorists regularly write about monsters, both in a contemporary and ancient context. They don’t turn to pseudoscientific speculation to explain these topics. The same goes for biologists for sightings of animals thought to be extinct or notably outside of their range. However, cryptozoology is plainly a pseudoscience. We write about what reliable sources say about this topic. Plainly, reliable sources state that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and proceed to explain why. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Except this is not about people who have claimed to have seen them, but rather the people who claim what those people have seen is real. Nor are weer here to salve peoples self image, we are here to inform. We should no more salve the self image of those who believe in (or think they have seen) Nessie then we should those who say the world was created at 6 pm on 22 October 4004 bc or that the world is still flat. Sorry but we have to go with what RS say, not what people believe.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"6 pm on 22 October" I do not see why this is refined to that date, the consensus after that study IS that is an ill-founded premise based of His birthday (thus skewing any precision). My degree is in theoretical histrionics, so excuse the the original research that is still in preprint, cygnis insignis 15:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, the point is that we would not salve the self image of YEC's, so why should we salve the self image of people who think they have seen an ABC.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"self image", not understood, it is theory that people more or less adhere to. These are two different things I thought everyone assumed. Is this not so? cygnis insignis 15:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

What I am saying is that "many people believe in it or had "positive" experience with it, and don't want to be labelled as somehow crazy." is not a valid argument to re-write an article on a fringe pseudoscience in order to not upset them. I would have thought that was obvious from the context of this discussion. I was giving examples of other pseudoscience beliefs in order to demonstrate why we should not pander to them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

THEM, i know mate, but what can WE do? [would you mind mind putting a space before your tiddles, i hav a thing about spacing within text]. cygnis insignis 16:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

What? really what is this a reply to?.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems the distinction whether a subject of matter belongs to cryptozoology is made ad hoc - everything believed to be realistic is counted as biology, everything that is judged absurd is cryptozoology. That is basically a no true scotsman fallacy - if somebody (no matter if believer or skeptic) ever proofs that a cryptozoological claim is true, it is no longer considered cryptozoological. Cryptozoology remains a container for the most absurd ideas. E.g. 200 years ago, gorillas would have been a matter of cryptozoology, now as they are known to exist, they are no longer. And King Kong shows which erroneous believes people held about these 'legendary' creatures.

By the way, the German Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften has a similar opinion about cryptozoology than what I looked for:

https://www.gwup.org/infos/themen/641-kryptozoologie

And they aim to be a skepticist organization... I found no English translation of this site, sorry. --2003:E7:7727:B648:1D1E:F0AE:8023:4153 (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really, its made based upon who says it. If a reputable biologist says "I have evidence of a new species of..." and this is published in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal it is not cryptozoology. If it meets none of this it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Crpytozoology didn’t exist 200 years ago, nor did it exist 100 years ago. While cryptozoologists are keen to imply that they’re a part of some old tradition, the reality is that cryptozoology came into existence in the 1950s as a fringe rejection of academia by a few disgruntled academics, which gave birth to today’s young earth creationist-aligned subculture. Meanwhile, biologists regularly identify previously unknown or undescribed animals, and folklorists regularly write about people claiming to see monsters. Basically, if a cryptozoologist wasn’t dependent upon pseudoscientific approaches, they’d be a folklorist or a biologist (or maybe even both—imagine that). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting - are there any self-declared 'cryptozoologists' which are regarded by the scientific community as biologists or folklorists? Or does this self-identification prevent you from being seen as a scientist, whatever you are investigating and how? If I got it right, cryptozoology is defined as the sum of all wanna-be-biologists and wanna-be-folklorists that fail to adhere to scientific standards - everything that is intented to be biology or folkloristics but is not really. And 'cryptozoologist' is kind of an insult. Can one even separate that from the more general phenomenon of 'citizen junk science' (when laypeople try to make scientific investigations but are totally unaware of the standards, misled by personal bias and make premature and fallacious conclusions, like Fred A. Leuchter for example)? --2003:E7:7727:B648:1D1E:F0AE:8023:4153 (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

As the article makes clear, cryptozoology is a well defined subculture. Please consult those sources for general questions regarding cryptozoology. Wikipedia talk pages aren’t forums. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

My query, not explained in the article/essay, is "a sub-culture of what?" cygnis insignis 07:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, fringe zoology before the 1950s was not cryptozoology? E.g. surgeon's photograph of the alleged Loch Ness Monster? So it is not just about hunting monsters, it's about an antiscience subculture that aims to disprove evolution theory by presenting 'evidence' for unexplainable hybrid creatures like the mothman? But that is not the same community which is described in articels about some cryptids, e.g. orang pendek - most people who seek this creature assume that it is an ape or archaic human species that would be in line with evolution theory. The 'yeti' could be a yet-unknown (sub-)species of bear (and the 'mothman' an eagle-owl, but that's my personal theory), and 'cryptozoologists' also look for extinct animals like the thylacine - what does this have to do with creationism? That's what boggles my mind - where cryptozoology starts and where it ends. Wikipedia does not give me a consistent answer, neither do any other sources I found so far. All we have is that it's not proper science...

As I re-read our discussion, the central point seems to be turning again - to the topic "what is cryptozoology and why, and what is not and why not". Are we presenting a universally accepted definition here, or rather an opinion? --2003:E7:7727:B655:B8C5:7AFC:C50D:FEF9 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

We go with how RS define it. It does not mater how we choose to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think point has been made often and is certainly understood by the user. And it is the disparity in the use in RS and here that is part of my concern here. cygnis insignis 15:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

What disparity, what are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I've made the point several times, in responses to this user, they seem to have been not understood or read and I'm not interested in quickfire replies by someone who becomes fixated with other user's behaviour. cygnis insignis 15:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

OK then let me put it another way, what RS are we not using? That is what I am asking. If we are not presented with sources we cannot use them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Mothman theories are cool, and there are several other animals that know how to terrify mammals. It is the capture and critique within any field of science that falls into this field that is perhaps its undoing as a study of phenomena, but correlation of unverifiable data and unrepeatable experiments can suggest something that can be scrutinised by scientists. That is well illustrated by the examples given already. Similar arguments are made for saying science has replaced philosophy. cygnis insignis 15:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this something that comes close to a reliable source? I scanned the text, it looks like a scientist who is a cryptozoology fan gives a critical remark about this field and advise how to get it closer to science:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272351891_Cryptozoology_and_Pseudoscience

Of course, it's an essay and not a large metastudy, so it has a limited meaning. If 100 scientific papers say something different... And I expect not everyone will agree that the article really deals with 'cryptozoology': What the author suggests to do - bring more science into the field - would blur the line to biology and folkloristics, and she doesn't seem to be a creationist either. Not to mention "independent researcher" is probably not the most credible type of scientist you can be. But it shows that not all people interested in cryptozoology are clueless cranks (although some are for sure), and that not everyone seems to share the narrow definition of cryptozoology that is presented in our article.

By the way, the description given by the GWUP (German source in an earlier post) should be quite reliable, they specifically deal with examining the credibility of pseudoscience communities. Although they are more interested in medical pseudosciences as these are deemed more dangerous. --2003:E7:7727:B634:3D90:6C02:E2D0:5C8A (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is from science writer Sharon Hill, who discusses cryptozoology’s connections to young earth creationism and other related topics at length in more recent works (for example, [[1]]). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want to use this for.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It probably doesn't matter anyway. I just don't understand why one must emphasize so much that link to creationism, and then come up with Holocaust denial and whatever. It sounds like "Most homeopaths are against vaccinations and believe the earth is flat." This may apply to a particular sub-community, but cannot be generalized. One can't just lump together all pseudosciences. If I want to disprove evolution theory, why should I search for alien big cats or thylacines? The assumed presence of ABC would quite definitely be a result of human activity, as is the extinction of the thylacine. It would be really far-off to see any result of such an 'expedition' as a disprove of evolution theory. You could equally see the result of a coin toss as a disprove of evolution theory, it would be complete magical thinking. I honestly don't think all (or most) cryptozoologists are totally off from reality. Maybe a small but loud minority is. - And if somebody claims to have seen an ABC and concludes that Darwin was wrong, this does not even exclude the presence of the ABC, it just means the conclusion is garbage - an arbitrary 'observation' is used to promote creationism. - Would this be actual cryptozoology, or abuse of a cryptozoological idea for another pseudoscience?

I will stop wasting our time with that discussion... it just leads to nothing... --2003:E7:7727:B630:D171:61E7:B688:FD7A (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably a wise decision, it looks like most if not all of your arguments have already been brought up here in the past, only in slightly different forms. By the way, the mention of holocaust denial is within a citation, so not Wikipedia's guilt. And indeed some cryptozoologists are creationists, as some homeopaths are anti-vaccination advocates. The fields of pseudoscience overlap just as the fields of science do (e.g. physics and chemistry). --130.83.182.66 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryptids in fiction

There are many fantasy and art works that explore cryptids in fiction, without asserting those creatures are actually real. Some of these works have been critical studies of cryptozoology specifically, and others have been speculative fiction works which simply incorporate cryptid-inspired creatures. As there doesn't appear to be an article on the cultural phenomenon of cryptids (rather than other folkloric or fantasy beasts), I've added a new section about fictional, fantastical and artistic takes on cryptozoology. Rauisuchian (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Monsters and other creatures from the folklore record (which cryptozoologists call "cryptids") appear very frequently in literature, both in fiction and non-fiction. While we could use a section on cryptozoologists in fiction with a reliable source that explicitly discusses this topic, what you're doing so far is simply hijacking the article, especially its lead, to promote the idea that there is some kind of speculative fiction genre from disparate and generally poor sources that don't discuss it. This is classic synthesis.

Sources you've included, such as this Barnes and Noble blog source, contain false statements such as "once in a blue moon, a cryptid is actually discovered, for real, in the wild, thus allowing us to reserve just a little bit of hope for the others" — completely false but nonetheless a typical claim made by cryptozoologists, as noted by academics on this very article. Note also that this article makes no mention of the fact that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. It's a clear WP:RS fail.

The Scientific American article you cite, which was written by apologetic cryptozoologist Darren Naish, contains exactly one mention of the word "fiction" ("there’s a good paper-trail showing that ideas about the cryptids concerned evolved from an origin in mythology, fiction or confusion"). The Gizmodo piece you cite is nothing more than a promotional piece about a book by Naish (note the "GMG may get a commission" via an affiliate link), which also says nothing about fiction, and makes claims about some non-existent field called "monster studies" (that'd simply just be folklorists studying narratives that contain monsters, for example, typical folklore studies stuff).

Find a source that explicitly discusses the topic of cryptozoologists in fiction, and we can include it as a section called, well, "cryptozoologists in fiction" or something similar. In the mean time, converting the lead and chunks of the body to unduly present some idea that there's some special genre about "cryptids" is not appropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. Thanks for going point by point and saying exactly what is wrong with those edits. Though I wasn't trying to imply that there's an entire genre, that's why I said trope, I suppose it is undue emphasis given the sources used. And Naish is enough in favor of some cryptozoological ideas that he should be directly quoted as an opinion on those specific topics instead of paraphrased as an encyclopedic statement. He is probably skeptical enough to include in the reception section, particularly where he agrees with Abominable Science, but a different quote would have to be used.

I somewhat oppose the creation of a "cryptozoologists in fiction" section, as that would only be able to focus on the works of actual unapologetic cryptozoologists, which would be mostly redundant detail given the existing sections. However, you mentioned in the edit history an "In popular culture" section, and that could be a good and neutral idea to include.

Here are my tentative ideas for a neutral "In popular culture" section. While it should be a pretty short section to avoid listcruft, I think it could focus on the following 3-4 topics: media programs (Including both the programs themselves like MonsterQuest and the criticism of those programs for uncritical media propagation), Debunking works (by skeptics and some by "apologetic cryptozoologists" such as Lake Monsters and Cryptozoologicon, this could be wrapped into the previous where it overlaps), Commercialization (as mentioned in skeptic work Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend and this Smithsonian article) and Cultural motivations of cryptozoology (such as wild man concept for Bigfoot, individualism and such, plus criticism of how it may be fakelore or appropriation. Of which there are mentions in the aforementioned smithsonian article, and existing cites such as Abominable Science.) If this is doable or something along these lines I'll sandbox it when I have time. What do you think? Rauisuchian (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the time and effort you're putting into a difficult topic here. I also appreciate your patience—I know putting a lot of effort into something that is met with a revert can be frustrating, and I'd be glad to work with you in developing the article further.

Regarding a "Cryptozoologists in fiction" section (or some such), I'm referring to cryptozoologists as they are portrayed in fictional works, as they now and then seem to pop up as a sort pseudo-anthropologist Indiana Jones-like stock figure, it seems. This stuff is definitely out there, but I have yet to see a reliable source discussing it.

Works by cryptozoologists themselves of course fall clearly into the category of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and shouldn't be directly cited—they fail WP:RS and are inevitably full of problems. Loxton and Prothero write a bit about Naish, and I think we should include some discussion about him, but he's also proponent of a pseudoscience and his theories about cryptozoology are definitely fringe, so it's something we'll need to be wary about. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

So how does this article fit in with this? https://darrennaish.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/paxton-naish-2019-were-19th-century-sea-monster-reports-influenced-by-fossils.pdf. This article is not pseudoscience and it is not folkloristics. Naish is not the "proponent" of cz you think he is and he is not fringe...he has one of the most popular blogs in zoology and has published loads of papers. The status of cz is anything but simple. Tullimonstrum (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't. Naish is an apologetic cryptozoologist, as discussed by Loxton and Prothero. He's not the first biologist to embrace a 'reformed' version of a pseudoscience in his free time. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you even look at the paper in the 12 minutes it took you to respond? It is not a defence of unknown species.Tullimonstrum (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Pop-cult/In fiction sections can be WP-decent, but WP:PROPORTION is important. Getting it into the LEAD is clear overkill. Consider examples like Christopher_Marlowe#Marlowe_in_fiction or Tardigrade#In_popular_culture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Works by cryptozoologists themselves of course fall clearly into the category of WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and shouldn't be directly cited

Why not? This is exactly the same as saying that we should delete Ronald Hutton and all his works, because folklore is an unreliable source. There are are threads at ANI, RSN and AfD right now to delete all cryptozoology content as "unreliable", but I'm surprised to see a folklorist calling from this. There is a very big difference between the reliability of a field's source material, and the reliability of those writing seriously about that field. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There are no such threads on those forums, and we use academics active in folklore studies, folklorists, as sources for folklore-related articles. We stick to what reliable sources say, and they flatly say that cryptozoology is just another pseudoscience. It's as simple as that. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

So how does this article fit in with this? https://darrennaish.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/paxton-naish-2019-were-19th-century-sea-monster-reports-influenced-by-fossils.pdf. This article is not pseudoscience and it is not folkloristics. Naish is not the "proponent" of cz you think he is. The status of cz is anything but simple. Tullimonstrum (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Why did you post this both here and above? Stick to one thread, please. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

On the header topic, Cryptozoology could be compared to other fringe topic articles like Hollow Earth, which has a sizeable "In fiction" section, or Ancient astronauts, which has a full "in pop culture" article. Rauisuchian (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rauisuchian:, I've encountered a paper that follows a topic we were discussing here, which I think you might be interested in having a look over: [2]. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I'll read over it when I have the chance.Rauisuchian (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

protected?

article now protected for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfdooger (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I invoked discretionary sanctions due to fringe promotion. El_C 03:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfdooger (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

And yet, I did. Logged at AEL and everything. El_C 04:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Addendum by the closer

Greetings, everyone. Looking at post-closure developments, I believe some clarification is in order about sources. As was pointed out in the closing, 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. Furthermore, it was pointed out that "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," and that "therefore, any item, in either text, that is presented without following WP:FRIND is to be deleted outright."

This has been wrongly interpreted as a wholesale ban of using primary sources for the article and/or the list. It is most definitely not. The guidance offered by WP:FRIND refers to the obligation to have independent sources when describing fringe theories, i.e. not to allow only the voices of those theories' supporters to be heard. (I.e. if a point about a fringe theory is presented in the article without having a citation to independent sources, then it has no place in the article. If a pseudoscientific subject is presented solely on the basis of independent sources that is perfectly acceptable.)

However, the value of primary sources cannot be ignored. Primary sources do have a place in Wikipedia, even in articles about pseudoscience, fringe theories, and superstitions. The use for primary sources about beliefs in pseudoscience answers the question what exactly are they saying. Per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, a primary source is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. In so many words, the presentation of beliefs in Cryptozoology may (but does not have to) be made with references to primary sources, in order to have an explicit and accurate presentation of its proponents beliefs, statements, claims, and so on, though it must be balanced and countered at all times by text and references from reliable, independent sources.

Even more so in the List of cryptids: We can confidently assert that not all items proclaimed by Cryptozoologists are mentioned, let alone discussed, in texts by scientists. The use of primary sources, therefore, is not forbidden at all; one might say it's unavoidable - as unavoidable as quoting from any text by astrologers or alchemists in the aforementioned context. The classification by Eberhart, for instance, is necessary in the List since it is foundational to the list of cryptids, irrespective of its scientific value. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hold on, the classification by Eberhart being "foundational to the list of cryptids" is nowhere established in that RfC. --tronvillain (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Concur, there's no evidence of Eberhart's classification being something anybody other than he uses. And frankly it's ridiculously broad. Basically it boils down to "a cryptid is whatever I say it is." Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll point out that "primary" doesn't necessarily mean "bad" or "unreliable" all the time, but unless the criteria is going to be "anything ever mentioned by a self-proclaimed cryptozoologist, regardless of how it is described in reliable sources" (in that case the name should probably be changed), allowing the list to be sourced to cryptozoology proponents is astonishing. --tronvillain (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The point I clarified is that listing cryptids according to cryptozoologists' beliefs is not disallowed at all. The arguments (pro and per sources mostly con) about Cryptozoology itself are and should be extensively made in the main article; not so much here. The continued controversy may be due to the passion about preserving Wikipedia as a fountain of scientific truth but nowhere in this closing has it been suggested that the scientific viewpoints are not presented, and strongly too. Nonetheless, everyone should bear in mind that if only reliable, scientific, independent sources were to be used, the List of cryptids would be empty! If editors believe that the very existence of such a List promotes pseudoscience then they should submit both the List and the main article for deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Except that it wouldn't be empty. There are creatures that are clearly established in reliable non-profringe sources as being described as "cryptids", including Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie, sea serpents, Chupacabra, yowie, thylacines, and so on. --tronvillain (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you then provide the source that describes these as crytpids, are we not supposed to be adding them?Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned over there (directly above a comment by you actually), Abominable Science specifically mentions Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie, sea serpents, and Mokele Mbembe as being described as cryptids. --tronvillain (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

AS I do not have access to it I am asking you then to provide the cites.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Aha. Sure, no problem. Loxton, Daniel; Prothero, Donald R. (2013). Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids. Columbia University Press. pp. 50–369. ISBN 978-0-231-52681-4. Bigfoot is chapter 2 (pages 50–104), the Yeti is chapter 3 (pages 105–161), Nessie is chapter 4 (pages 162–227), sea serpents are chapter 5 (pages 228–326), and Mokele Mbembe is chapter 6 (pages 327–369).--tronvillain (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Does it list any others?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that's it, but I've definitely seen references for the Yowie and Bunyip recently. I'll see if I can dig them up. --tronvillain (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand all your other points as consequences of policy and reasonable conclusions from the merger proposal, but your claim that Eberhart's classification is "necessary" is in no way established by the RFC, and is indeed completely outside the scope of the discussion. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ufology

Why is Ufology listed as a pseudoscience here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.220 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to explain what's happened here; for each topic on wikipedia there are a handful of obsessed editors who in their minds 'own' a given page, and dominate any changes made to that page to ensure that it stays in line with their own views. For this page, Cryptozoology, the dominant editor(s) have decided that all crytozoology is a front for young earth creationism, and have applied to this topic (cryptozoology) the same condemnation they associate with the other topic (creationism). In reality they have homed in on a particular sub-group of cryptozoology and applied the entire article to that group. This is evident in the current 'owner's words, "As the article makes clear, cryptozoology is a well defined subculture."

This is equivalent to taking all of religion and summing it up as "a well defined subculture", and then focusing the "religion" article on just Buddhism. In that analogy, that would be done because the hypothetical 'owner' of the "religion" article personally defines 'religion' as excluding all faiths that aren't Buddhism. Extrapolate that example to what we see here, that the 'owner' of the "crytozoology" article defines cryptozoology as only "people who search for unknown animals to somehow prove young earth creationism", while excluding the larger general perception of what cryptozoology is, which is "people interested in folklore surrounding unknown animals, and the belief that those animals may possibly exist." Hunter12396 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Because RS say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Content

Not much is said here about what cryptozoologists have been doing and saying. I suggest a few additions on the main areas of discourse. Maybe the following topics could be given headings and a short summary with links:

1. "Hominid" cryptozoology (Yetis, Big Foot, ape-human hybrids, etc., relationship with the progress of 19th- and 20th-century anthropology and evolutionary theory and so on) and the real-life hominids extinct and extant on which it draws (Gigantopiticus, H. floresiensis)
2. Apologetics for mythological animals (dragons, griffins, chimaeras, the roc, phoenix), possibly including the real misinterpretation of old bones and real animals in antiquity and the middle ages (giraffe/qilin)
3. Claims of (not) extinct animals (dinosaurs, pterosaurs, Megalodon) and fringe claims of long-term survivals (and important cultural references like The Lost World and King Kong)
4. Sea and lake monsters (Nessie, sea serpents) including comparisons with real animals (often scientifically described later like giant squid, oarfish, actual sea-snakes etc.)
5. Religious stuff (creationists' dinosaurs, Mormons' ancient North American elephants, cattle, horses, etc.)
6. Occult/paranormal/aliens stuff (devils, mothmen, el Chupacabra, shapeshiftingmultidimensionalwhatever)

The article is rather dry and theoretical I propose more of a history of the rise and fall of various cryptozoological theories and quests be added to flesh out the material. GPinkerton (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

An expansion to the article's content seems to be needed and the suggested sections are all germane. Good proposal. Joe (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The best source on this stuff to date in English is definitely Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science. It has sections dedicated to most of these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree Bloodofox! It is a great book. I bet that confuses you! Tullimonstrum (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

FAQ Maybe exist is not pseudoscience

As to statements signifying that a cryptid "maybe exist", or has a "possibility of existing", scientist and experts stating this might be hard to find, but I am going to cite a couple I found accidentally.

• Gudger, E. W. (May 1935). "How Rats Transport Eggs". The Scientific Monthly. 40 (5): 424. JSTOR 15797.

Gudger (1935) wrote:

"For myself I can only repeat Professor W. K. Brooks's comment when I reported before the seminar in zoology at the Johns Hopkins University in 1904 on A. C. Oudemans' book, The Great Sea Serpent: an Historical and Critical Treatise. When asked what he thought about the existence of such an animal, he answered that e‘It is not safe to say that a thing does not exist in nature merely because neither you nor any other scientific man has as yet seen it.’ That is my attitude, and ..", etc.

I think the article should distinguish between the methods of cryptozoology and the claims of people in the community. Tullimonstrum (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Stewart, Bruce G. (24 August 2008). "Notes on the Web - Unit One - Part 3 / Pseudoscience: A Cultural Pathogen". Murray State College. Archived from the original on 2009-01-16.

• Stewart (2008) 's college syllabus(?) was inserted in the past by someone else (here) and asserts Cryptozoology by its definition to be "pseudoscientific", but goes on to write:

"In and of themselves, beliefs such as these are not pseudosciences. It is when the ‘believer’ claims that there is scientific evidence to back up these beliefs that they enter the realm of pseudoscience."

I might incorporate some of these sources (from this section and the two others you added) in a re-write for the proposed header edit. One way or the other, some of these should be included here and there in the article where appropriate.

Incidentally, I was interested to read the quote you brought up from Gee's 2011 speech/blog, "..cryptozoology tends to group with aliens as subjects likely to attract muesli. There is, however, a movement of scientific sympathy towards the study of unknown animals, given that it should be the business of scientists to study unknown things – a tendency with which I have much sympathy, which presumably explains why I was asked to chair the proceedings" You were right, that is relevant to the proposed edit, and I might also use it. Cheers for the sources. Joe (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, sources go in the body and the lead is a summary of the body. But wherever placed, a source from 1935 predates the existence of the subculture and will be removed. Obviously, so would the 2008 archived website. As always, keep it WP:RS-compliant or expect it to be tossed soon after its introduction. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Bloodofox, Stewart's "Notes on the Web" is self-published and does not meet our WP:RS requirements. Additionally, "It is when the ‘believer’ claims that there is scientific evidence to back up these beliefs that they enter the realm of pseudoscience" describes exactly why the work of Gee and others is pseudoscience. Tullimonstrum, what "methods of crytptozoology" should we be discussing which are separate from community claims? Is there perhaps confusion with the field of zoology which does use scientific methods to identify previously unknown species? –dlthewave ☎ 13:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The article does not say what cryptozoologists do. There is the lead, that says they seek to prove the existence of folkloric entities (a definition not supported by any source I know, but that does not seem to bother anyone apart from JoePhin and me). Then there are dark mutterings about anecdotes, and dark mutterings about pseudoscience, mentions of the use of technology but at no point are cryptozoological methods described. This seems strange, I can only put it down to everyone's admirable zeal to ensure the casual reader understands very, very clearly that it is all pseudoscience before ever being exposed to the foulness of cryptozoologial thought. Happy to write such a section though, even at the risk of corrupting my scientific soul although it might be better not to, otherwise the reader might evaluate the methods for themselves. Tullimonstrum (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the voice in my head is not the same as yours, but I don't hear "dark mutterings" when I read this article.

Leads generally don't need inline references since they summarize sourced content from elsewhere in the article. In this case the Terminology, history, and approach section includes several sources which support the folklore element.

It would certainly be appropriate to add a Methods section, provided that it can be supported by independent mainstream sources rather than cryptozoologists describing their own work. I'll see if Loxton & Prothero has anything that can be used as a starting point. –dlthewave ☎ 16:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

So even cryptozoological firsthand sources describing their own work would be inadmissable in this 'NPOV' article? Wow. God forbid, we actually allow the heretics to describe what they do without sanitising commentary by the orthodox. Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if we're going to use that analogy, Wikipedia policy does forbid presenting heretical views without the orthodox perspective. –dlthewave ☎ 18:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to cut off you guys branching off to a different major issue about works by Cryptozoologists published by established academic presses. Can you bring that up in a separate thread? --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me weigh in on this again on the topic of one of the 2 sources.. (moved to #Photographic evidence)

And Dlthewave's analysis is plain wrong. Henry Gee does not claim H. Floriensis definitely came into contact with Homo Sapiens based on evidence. To reiterate, beliefs and hopes don't count as claims, and this is clearly not sinking in.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Photographic evidence

Granted, Gudger (1866–1956) is old so when he is open to the idea that a rat-egg-transport is a possibility until such time as a photograph presents itself as (scientific) evidence, he exposes himself to the "pseudoscience" charge. This is one of the major deeds for which Heuvelmans (1916-2001) has been accused of indulging in pseudoscience. Namely, claiming a new species based on a photo. But look at your source, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson (1906–1984)[3]. Does he say it is wrong to try to make a species identification based on photo? No! He says you can identify a species based on photo, except you have to do it right. So Simpson is also a practitioner and defender of the specifically criticized pseudoscientific approach as well.

This brings to question whether paleontologists are really the competent practitioners of empirical science they think they are.[4]

Were I to make a statement like "this brings to question whether paleontologists are really the competent practitioners of empirical science they think they are", I too would not want to attach my name to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This is sourced to the hyperlinked paper (Ebbighausen&Korn, doi:10.1080/08912963.2012.688199). --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC) doi added 20:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Palentologists themselves issued and apologia/excuses in the 1990s for the lack of empiricism in their methods but the "knots" are not resolved according to the paper.strike 02:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Simpson's paper (1984, alt link) is noticeable for his denialism of coelacanth as a living fossil.

Also Simpson criticizes Heuvelmans's searches saying "..no objective, autoptical evidence for any new species of primates since 1907 at the latest", but this is outdated and now quite wrong according to IUCN.[5] --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC) citeinfo+; link+ 00:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Cryptozoology seems to have a split personality

On the one hand there is the nonsensical, yet apparently quite entertaining, "searching for bigfoot/loch ness monster/etc" as featured on "reality" tv shows.

On the other side there are completely scientifically legitimate searches for species thought to have become extinct. See this PBS article that discusses a number of rediscovered species. There are also systematic scientific surveys that fairly often turn up previously undescribed species (particularly insects and other small creepy crawlies).

There really should be distinctly separate names for these mutually incompatible activities, but we're stuck with "cryptozoology" that indiscriminately encompasses "all of the above". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

An important distinction to make here, as those who analyze cryptozoology often highlight, is that zoologists frequently identify previously unknown critters. This has always been the case. Cryptozoologists, on the other hand, have yet to find a single bigfoot or Congo-roaming brontosaurus. Similarly, ghost hunters have yet to find a single ghost to bottle (or vacuum?) and present to folklorists and flat Earthers remain unable to convince geologists that the world is utterly flat.

In all these cases, subculture adherents are clearly passionate about the topics but are not interested in applying the tools and standards used by academics. These subcultures often intentionally place themselves in opposition to experts, although some of them might even be academics themselves. Subculture adherents are also often ideologically-driven, such as in the case of Young Earth creationists, and seek to draw from the subculture to attack mainstream academic positions and/or they may be driven by commmercial interests—there are a lot of reasons these subcultures continue to exist. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I do think that's unfair, a lot of the looking-for-obscure-and-possibly-extinct animals is done by zoologists and unless and until they (re-)discover the putative populations, that work is cryptozoology. I think is possible to make a distinction between the ideological cryptozoologists (creationists, non-avian dinosaur acolytes, Bigfoot people) and the adventurous biologists whose theses remain unproven (or unproveable). In other words, there are people that believe the supposed animals are lost or undiscovered and rare, and there are people that believe this fantastical menagerie is "hidden" by some "Them" or other (presumably the same ones that are keeping all the aliens hidden). It's misleading to lump all this together; there are varying levels of fringe. GPinkerton (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking for the living Glaucous macaw is cryptozoology at this point, as much as looking or the Tasmanian tiger, but some bona fide scientists still search for both. GPinkerton (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is a well-defined subculture: If Uncle Ted thinks he saw bigfoot, that doesn't mean he's a cryptozoologist and he'll suddenly start calling things cryptids. Similarly, folklorists who study, say the historic motif of the unicorn certainly aren't cryptozoologists. It's the same situation with zoologists looking into old discussions about newts described as dragons or whatever. None of these individuals are automatically adherents of the matrix of terminology and subcultural hallmarks that make up cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, none of them is automatically not a zoologist either. I'm not sure I agree that cryptozoology is a well-defined subculture at all. It appears to be more of the "I know it when I see it" thing. Sir Peter Scott, CH, CBE, DSC & Bar, FRS, FZS (though not actually an academic but certainly a zoologist) was a big proponent of the Loch Ness monster, naming it Nessiteras rhombopteryx. GPinkerton (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The key aspect of the above examples is that none of these individuals are presenting what they do as a faux zoology and they're not invoking a specific cocktail of Heuvelmans-Sanderson and subculture-specific, science-y words like cryptid (and of course the classic faux taxonomies). Sure, there's adjacent stuff to cryptozoology, some of it falling squarely in folk belief (potentially even colliding with modern biology), but that doesn't necessarily make it a part of the subculture: Certainly, a marine biologist who suspects that she's hot on the trail of identifying a previously undescribed variety of plankton does not a cryptozoologist make. Meanwhile, the guy with a pith helmet and no formal background telling a reporter that he has good reason to believe there is a t-rex roaming the Congo because he knows all about cryptids and can point to some gadget that beeps impressively, probably. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The definition of cryptozoology used in this article, "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that aims to prove the existence of entities from the folklore record", is well supported by sources. I challenge GPinkerton and Dodger67 to provide sources to support their big-tent view that describes zoologists who look for the Glaucous macaw, the Tasmanian tiger and the various critters described in the PBS article as "cryptozoologists". I highly doubt that any of them feel attacked by negative coverage of cryptozoology. –dlthewave ☎ 21:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, there's an entry for the Glaucous macaw in the Mysterious Creatures: Guide to Cryptozoology by George M. Eberhart, as there is for the Tasmanian tiger and indeed for the Tasmanian devil: where people seek the Tasmanian tiger on the Australian mainland, from which it was extirpated by the non-native dingo introduced by human settlers, that's cryptozoology. All of these species unquestionably existed in the places people seek them, the cryptozoologists in these cases are often zoologists doomed to perennial frustration. GPinkerton (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Per our fringe theories policy, "Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." This means that we need a non-cryptozoological source (i.e. not Eberhart) to connect these zoologists to cryptozoology. Please refrain from disparaging these scientific efforts by lumping them together with pseudoscience. –dlthewave ☎ 22:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I'm sorry anyone seriously searching for the Tasmanian devil in mainland Australia is a cryptozoologist, whatever they call themselves. Bloodofox I don't believe it's appropriate to limit cryptozoology to those who profess what they're doing is cryptozoology, not least because that would exclude many of the most dedicated of this fringe, who firmly believe they're doing actually zoology (like Scot's binomial for Nessie). People looking for the Loch Ness monster are cryptozoologists, whether or not they use the "subculture-specific" language. François de Loys certainly never used such terms, but his faked photo of a spider monkey South American primate specimen (Ameranthropoides loysi) is a cryptozoological classic. GPinkerton (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

François de Loys died in 1935, well before the existence of the subculture. This article is about cryptozoology, not monster hunting more broadly, whether Pokémon or de Loys. Rather than let this conversation turn into an in-depth discussion of Fiji mermaids, let's just stick to what reliable sources say. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I think the exclusive definition as a "subculture" isn't helpful and is kind of self-fulfilling. Do we have an article for "monster hunting"? I would always have assumed this would be it. Sea-serpents, lake monsters, Jenny Haniver, the bunyip, and all. Excluding the golden era of Nessie-hunting seems arbitrary. Does one have to self-identify as a cryptozoologist to be engaged in cryptozoology? GPinkerton (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not have an article on monster hunting. The closest we have is an article on Monster Hunter, the media franchise. While I can see why sea-serpents and lake monsters would be of interest to cryptozoologists, do we have any definitions of cryptozoology that specifically include them? Dimadick (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dimadick, The OED definition from 2006 is

cryptozoology, n.
The study of unknown, legendary, or extinct animals whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated.

which I think should cover it, especially as the OED cites a 2003 article in Popular Science as an example of usage which comes close to the Glaucous macaw example I mentioned:

It put the long-standing question of the ivory-billed woodpecker into the Yeti/Bigfoot realm of cryptozoology.
2003 Pop. Sci. Dec. 116/2

The OED is already cited for the use of "cryptid", and its own citations show that use of "cryptozoology" is about 30 years older than is "cryptid". GPinkerton (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The OED cites its first known use as:

"R. Garnett tr. B. Heuvelmans In Wake of Sea-serpents xiii. 508 When he [sc. Ivan T. Sanderson] was still a student he invented the word ‘cryptozoology’, or the science of hidden animals, which I was to coin much later, quite unaware that he had already done so."

And makes the following observation:

Use of French cryptozoologie earlier than 1959 is sometimes attributed to B. Heuvelmans, but it has not been found in his published work of the time; Heuvelmans attributed an independent earlier use to I. T. Sanderson (see quot. 1968).

In other words, the word was evidently invented and certainly popularized by the two founders of the subculture. All of this is already covered in the article, including the subculture's development of and utilization of the word cryptid in 1983 to replace the word the rest of us use, monster. This is explored in-depth by reliable sources in the article. Monster hunting stuff is generally handled in relevant articles on Wikipedia, such as Pokémon. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, So? It's no surprise a first citation should be to the first usage. Where is it stated that cryptozoology is somehow limited to its own coiners? The fact that it is given a standalone dictionary entry suggests otherwise. I stress that the ivory billed woodpecker is not a monster. GPinkerton (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the 2010 Oxford Dictionary of English 3rd edition (no relation) has

cryptozoology /ˌkrɪptəʊzuːˈɒlədʒi/
noun [mass noun] the search for and study of animals whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the Loch Ness monster and the yeti.

The Loch Ness monster being specifically included seems pretty incontrovertible evidence of the Loch Ness monster being a cryptozoological field. Are we to disagree simply because the Loch Ness monster also dates to the 1930s and the original hoaxers never used the word "cryptid"? Surely not ... GPinkerton (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to convince the zoologists and Pokémon Masters of the world that they too are cryptozoologists. As for the article space, let's stick to WP:RS-sources on this fringe topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I don't see Hurn (ed.) 2016 cited here; the abstract gives a definition:

Cryptozoology is best understood as the study of animals which, in the eyes of Western science, are extinct, unclassified or unrecognised. In consequence, and in part because of its selective methods and lack of epistemological rigour, cryptozoology is often dismissed as a pseudo-science. However, there is a growing recognition that social science can benefit from engaging with it, for as as social scientists are very well aware, ’scientific’ categorisation and explanation represents just one of a myriad of systems used by humans to enable them to classify and make sense of the world around them. In many cultural contexts, myth, folk classification and lived experience challenge the ’truth’ expounded by scientists. ...

GPinkerton (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This paragraph seems apt:

The current cryptid moment is occurring in spaces that cannot be dismissed as mere blogosphere banter or playground amusement. For example, a number of recent museum exhibits have explored the significance of cryptids in popular and scientific cultures. Perhaps the most significant of these was the 2006 Bates College Museum of Art exhibit ‘Cryptozoology: Out of Time Place Scale’, which explored the interconnectedness of lost species (like the Tasmanian tiger [Thylacinus cynocephalus]), found species (like the coelacanth), and imagined creatures (like Bigfoot). Describing the significance of the visual representation of animals to contemporary viewers, curator Nato Thompson identifies in their disappearance during the era of modernism and reappearance during the last 30 years ‘an increasingly complicated human subject’ for whom contemplation of animal others, particularly strange ones, suggests a renewed interest in examining the ‘periphery of human subjectivity’ (Thompson 2006:152), that is, the possibility that what lies at the limits of our perception has a subjectivity of its own beyond our control. Like the Bates College exhibit, the traveling exhibit ‘Mythic Creatures: Dragons, Unicorns and Mermaids’, launched in 2007 at the American Museum of Natural History, also brought extinct animals into the same exhibit space as the legendary creatures of the exhibit’s name, placing them alongside the extinct Malagasy elephant bird (Aepyornis maximus) and the extinct Asian primate Gigantopithecus blacki.

After mentioning SETI, it continues

Other scientific forums have taken the work of cryptozoology, and the existence of cryptids, more seriously. Mark K. Bayless’ (2005) review of three cryptozoology books in the Quarterly Review of Biology, for example, avoids demarcating amateur and professional science, evaluating the books on the basis of the ‘seriousness’ of their cryptozoology and their relevance to zoologists. In the acclaimed science blog Tetrapod Zoology, which became an invited blog on the Science Blogs network in December 2006, and in 2008 was recognized by Networked Blogs as one of the top five zoology blogs, paleontologist Darren Naish follows news of cryptozoology and ‘speculative zoology’, noting that ‘a substantial amount of research on the history of zoological exploration and discovery was and is cryptozoological in scope’ (2007: para. 4). Like Bayless, he emphasizes that ‘it’s very difficult―if not impossible―to define a boundary between cryptozoology and “conventional” zoology’ (2007: para. 5).

and further

In contrast to estimations of the decline of biodiversity, the twenty-first century has been deemed ‘a new age in biology’ (Ceballos and Ehrlich 2009: 3841) because of the more than 400 new mammalian species that have been identified since 1993. Significantly, from a cryptozoological view, some of the discoveries have included ‘sea monsters’, and ethnographic methods are not off the table in continuing the search. For example, in response to the recent identification of several large vertebrate marine species, including a shark and three types of whale, Woodley and colleagues (2008) combine statistical regression models with an evaluation of cryptozoological and ethnozoological evidence to determine that as many as 15 more such species may yet be identified. Citing sea monsters like the merhorse and the tizhurek (a snake-like sea creature known in the Inuit oral tradition), the researchers argue that, ‘[b]ecause cryptozoological data are mostly discussed in the “grey literature”, appraisals of these cryptids have never appeared in the mainstream literature, perpetuating a cycle whereby these putative animals remain unevaluated’ (Woodley et al. 2008: 225). Though it is not as explicitly cryptozoological as the research of Woodley et al., statistical probability modelling and trend analysis (see, for example, Zapata and Robertson 2007) are common methods to estimate the number of unknown species. The use of probability methods to guess at cryptid existence – biology in a speculative mode – seems apt for species whose actuality may always be either hypothetical or confirmed only after extinction.

These passages I just took at a glance, I haven't looked at the rest of the papers; these are from: "The place of cryptids in taxonomic debates" by Stephanie S. Turner. GPinkerton (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is—have you read the current article? We've currently got six peer-reviewed sources spanning 20 years stating, without qualification, that cryptozoology is broadly considered a pseudoscience, and then a bunch of other sources following it. We don't have more there solely because six already seems like it's pushing it—there is no shortage of other source stating that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. It is clearly the dominant view. The article also makes clear that now and then an academic will dabble in the pseudoscience, as we see with just about every other pseudoscience under the sun, yet the great majority view is that this stuff is right there with Young Earth creationism, UFology, ESP, etc., and I doubt very much that the great majority of biologists welcome a comparison to their work and what is broadly considered classic pseudoscience. On a related note, Naish appears to have given up his quest to science-ify and defend cryptozoology several years ago—leaving, well, who exactly? :bloodofox: (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, yes, I have read the article, and no, I am not arguing that it's not pseudoscientific (where did that come from?), I'm saying it can't be narrowly defined as a subculture and things like Nessie and de Loys ape can't be excluded on the grounds their proponent aren't part of this "subculture". This reasoning is circular.

On the other point, see for instance: Sharon Merz "Enigmatic bush dwarfs of West Africa: The case of the siyawesi of northwestern Benin", op. cit. GPinkerton (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that I've just cited Mullis 2021, who opens with "Historians attempting to trace the beginnings of cryptozoology typically locate the practice's origins in the mid-twentienth century when Belgian-French zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans (1916-2001), with deference to to Scottish-born naturalist Ivan T. Sanderson (1911-1973), is believed to have coined the term." (p. 185). Mullis acknowledges this is the mainstream view before proposing that Thomas Jefferson should be seen as an early frontrunner to today's cryptozoology due to his similarly pseudoscientific approach. As you know, this is a deeply fringe topic, and it's important that we stick to mainstream views and assessments of the subculture and its activities. There's no reason to rope anyone who is not clearly identified as a cryptozoologists into the topic—and no doubt a big problem for BLP where it applies, as I suspect few scientists will want to be associated with a subculture so well known today for being so clearly and commonly identified as straightforward pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, Like I say, the book I referred to is pretty mainstream. My reading is that the definition is wider than just "pseudoscientific subculture instituted by Heuvelmans", since we have numerous sources stating that, inter alia the Loch Ness monster saga is a cryptozoological quest and that estimating the rate of extinction in undescribed species also falls within the sphere of cryptozoology. The subjects covered by the various chapters of Hurn 2016 mention quite a few examples and types. Suspicions aside, we should follow the sources rather than excluding whole area because they pre- or post-date Heuvelmans. GPinkerton (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67), the fact is, the definition of cryptozoology is quite mutable/malleable.

It is Heuvelmans's definition(s) that are most frequently quoted, the "scientific study of hidden animals", and he says something like only extraordinary ones count, like those of large size. That would be the "classic definition".

However, if you browse "cryptozoologist" Eberhart's reference,[6] Iit includes alleged creatures with more mundane profiles as well. (Cf. discussion on Eberhart's definitions Archive 5).--Kiyoweap (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It may feel counterintuitive at times but we need to be using mainstream sources, not fringe theorists such as Heuvelmans and Eberhart, to define the scope of the topic. It's very common for creationists, climate change deniers, ufologists, cryptozoologists, etc. to try to legitimize themselves by claiming that scientific research supports their views or is even part of their field and that is exactly what we're seeing here. If you're going to challenge the current well-sourced definition currently in use, you're going to have to provide better sources than that. –dlthewave ☎ 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, please double-check your own reading comprehension on what I stated, before you launch a fizzle-fizzle, dud of a retort.

I specifically said "most frequently quoted". This clearly means Heuvelmans's definition as referred to by "(mainstream) sources".

I have also previously named specific secondary sources that quoted Heuvelmans's definition, namely #Neutral-pro source (Paxton) published by mainstream academic press Routledge, and Stewart's college syllabus.--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There really should be distinctly separate names for these mutually incompatible activities, but we're stuck with "cryptozoology" that indiscriminately encompasses "all of the above". An easy way to resolve any confusion is to examine contemporary Zoology textbooks for what term they use when discussing mainstream zoological research of new species or species thought to have become extinct. I don’t have access to zoology textbooks, but looking at [7], [8], and [9], funny, I don’t see any mention of cryptozoology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's important to note here how little discussion there actually exists about this stuff among, say, zoologists and folklorists and academics more broadly. What little discussion exists pretty plainly just states it's a pseudoscience. Cryptozoology is a tiny subculture with historically very little influence and is essentially ignored in academia. It's deep fringe stuff and pretty obscure. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Henry Gee's 2004 Nature blog post quote

So, currently the article's discussion on pseudoscience opens with a bizarre quote from an obscure 2004 Nature blog piece by Henry Gee where Gee says that, after a hominid discovery, "cryptozoology ... can come in from the cold". This is followed by a huge amount of material from biologists and folklorists describing—in no uncertain terms—that cryptozoology is a classic example of straightforward pseudoscience—and why. Gee appears to have made no further comments on this until 2011, where, because of it, he was invited to take part in a cryptozoology-focused gathering (discussed below).

So, exactly why is this strange quote given so much prominence—or included at all—here? Well, while Gee's take may be from close to two decades ago and is obviously well outside of mainstream academic reception (as quotes from numerous biologists and folklorists spanning long before it and long after it demonstrate), it appears that Gee's 2004 statement has become something of a go-to quote for cryptozoologists who aim to employ it in 'legitimizing' the subculture. For example, it closes chapter one of cryptozoologist Richard Freeman's Adventures in Cryptozoology Hunting for Yetis, Mongolian Deathworms, and Other Not-So-Mythical Monsters, 2019, and self-published books like Dino Broncato's 2014 Strange Creatures (the Creatures of Cryptozoology) feature it. Here's well-known cryptozoologist Loren Coleman invoking it. Former cryptozoologist (or former cryptozoologist apologist?) Darren Naish (2011) also invokes Gee's 2004 "come in from the cold" comment when he admits that he asked Gee to participate in a cryptozoologist gathering (at the time seeking to change cryptozoologist's reception in biology as pseudoscience) because Gee seemed friendly to the subculture ("The meeting was chaired by Henry Gee. Henry explained how the discovery of Homo floresiensis led him to take seriously the idea that 'perhaps stories of other human-like creatures might be founded on grains of truth' (Gee 2004), and it was for this fairly crypto-friendly attitude that we initially approached him as chair"). Gee himself wrote a since-deleted blog entry on this small gathering, noting that this quote and his perceived friendliness to the subculture is what got him invited and, in the comments section, that this was the first cryptozoologist event he had attended. Gee doubles down on his support for the subculture, expressing his wish that it was taken seriously by zoologists somehow or another ([10]). If nothing else, cryptozoologists certainly have gotten a lot of mileage out of Gee's 2004 comment, brief as it was.

Looking back at English Wikipedia's cryptozoology article's edit history, it turns out the 2004 Gee quote is a holdover from at least the 2005 version of the article, where it was presented in exactly that way. Of course, WP:UNDUE reads "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." This appears to fit Gee's throw-away statement exactly—this undue emphasis. The Gee quote needs to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It is the same ol'circular argument, I mentioned before. Hey, maybe the status of cz is grey, maybe not all people interested in cz believe in the claims of cz (some may call themselves czologists some may not,life is complicated, boundaries are fuzzy) or maybe they think some points may be of interest. Maybe some people who call themselves czologists in the past actually have discovered new species (Marc van Roosmalen). Wow. Maybe people like Naish actually publish peer reviewed papers investigating the claims of cryptozoology without seeking to prove things or believing in the claims of its adherants. Maybe Heuvelmans and the earlier generation of cryptozoologists explictly rejected invoking the paranormal as a part of cz. And maybe this article should mention people like Attenborough, Gee and Goodall have been sympathetic to cz or some claims of cz. Maybe all these things should be included in a nuanced NPOV article about cz whilst fully acknowledging the overall pseudoscientific nature of its modern day practitioners perhaps by using Sharon Hill's really good book more where she really goes into this in depth and also talking about cz's overreliance on anecdotal evidence. Always not forgetting that philosophers of science find the demarcation problem really difficult unlike many Wikipedia editors! Happy to collaborate on this. Tullimonstrum (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Gee's 'Flores, God and Cryptozoology', published in Nature, is a WP:RS. It is the definition of a reliable source. While many zoologists and other scientists dismiss cryptozoology as pseudoscience (and while I frankly agree, particularly when it comes to supernatural cryptids), not all do, as has recently been pointed out to me (see above section). There are respectable scientists who do not classify cryptozoology, or who do not classify all of cryptozoology, the same way you do (senior editors of Nature and Scientific Fellows of the Zoological Society of London, bloodofox). I am not an expert on cryptozoology, but it has become evident to me that the lack of such sources on the page is not due to their nonexistence, but because they have been removed. These sources have not been removed because they are themselves fringe content, but because some editors with an ideological opposition to cryptozoology have misapplied the WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE to discharge all credible viewpoints they do not totally agree with. It is easy to define Gee as belonging to a 'tiny minority' when one disregards all sources besides those that agree with one's viewpoint.

It is also clear to me that the consensus building process for this article has broken down. Some few users are 'Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community' and are 'Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution.' as per WP:GAME.

Contrary to what you say, bloodofox, Gee's statements are not 'strange' (Wikipedia editors don't get to decide which senior Nature editors' statements count and which don't count) and more of his full quotes should be included in this article as they are both relevant and reliable, particularly to the young Earth Creationism section. Please read the last three paragraphs of his Flores, God and Cryptozoology. Statements contained in this section discredit claims made by creationist cryptozoologists. Gee essentially states that the discovery of cryptids thought to be extinct would challenge traditional religious views of the world, rather than confirming those views. We should include more of Gee's statements in this article, not delete them because they do not exactly align with your view of what counts as undue.

Thank you for adding it to the talk page. I do appreciate that you went to the bother of expressing it all, even if I disagree with your argument. The thoughts of @LuckyLouie: @Slatersteven: @Fyunck(click): @PaleoNeonate: @Rauisuchian: and @Dimadick: would be appreciated (sorry for not including everyone who's active on the page, apparently Wikipedia doesn't like too many pings). Joe (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, it matters what WP:RS says, not what you or I think about the matter, and they say, loud and clear, 'classic pseudoscience'. Gee's brief statement comes from a short Nature *blog* entry from 2004, and, yes, we're expected to use our brains when assessing sources for their quality and discern academic consensus. It of course helps when we have many WP:RS-compliant sources that say, loud and clear, that this is an excellent example of pseudoscience. Gee knows this: As he himself repeatedly indicates, Gee is well aware that academics quite broadly consider cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience.

We have WP:UNDUE exact;y for situations such as these ("Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. ... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, 'quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

First things first. If many sources say something, and a few disagree, we have a textbook example of a minority view. Whether the minority view should be mentioned or covered in detail in an article is up to Wikipedia editors to decide. While I suspect that Bloodofox is influenced by his own passionate view on the subject matter, he/she may be right in saying that Gee's article does not represent the views of mainstream science.

Now from my view as an editor, we should not include more direct quotes from Gee. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. We should summarize the main points of his article, and not copy his text directly. We do not want to plagiarize his text.

Whether cryptozoology is compatible with creationism (young earth or otherwise), and whether their methods and objectives differ is an interesting topic in its own right. But is Gee the only source on the subject matter? Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE AND WP:FRINGE are clear we do not give too much prominence to fringe views, but I am not sure that one line is "too much".Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would remind editors not to dismiss the views of fellow editors.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. Obviously WP:UNDUE and WP:POV pushing to cherry pick this offhand blogpost comment and have it at all alongside WP:Scholarship, let alone put it ahead of the actual academic consensus. Clearly a WP:FALSEBALANCE meant to give legitimacy to fringe pseudoscience. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

We're not voting quite yet, Crossroads and we may not vote at all. At the moment we're trying to reach a consensus, as per WP:CON, which states, "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

Needless to say, I disagree with your characterization of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The current quote is already 'included and described in its proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.', as per FALSEBALANCE. Joe (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's one quote that gets immediately refuted by encyclopedic text after it, which makes sense for due weight IMO. Rauisuchian (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. How would including that text help our readers understand the WP:MAINSTREAM encylopedic view of the topic? If there is not a valid reason to include, then it has to go. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. Out of succinctness it is logical to trim it. Rauisuchian (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually there are 2 web published pieces: Naish's SciAm ("Tetrapod Zoology") blog mentioning Gee in passing, [11] and Gee's column in Nature News[12]. I'm assuming Crossroads's "offhand blogpost comment" to refer to the former but is he lumping the two together? --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I would add that we need to be spared Bloodofox's psychic mind-reading when he says "Gee is well aware that academics quite broadly consider cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience." He exhorts to us, that if we use our brains we would get the same psychic reading as he. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternately, one might use one's eyes: Outside of the 2004 blog quote itself being about the subculture's rejection ("come in from the cold"), Gee also says stuff like "The meeting asked the question – is cryptozoology a science or a pseudoscience? I suspect that most people would veer to the latter view. After all, cryptozoology tends to group with aliens as subjects likely to attract muesli." (Gee 2011) Meanwhile, we have dozens of scholars cited in the article (and could add many dozens more) listing the subculture as a prime example of pseudoscience long before and long after Gee's blog posts, and all of them in peer-reviewed works, not blog pieces. You can stop beating the "cryptozoology isn't pseudoscience" horse—it's long dead. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) :bloodofox: (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, but then how should this article characterise, the peer reviewed work (in proper journals) done by people like Naish that does not seek to prove the existence of things and clearly is science and he calls cryptozoology? Something does not fit. Either not all cryptozoology is pseudoscience (and the article should reflect that) or Naish should not be called a cryptozoologist but no source has made that argument. I have never seen a clear answer to this conundrum by the "all is pseudoscience" editors here except for ignoring/purging all said inconvenient papers. Before you say it, it is not a matter of an unrepresentative minority/fringe view claiming the existence of bigfoot. There is recognised legitimate published scientific activity not claiming exotic animals (indeed is often skeptical) which characterises itself as cryptozoology. "All cryptozoology is pseudoscience" is falsified. Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In the article body is a section called "Reception and pseudoscience" (Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience). In this section are direct quotes from numerous scholars stating that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. These are peer-reviewed works. We write articles based on what WP:RS says. That's plenty. I'm not responding to any further threads from adherents who chose to try to deny this, and I will be removing personal attacks on sight. Wikipedia editors are not punching bags for pseudoscience proponents or adherents. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) :bloodofox: (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The personal attack (which I have not seen) was not me. Tullimonstrum (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Remove This quote is completely out of place as the opening sentence of the section, which should provide a summary of the mainstream view, and reads like it was tacked onto the front of a paragraph that does accurately summarize the section. No other sources have been presented to support this as anything other than a tiny minority view. Being published in a reputable journal does not mean that a viewpoint meets our due weight requirement, and its prominent position violates NPOV. –dlthewave ☎ 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The article needs to make at least a passing effort to run the gamut from anti- to neutral to pro- views.

Gee is not the lone pro- voice, Darren Naish of similar stature has been mentioned in the thread.

Thus zero against 9 negative dlthewave suggests is censorship based on false assumption.

And 1 or 2 pro- vs. 9 is hardly WP:UNDUE in my opinion, but if you can confirm by research that they are more astronomical odds and demonstrate it to us, this will enable you to dilute the percentage.

However I will warn you that as I hinted before, at least 2 authors currently in the article can be cited differently to demonstrate they are at least more neutral- to pro- minded than currently portrayed. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You have the history slightly wrong Dlthewave, the Gee quote was part of a rather more cogent defence of cryptozoology that has been steadily chipped away. Alas, the last vestige of the old order has past away! All I can say is, have a bit of doubt. Is is really possible that everything the old ISC did was pseudoscience, not one bit of real scence sneaked in, is it possible Naish and co get their papers published yet they are not science? The claim of this article seems extraordinarily strong. Tullimonstrum (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Digression

Finally got a chance to look this over—JoePhin's points here are off-base, and his edits to the article do not pass muster, per comments by Crossroads, Dlthewave, and Bloodofox. Carlstak (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Er, Carlstak, did you mean to post in the thread above which last talks about JoePhin's editing changes? You seem to be breaking the chain of discussion here. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC). [digressions reduced to fine print]--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

To follow up on Tullimonstrum saying "cogent defence.. chipped away", Gee's 2004 column was based on H. floresiensis ("hobbit" man) specimen's tentative dating then of 38,000/18,000 years ago,[13] admittedly flawed after the fossil's date was revised to 50,000 years.[14]

But if you actually read carefully, his "cryptozoologica"l point was not directly about floriensis, which he clearly regards as probably extinct on Flores before any caveman human contact; but possibly undiscovered hominids coeval to homo sapiens which conjecturally might have something to do with the orang pendek lore elsewhere in Indonesia.

So, Gee did make quite an astute and valid relevant point here. Namely, there was persisting dogma insisting that different hominids of diverse morphology cannot have coexisted coevally with homo sapiens. Subsequent science has proven Neanderthals were in fact coeval (cf. Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans).--Kiyoweap (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021 (2)

I am a cryptozoologist, and I am appalled to hear my trade called a pseudoscience. It is true that cryptozoology does not follow the traditional scientific method, but that does not make it fake! We simply go to whatever lengths necessary to prove or debunk a cryptid. In the words of Carl Sagan, "an Extraordinary claim requires Extraordinary Evidence." I humbly ask that Wikipedia change their description of cryptozoology. CryptozoologyIsNotPseudoscience12 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

See above discussions – Thjarkur (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The editing that has persisted to the current version in mentioning "pseudoscience" five times in the lede, and this has clearly reached a point of excessive and obsessive negative editing.

Cryptozoology is by definition a study of things lacking empirical evidence. There is precious little actual "science" that can be performed, so duh! it is rather hard for them to follow the scientific method. But not performing the undoable science is not pseudoscience. A policeman sitting on a cold case file without solid leads shouldn't be called a practitioner of pseudo-detection.

A person saying that a cryptid (like a "living dinosaur") might still exist "out there" is not pseudoscience either. It's only if they assert dubious proof they do exist that it becomes pseudoscience. But AFAIK the cryptozoologist generally concedes the possibility of any cryptid being proven to exist as extremely remote, and that probably should be clarified in the lede to bring this heavily WP:POV article closer to being WP:NEUTRAL. -Kiyoweap (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree we overuse pseudoscience (we only need to say it once), but Cryptozoology is pseudoscience.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We have many high-quality sources describing in absolutely no uncertain terms that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, which includes the subculture's highly visible and vocal young Earth creationist wing. If you think this is "negative" rather than simple fact, that's on you. If there's a prose issue, then anyone can adjust it like anywhere else, but using "the subculture" and/or "the pseudoscience" both perfectly reasonable and expected. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"a "living dinosaur" Do you mean a bird? Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The point I have conceded already is that cryptozoology is not science. And non-fiction writing about "cryptids" which is not science, i.e., reported claims of creatures is neither science nor pseudoscience per se.

It is patent nonsense that the same content somehow becomes WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE if handled by a certain group, namely the "cryptozoologist" profession/avocation, but when handled by others who choose to label themselves "skeptic" or "folklorist" or just "writer" they gain some sort of God-given immunity. The rule is clearly meant to be content-based, not blanketly applied on a label.

This pathetic excuse for a neutral article imagines itself to have established its case re the "cryptozoologist" label (which is a group whose day jobs cover a wide array from zoologist to librarians). But it engages in all sorts of WP:NPOV behavior. Claiming 'high-quality sources' amounts to naught when it is handled in so blatantly non-neutral way.

For example, the case is not clearly one-sided on the question of "pseudoscience" in Abominable Science. The topic is discussed more in depth in the first half written by skeptic Loxton, with more of a measured criticism, while the second half was penned by the more antagonistic paleontologist Prothero. However, this edit foists the latter's opinion onto both authors. So yes, I would chalk up this type of editing misbehavior as unduly "negative".

I also tire of Bloodofox's keep bringing up "young Earth creationist wing" blah blah blah, which I am not at all interested in, and I doubt he is either, except it is negative campaign fodder by way of guilt-by-association. The "prominent" cryptologist-authors do not belong in this camp of evolutionary theory doubters, and you have not shown any meaningful ties to this "wing".--Kiyoweap (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

As one of the site's resident cryptozoologists, I get that you're annoyed by the plethora of sources we have that under no uncertain terms state that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and you're especially annoyed that those sources also frequently mention the subculture's long association with Young Earth creationism. The sources are overwhelming, commentary like this is obnoxious, this ship has sailed, and stop pinging me with nonsensical rants like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What I am pointing out is how pathetically this fails to adhere to WP:NEUTRAL point of view. Proffering the view of your favorite anti-cryptozoology crusader Prothero as the essence of a thick 2-author book of different opinions is, blatantly, non-neutral way of using material.

Instead of addressing by any sort of logical reasoning, you again resort to the pattern of throwing some label (WP: SYNTH, or WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE) and be done with it, as you now see it fit to label me as "resident cryptozoologist". I do not identify myself as such and I do not give you permission to call me that.

But the fact that you think yourself justified in calling me this so readily only demonstrates your conspiratorial mind-set. If I don't savagely criticize cryptozoologists, but insist on given them fair criticism, I am somehow "one of them". --Kiyoweap (talk)

If you've got an issue with Donald Prothero, send him an email. Loxton and Prothero aside, we have dozens of scholars who state exactly the same currently cited throughout the article.

But here's a tip: If you find yourself attempting to convince others that your pet hobby is not a pseudoscience, chances are it's a pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well actually, since between the two of us I am the science major, I am sure I have a better understanding of what divides science and pseudoscience.

So my esteem of your opinion on this matter is quite, quite, infinitesimal.

I don't understand your braggy jibe about your fave Prothero. I was clearly not challenging the legitimacy of your fave, but rather saying that the other author's view, who may not be your fave, need be given for neutral balance.

I am not for promoting censorship, it is what you blatantly did in the edit.--Kiyoweap (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You think a science major automatically knows the difference between science and pseudoscience? How ridiculous.

You think a science major impresses anyone here? How ridiculous.

You think any type of academic grade impresses anyone here? How ridiculous.

bloodofox has been editing pseudoscience articles for well over a decade, and I can assure you he knows the difference very well, as do the vast majority of the other editors frequenting the Fringe theories noticeboard. But that is neither here nor there. Using scholarly sources is not "braggy", it is standard. Prothero is a very good source on the subject, and that you call him a "crusader" only shows that you have a fringe axe to grind. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well Hob Gadling person, I assure you your "assurance's etc. don't mean diddly squat to me either, if I may reciprocate.

And if Bloodofox dedicated his last 10 years on the subject, this doesn't assure anyone he has in the meantime developed the capability of neutrally writing on the topic.

Now I was asking for clarification on the purpose of the name-dropping, whether the intended point was being "braggy" about his source, i.e., "credential-mongering".

The mongering needs to be more credible and non-egregious. Tenure at Oxy does not absolutely completely trump professorship at U. Chicago.

Nor should other science researcher/writers for a science journal be disqualified by the POV editor's whim (Naish) or commentators used in a blatantly marginalized and negative fashion (Paxton, Nagel), while the negative whinings of the biology teacher association makes the grade.

As to the scholarly book source, Prothero makes no bones about his more anti- position, and says the book was of a "good cop" "bad cop" format, with him representing the "bad cop" and "more hard-assed" author (Skeptic interview[15] added here).

Therefore I refute Gad's mudslinging the "fringe" word at me, based on his petty quibble that my choice of "crusader" label here is some gross mischaracterization. --Kiyoweap (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If you were really a science major, you would have learned that "I am a science major" does not win an argument, but just makes you look silly. Maybe you should read argumentum ad verecundiam.

Well, it is skeptics on one side and the fringe on the other. Not our decision. If you find skeptics yucky, you are fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I never said I "find skeptics yucky". I clearly stated that co-author Loxton, a Skeptics Society staff writer should have his views reflected on par with the "bad cop" Prothero.

The problem is, you guys need to remind yourselves that science reserves pre-formed judgment either way, and must remain impartial in their rational mind that a thing is neither proven nor disproven, until the data or experimental substantiates one way or the other. Does this sound vaguely familiar or not? Bit like swearing oath to jury duty, perhaps that analogy helps? My point is that this concept is second nature to a hard science major like me, but apparently fails to resonate for you when you happen to be of the liberal arts type. Is that such an extraordinary thing to say?

In other words, a scientist is a skeptic, as well as a believer in the possibility, all at the same time. --Kiyoweap (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Kiyoweap, these arguments and analogies are inappropriate; Wikipedia is not a quest for scientific truth. It's a mirror for what has already been demonstrated and what other sources say about that. GPinkerton (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I should have clarified I was only trying to explain Scientific Method (q.v.) in my own words, not prescribing them.

What divides science and pseudoscience is the application of the Scientific Method, in which you are to avoid making cognitive assumptions.[16]

Specifically more relevant sources are being searched and added at #FAQ Maybe exist is not pseudoscience.

One supports the notion that holding a belief (credulous assumption) about cryptids is not in itself pseudoscience, and other is a position a scientist has taken on the question. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC) revised 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I was only trying to explain Scientific Method And you failed. What you explained was a very common amateurish misunderstanding of how science works. Actually, you will find the "reserve judgment" demand neither in what philosophers of science write nor in actual science education. Nor in the article you linked, Scientific Method. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I will cop to it being an "amateurish" attempt at trying to explain something about science to a liberal arts major.

After all, it is a large task for the "professionals", namely, the professors hired at liberal arts colleges to try to teach science literacy to their students, with a rather bleak prospect of suceeding.[17][18]

But since I have now specifically quoted the "professional", namely Professor Bruce G. Stewart to make my point: "beliefs such as these are not pseudosciences"[19] you cannot weasel out of this and dismiss it as a product of my misunderstanding. That game is over. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Kiyoweap, the word "beliefs" seems rather to imply that cryptozoology is based on nothing as pseudoscientific as pseudoscience, but rather something anti-scientific, like faith. GPinkerton (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The "belief" part is not anti-scientific, only if he ["the believer"] then makes a "claim" is anti-scientific (pseudoscience), as the source given goes on to say.[20] --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If you think that such questions can be definitely settled by quoting one single sentence (out of context) from a professor of whatever, which happens to seem to agree with you, calling him "the professional", your understanding of how science works is even poorer than I thought. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Full direct quote from the professorial source is: "Beliefs such as these are not pseudosciences. It is when the ‘believer’ claims that there is scientific evidence to back up these beliefs that they enter the realm of pseudoscience".[21]

The meaning of the sentence is pretty straight forward.

Saying this somehow taken "out of context" is pretty desperate. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if it is not out context, if you think that such questions can be definitely settled by quoting one single sentence from a professor of whatever, which happens to seem to agree with you, calling him "the professional", your understanding of how science works is even poorer than I thought. You see only those parts of sentences you want to see, it seems. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The "believer/beliefs" are just the colloquialisms used by this professor in teaching his class. I imagined it is used by other profs.

The "belief[s]" obviously corresponds to the phrase "cognitive assumptions" in our scientific method article, but this does not seem the standardized term in philosophy of science, so may be phrased differently elsewhere.

This "belief" phraseology does have the side-effect of suggesting it is "something anti-scientific, like faith" as GPinkerton said.

I would avoid going there. Lab researchers might say "I believe this will work" but this is usually regarded as a cognitive hunch, that an approach or recipe/formula "might work". --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerns that the article does not meet NPOV standards, proposed revision for introductory text

@LuckyLouie: @Slatersteven: @Roxy the dog: @Tronvillain: @Fyunck(click): @Bloodofox: @PaleoNeonate: @Cygnis insignis: @Rauisuchian: @Tullimonstrum: @Andy Dingley: @Hunter12396: @Dimadick: @JoePhin:

At the request of LuckyLouie I am opening a section to discuss some substantial revisions I added and which user Slatersteven objected to. The current Cryptozoology article does not currently meet Wikipedia's strict neutrality standard. Particularly, as stated on the NPOV page, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." Currently, the text is dismissive, and while cryptozoology is an easily dismissed subject, the tone does not meet Wikipedia's NPOV standard for nonjudgmental language and needs to be fixed.

I propose an edit that is more neutral and less disparaging, while still maintaining a critical outlook on the subject. This edit adds some clarification about why cryptozoology is considered pseudoscientific, rather than simply asserting so. A derivation for the word and more links to other related Wikipedia articles about evidence and standards of evidence are also included in this edit. User Slatersteven objected to the edit, claiming, and I quote, "too much OR and editorialisign" The edit contains no original research (everything referenced either relates to sources already on the page or to other Wikipedia articles) and, as far as 'editorialisign' goes, perhaps I could remove a 'however' here or there. Please consider the below text and compare it to the current lead section article. Suggestions for revisions, corrections, or improvements are of course welcome.

Cryptozoology (from Ancient Greek: κρυπτός, kryptós "hidden, secret"; Ancient Greek ζῷον, zōion "animal", and λόγος, logos, i.e. "knowledge, study") is the study of, or search for, hidden or unknown animals or cryptids. While there is nothing inherently unscientific about searching for or attempting to study something which is currently unknown, those who practice cryptozoology often employ pseudo-scientific methods and slack standards of evidence. Believing in the possibility of the existence of animals currently unknown to science is rational, as new species are discovered every year; however, many cryptozoologists believe without reservation in the existence of animals such as Bigfoot, the chupacabra, or the Mokele-mbembe, for which there is only scant physical evidence, or nothing but anecdotal evidence. Supernatural or paranormal properties are ascribed to cryptids like the Mothman and the Jersey Devil, increasing the scientific standard of evidence for reasonable belief in such entities. Other cryptids like the Loch Ness Monster or Champ are supposedly enormous, yet are rarely seen and even more rarely recorded on film or in photographs.

Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world. Zoologists who study and discover new animal species do not generally adopt the term to describe themselves. Cryptozoology is also distinct from folklore studies. The term cryptozoology was originally coined in the 1950s by zoologists Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson. Scholars have noted that cryptozoologists rejected mainstream approaches from an early date, and that adherents often express disdain for mainstream science. Young Earth creationists sometimes identify themselves as cryptozoologists, claiming that creatures believed to be extinct, such as non-avian dinosaurs, should still exist somewhere in the world because the biblical character Noah took every 'kind' of animal with him on the ark. Scholars have noted parallels in cryptozoology and other exercises such as ghost hunting and ufology. Cryptozoology has been the subject of much sensationalist media.

Yours, Joe (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well for a start (and yes just a start) "While there is nothing inherently unscientific about searching for or attempting to study something which is currently unknown," reads like OR. It is also an odd thing to say, its not unscientific for me to look for Nessie in my bog, it is unscientific to say it might be there (for any number of reasons).Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: From the 'Observation' section of the Scientific Method article (which is linked in the sentence you refer to), a statement about scientific hypotheses. "The hypothesis might be very specific; for example, Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein", or it might be broad; for example, unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans." Note that last part. This is not my OR. Referencing the Wikipedia article about the subject is sufficient, but it would not be difficult to find and add a citation to this effect, perhaps Science and Hypothesis by Henri Poincaré, although there may be a more direct source to that specific effect. I note that the current head section contains no references, despite the many claims therein, which is not necessarily problematic since the head articles refers to material later in the article or links to relevant Wikipedia articles. Joe (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I fail to say why we need to say it, it adds nothing and reads like an attempt to claim three is some scientific basis for this stuff. IN fact, that is what much of this reads like. "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world", again weasel words, "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by experts" would be correct if we need to have the caveat of "considered" moroever "[Zoology|Zoologists]] who study and discover new animal species do not generally adopt the term to describe themselves.", again we do not need this it tells us nothing and is three one zoologist who has discovered a new species who has ever adopted the term?.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world" is not Weasel Words. It would be Weasel words if nowhere else in the article were any examples of academics calling cryptozoology pseudoscience given, but there are a plethora of examples currently in the article. Also, I bring to your attention the fact that the phrase "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world" is currently in the header section of the article. That's a phrase I did not change in my edit. There was no reason to change it because there was nothing wrong with it. Either way, you cannot object to this edit for containing something that is contained verbatim in the current header. Saying academics 'consider' something to be 'X' is not a caveat if academics do consider it to be 'X'. I feel like you guys are pulling out all the stops, 'this is OR,' 'this is Synthetic,' 'this is Weasel Words,' but it is none of these things, categorically so. Everything that has been called OR either refers to material later in the same article or is linked to other wiki articles. Everything called 'synthetic' takes the form B not A, instead of the actual synthetic form, A and B therefore C. Now you claim Weasel Words. Weasel Words would be 'some people say cyrptozoology is pseudoscience' and then giving no examples. Saying "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world" might be Weasel Words if we deleted everything below the header, as well as the examples given in the proposed text exemplifying why Cryptozoology does not meet academic standards of evidence, e.g. "Supernatural or paranormal properties are ascribed to cryptids like the Mothman and the Jersey Devil, increasing the scientific standard of evidence for reasonable belief in such entities." That quote is in the proposed edit, and not in the current iteration. The proposed edit more strongly asserts that Cryptozoology is pseudoscience than the current iteration because it clarifies why cryptozoology is pseudoscience.

This is getting absurd. Joe (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not say, "Whales are considered mammals by the academic world", we say, "Whales are mammals". That is because the academic world happens to be the arbiter which decides such questions, and "considered by the academic world" is therefore redundant. Superfluous fluff. Same with every other statement the academic world makes: we repeat what they say without adding that it is "the academic world" doing the considering. Same with cryptozoology and pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I see you neglected to read my full comment, Hob Gadling, so I'll reiterate. "I bring to your attention the fact that the phrase "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world" is currently in the header section of the article. That's a phrase I did not change in my edit. There was no reason to change it because there was nothing wrong with it. Either way, you cannot object to this edit for containing something that is contained verbatim in the current header."

This is getting absurd. Joe (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What's your point? You are defending the "considered" phrasing. It does not matter whether you introduced it or not. My contribution was about whether is a good phrase or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just as a side-note, Hob Gadling, I believe user Roxy the happy dog . wooF recently changed the header text to say "cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream science" after my last comment, but that change makes hardly any difference as far as Weasel Words are concerned. To that point, yes, sourced statements later in the article confirm the statement 'cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream science/the academic world', therefore it is not Weasel Words. Saying that academics consider X to be Y is not Weasel Words if you provide a source to that effect in the article. If you did not provide a source, that could be Weasel Words. If I said 'some people think cryptozoology is pseudoscience' and left it at that, that could be Weasel Words. None of that is the case here.

The Weaselyness of the words, of course, has no bearing on the proposed edit, since the phrase is the same in both the original and the proposal (we can call it 'mainstream science' instead of 'the academic world' in the proposal too, if that makes Roxy happy). Do you have any comments about the suggested changes? Joe (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I just made it less weaselly, following something you said in this morass of words. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 20:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Roxy, I know. Brevity. Working on it. Joe (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

We report on what reliable sources say and they overwhelming—and quite straightforwardly—describe cryptozoology as a classic example of pseudoscience. There's nothing controversial about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: What is your point? This edit contains the statement "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world." There's nothing controversial about the edit in that department. Joe (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please shop the apologetics elsewhere. We deal with more than enough of this sort of thing on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal is classic synthesis (WP:SYNTH) and also appears to be designed to bury the topics status as fringe (WP:FRINGE). English Wikipedia is not censored—we provide readers with clear description: If you find the subculture's status as a pseudoscience "disparaging" or "judgmental", that's on you. On Wikipedia, fringe subjects are flatly described as fringe subjects and pseudosciences are clearly labeled as pseudoscience. There's no reason to not come right out and say it as the article does now. Sentences like "while there is nothing inherently unscientific about searching for or attempting to study something which is currently unknown" and "Believing in the possibility of the existence of animals currently unknown to science is rational," are clear examples of editorializing and read as apologetics for the subculture. That's not what we're here for—the current lead is much more direct and concise and lacks editorializing. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

:bloodofox: The proposal is not synthetic. Synthesis would A + B therefore C, A being 'inquiry into the unknown is scientific', B being 'Crytpozoology is inquiry into the unknown' and C being 'Cyrptozoology is scientific.' The only similar statements in the proposal are A but not B, e.g. inquiry into the unknown is scientific but this does not make cryptozoology scientific.

Your attempt at quote mining is transparently bad. No reasonable observer could look at the sentence "While there is nothing inherently unscientific about searching for or attempting to study something which is currently unknown, those who practice cryptozoology often employ pseudo-scientific methods and slack standards of evidence." or indeed any other sentence in the proposal, and conclude that it reads as "apologetics" for cryptozoology. Clarifying why claims made by cryptozoologists do not meet scientific standards for evidence is the opposite of cryptozoology apologetics. You read like a creationist claiming that Darwin said the eye was irreducibly complex because he once marveled at its complexity, while ignoring the subsequent portion of his writing where he described how the eye could have evolved.

I think I know what has happened. You've dealt with people editing the cryptozoology page before. They come in saying 'cryptozoology is a perfectly legitimate science' and you have had to deal with them. You've dealt with them so many times that you've become a reactionary. Your original comment, "We report on what reliable sources say and they overwhelming—and quite straightforwardly—describe cryptozoology as a classic example of pseudoscience." hints to me that you didn't initially read the text of the proposal, or you gave up before the "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world." part. Even after reading the text, you're still convinced that any changes are just more cryptozoologist apologetics, even those that blatantly aren't. The proposal is not (WP:SYNTH), nor is it (WP:OR), nor does it contradict in any way the conclusion of the original text. Joe (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I think we've had enough attempts at apologetics on this (and related) articles over the years, but they all run into a wall: On Wikipedia, we report what reliable sources say, and they overwhelmingly—and quite clearly—refer to cryptozoology as a pseudoscience. This is the objective reality of the situation, whether or not you find it 'good' or 'bad'. You've clearly decided it's hte latter, as indicated by your comments that describing cryptozoology as a pseudoscience is "judgmental" and "disparaging" rather than simply reality. Given the quality and quantity of sources we have on this topic, you're now hitting that same wall. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

:bloodofox: You make no points besides claiming that I think the current header text is "judgmental" and "disparaging" because it describes cryptozoology as a pseudoscience. I have never said that. The proposed edit describes cryptozoology as pseudoscience. Your claim is absurd. Your quote mining needs work. Joe (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This essay is worth a read, and may help illuminate the situation. I realize it's only an essay, but I find it's a good plain-spoken explanation of how our neutrality policy works in relation to WP:FRINGE topics. Misinterpretation of WP:NPOV is very common with editors who are new to Wikipedia. Don't take it personally, we have all, at one time or another, failed to grok the nuances of Wikipedia's subtly interlocking and often byzantine-appearing policies, so I hope you'll stick around and add value to the project. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding something, I am a one-month-and-four-day-old Wikipeida baby, so please do hold my hand for this and I won't be offended in the slightest, but I don't see how my edit conflicts with the essay you linked, or Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE policy. I haven't actually changed any of the conclusions reached in the current header, just made them less disparaging and added some explanations and links to scientific standards of evidence. I am not under any illusion that Wikipeida's NPOV equates to "No Point Of View". I hardly think an edit which includes phrases such as "those who practice cryptozoology often employ pseudo-scientific methods and slack standards of evidence." or "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world." Counts as 'no point of view.' I made the edit with specific elements of Wikipeida's NPOV policy in mind. In the NPOV article, in the 'Explanation of the neutral point of view' section, one of the fundamental principals is, "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

The current header is uses judgmental and disparaging language to describe cryptozoology. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to whoever wrote it that way (I am not a cryptozoologist) but it is still a violation of the above NPOV principal. Tell me how I'm wrong - and I mean that - I am a baby and I will listen to my elders. Thanks for any help. Joe (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If a majority of our highest quality academic sources discuss the topic in a judgemental and disparaging way, we can only reflect that outlook in the article in the most straightforward manner and without equivocation. No doubt sentences like While there is nothing inherently unscientific about searching for or attempting to study something which is currently unknown... and Believing in the possibility of the existence of animals currently unknown to science is rational, as new species are discovered every year can be reliably sourced, they are not making these arguments in the context of cryptozoology, so putting them in the article is WP:SYNTHESIS. If by chance some source does make these arguments in the context of cryptozoology, the appropriate place to include them would be within a larger discussion of epistemological context in the article body with proper attribution (e.g. "According to John X, "<quote John X's exact words from the cited source>") and not in the article lead. I should add that the latter inclusion would be subject to WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk page, i.e. general agreement that this would improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

LuckyLouie I must object to your characterization of those sentences as synthetic. A synthetic statement would be A + B therefore C, but nowhere in the proposal is such a conclusion drawn, there is no C. You'll note that the overall conclusion in the proposal, "those who practice cryptozoology often employ pseudo-scientific methods and slack standards of evidence." and in the original text, "Cyrptozoology is a pseudoscience" are the same. If some new conclusion was being reached, (some C) that could be (WP:SYNTH), but the revision is merely a clarification as to why cryptozoology is pseudoscientific, and clarifying why something is pseudoscience requires that one discuss what science is. Further, you cannot dismiss sources that discuss the scientific method out of hand because they don't relate to cryptozoology; such sources would not be cited in regards to cryptozoology per se, but rather, in regards to the pseudoscientific nature of cryptozoology - which I remind you, is a characterization I agree with. My proposal included the statement, "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world." because I am not an apologist for cryptozoology, contrary to what another user bizarrely asserted. Joe (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The conclusion of synthesis can be unspoken and implied, even if ambiguous, e.g. (A) “A significant number of defendants in assault cases have been shown to be wrongly convicted, (B) however John Smith was found guilty of assault by a jury in December 2006”. The unspoken (C) could be interpreted a number of ways, none of which either source would support. Even if your intentions are good, i.e. to help illuminate the topic for readers, you can’t synthesize an explanation you feel would be helpful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if the conclusion of synthesis can be unspoken and implied, there is nothing ambiguous about the proposed edit's rejection of B. Statements like, "Scholars have noted parallels in cryptozoology and other exercises such as ghost hunting and ufology." and "Supernatural or paranormal properties are ascribed to cryptids like the Mothman and the Jersey Devil, increasing the scientific standard of evidence for reasonable belief in such entities." make it very clear that the conclusion is B not A, and not, A and B therefore C. This is atomic logic, it is not ambiguous, and the aforementioned quotes mean that the conclusions is not 'unspoken or implied,' the conclusions is very clearly spoken and implied (and directly stated) to be "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world."

User Slatersteven has just claimed that the above quote is an example of Weasel Words. This is patently absurd. Wikipedia editing standards are being thrown about willy-nilly with no regard for whether they're actually relevant to the discussion. Joe (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be indicating that you can SYNTHesize an explanation by mixing sources that don't explicitly mention cryptozoology with ones that do - as long as you include "cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience" in a later paragraph. If so, that's not how Wikipedia's editorial policies work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, you cannot get synthesis from a statement which takes the form 'B not A' with no explicit 'C' component. As far as your concerns about 'implied synthesis' go, you cannot get 'implied synthesis' from a statement which takes the form 'B not A' where, then, 'not C' is subsequently and directly expressed. Synthesis would be 'A and B therefore C'. The proposed header contains 'B not A, not C'. A direct analogy: Person X says: '1 does not equal 2' and Person Y replies, 'So you're asserting that 1 plus 2 equals 1? I don't think that's true.' but Person X has already explicitly stated that '3 does not equal 1.' - 'B not A' does not imply 'C'. Even if it did somehow, 'C' is directly stated to be false. There is no synthesis, there is no synthetic implication. It is possible to bring up science when clarifying why something is pseudoscience without synthesizing 'pseudoscience is science.'

I really am concerned about NPOV, despite your reassurances, and efficacy isn't my main reason for wanting the edit, but I did try to make the opaque assertions of cryptzoology's unscientific nature more clear. Bringing up science when discussing pseudoscience is not 'mixing sources', pseudoscience is defined by what science is not. It is literally impossible to define pseudoscience, or to clarify why something is pseudo-scientific, without bringing up science. The current header text actually does a very bad job of explaining that cryptozoology is pseudo-scientific; asserting something over and over again without clarifying why you're asserting it not effective communication. Even Slatersteven, who is definitely not on my side in this discussion, agrees with me on this basic point, at least to some extent. He wrote "I agree we overuse pseudoscience (we only need to say it once)" in the above 'Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021 (2)' section. Sorry for rambling. Thank you for being patient with me. Joe (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just checking: we are discussing the two sentences I highlighted in green at the beginning of our exchange, yes? I suspect that if you were to submit these at The Teahouse (a good resource for new editors to ask questions) the volunteers there would do a better job of explaining why their proposed inclusion is actually WP:SYNTH. The issue is moot, however, since adding this idiosyncratic explanation of what is rational and scientific and what isn't would be WP:UNDUE weight in the article lead. Such stuff, if it could be reliably sourced without resorting to WP:SYNTH and attributed, is better housed in the article body. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

LuckyLouie User Rauisuchian actually proposed an edit below that more or less eliminates this whole synthesis concern, and I'd be happy with his version. Please give it a read and let me know what you think. I disagree that clarifying why Cryptozoology is pseudoscience is undue in the header, not only because many Wikipedia headers go into much greater depth than the proposed edit does, but more than that, there's this quote from the section about due and undue weight: "For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader."

Due or not, my way of doing it may have been clunky, and Rauisuchian's version is both more streamlined and totally eliminates the problem you had with synthesis, at least for the concerned sentence. We could do something pretty similar with the other sentence, I think. Joe (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposed definition extends to two paragraphs, but does not include any sources. The pseudo-scientific methods should probably be described. Name-dropping specific cryptids in the lead seems excessive to me. The connection to young Earth creationism seems interesting and should be highlighted. The connections to ghost hunting and ufology are ill-defined in the proposed text. Are there any prominent examples of cryptozoology's depiction by the media? Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Thanks for the constructive criticism, when I wrote the edit I was mainly trying to make the current version more neutural and to add some links to other wiki pages, and since I wasn't adding anything but clarifications and tone-shifts, I didn't bother adding any links (the current head section is several paragraphs and doesn't have any citations either) but I think you're right that some citations would be useful. I'll make an edit with some specific citations and post that for consideration (and please feel free to suggest some alternative presentations). As for naming specific cryptids and the connections to ghost hunting and ufology, well, that may be excessive or ill-defined, but the current head section already names specific cryptids and connects cryptozoology to ghost hunting and ufology. I wasn't looking to delete anything. Perhaps those segments should be moved to their own sections within the broader article? Joe (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that the ping didn't work. Too many in one post I think. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 22:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, the use of the word "pseudoscience" five times in the lead section is overkill and unnecessary. Someone should write the intro using as an example the ones at Parapsychology, Crystal healing, Ghost hunting, or Palmistry. Not going to comment further on this, just passing through. 5Q5|^✉ 13:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Been here before. I am afraid, you are wasting your time JoePhin et al., the ultraskeptics have convinced themselves that anything other than total dismissal of cryptozoology is somehow POV. The *blatantly circular* argument is used that cz is pseudoscience, therefore any defence of cz, is pseudoscience and hence inadmissable. Ignoring any source that does not fit the argument e.g. peer reviewed work by Darren Naish etc. , sympathetic works by skeptics (and there are some.),the end result is a bizarre definition that only paranormalists and ultras would like, that ignores the original definition of cryptozoology and originally was Bloodofox' personal definition, as far as I can tell. There is something off with the lead if an editorial board member of a skeptical magazine and zoologist who has written skeptically about cz (that is me) thinks the lead is POV! NPOV would be to start with Heuvelmans' definition and then point out the problems. The current lead and second para are inaccurate, ignore the history of the subject, ignores peer reviewed cz work that do not seek to the prove the existence of anything, and makes claims that are manifestly false e.g. that cz was a pseudoscientific activity from the start. Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually I have long opposed Bloodfoxe's attitude, and we have had many conflicts. But on this, they are right Cryptozoology is pseudoscience, it is practicaly a working definition of it. If you have reputable RS that says it not pseudoscience present them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I am not saying it is not in part pseudoscience, especially nowadays. However this quote was deleted years ago from the article "Cryptozoology varies from the pseudoscientific to useful and interesting depending in how it is practised" from Shermer's Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience! In fact compare the whole tone of that article to this one to see how skewed POV the Wikipedia version has become. Or consider Naish's Hunting Monsters (which is a skeptical take on the topic) says that assuming cz is "monster hunting" is "somewhat erroneous" (pg.18). But I have made all these arguments before. Even if you accept that cz is all pseudoscience which I would not, the lead should have Heuvelmans' definition rather than the "seeking to prove" nonsense which is a definition no one ever used. Tullimonstrum (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience also says "Pointing to this rampant speculation and ignorance of established scientific theories in cryptozoology, as well as the field's poor record of success and its reliance on unsystematic, anecdotal evidence, many scientists and skeptics classify cryptozoology as a pseudoscience." (page 77). Key point here, "many" scientists. Most scientists agree that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience so we don't need to cite the very few that don't think it is. That would be false balance. My brother was a cryptozoologist even published in the field but came to realise it was filled with cranks and crackpots seeking a paranormal explanation. The field of cryptozoology is dead and they have never demonstrated a single thing. That's why they have to quote Bernard Heuvelmans from the 1950s, they have nothing recent. No modern biologists or ecologists take this subject seriously and it almost never appears in peer review. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, Tullimonstrum, and thanks for trying to warn me. I'm not even trying to make some allowance that cryptozoology might not be all pseudoscience, the edit I proposed unequivocally states that crytpozoology is pseudoscientific, although, if what you're saying it right, perhaps it should be even less extreme than that. Either way, my proposed edit merely seeks to clarify why elements of cryptozoology are pseudoscientifc, like, "Supernatural or paranormal properties are ascribed to cryptids like the Mothman and the Jersey Devil, increasing the scientific standard of evidence for reasonable belief in such entities." and I'm receiving some remarkable backlash for this simple explication. If, as you say, there are reliable sources that do not consider cryptozoology to be wholly pseudoscientifc, I think we need to organize some resistance to this reactionary tendency against any and all modifications.

Looking through the page's history, I see that user Rauisuchian created a very interesting and relevant section on cryptozoology in art and fiction - Cryptozoology - yet this was deleted by Bloodofox, claiming it to be OR, despite the myriad citations, and synthetic, which it was clearly not. User Slatersteven recently objected to my proposed edit by asserting that the statement "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world." is Weasel Words, despite the fact that this statement is 1) not Weasel Words, and 2) already included verbatim in the current text. It is possible to maintain an article about a fringe topic without becoming an extremist and a reactionary. Perhaps Bloodofox and Slaterseven will never see reason on this, claiming everything imaginable to be OR and SYNTH and Weasel Words no matter how absurd, but Wikipedia works by consensus. If we get enough people who agree that edits to the Cryptozoology should be allowed, perhaps we can overcome the reactionaries? The article is sorely in need of some improvements. We should improve it. Joe (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC) 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Note that this user is now lobbying. This fringe stuff so often seems to go down the same way.) :bloodofox: (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

bloodofox Lobbying? I mentioned Rauisuchian's edit in my comment and asked him to come read the thread. You'll also note he was one of the original users I pinged when I started the section (based of his previous activity on the page, just the same way I pinged you, bloodofox). Was I lobbying you, or user Slatersteven, when I pinged either of you in the original post? Was Slatersteven lobbying me when he came to my talk page and asked me to start a section about the edit? I'll happily leave it to the interpretation of any honest reader to determine for themselves if that counts as 'lobbying.' Joe (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I support the proposed revision. We all know and agree that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. The proposed edits continue to satisfy the WP:FRINGE detail regarding NPOV (where to follow NPOV, fringe views are placed in context of their reception by mainstream experts), just as much as the current lead of the article. The proposed revisions add more detail and descriptive statements to the lead in doing so.

That being said, I would suggest a mild re-word to the edit. I think the "While there is nothing inherently unscientific..." phrase sounds somewhat clunky. The second and third sentences essentially say the same thing but the third one expresses it more effectively. I would just change the entire second sentence ("While there is nothing inherently unscientific...") to "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience due to slack standards of evidence."

A side note. In the current article, there seems to be a lack of the view by cryptozoology skeptics who, while stating that cryptozoology is unsubstantiated and fictive, also think it's harmless, entertaining, or neutral rather than distressing. There are many mainstream sources by this view, in fact Daniel Loxton who is cited in the article expresses this perspective, and disagrees somewhat with his co-author Prothero in Abominable Science. [1] Including Darren Naish's writings in the article was contentious in this page earlier because he liked the idea of cryptids while introducing scientific viewpoint to disprove them, but he's a cryptozoology skeptic and is mentioned favorably by other skeptics. Rauisuchian (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bothering to read it, Rauisuchian. I'd be perfectly happy with your proposed revision, not only is your version less clunky than mine, it also happens to eliminate a complaint made by user LuckyLouie about potential synthesis. Out of curiosity, did you get a ping when the section was originally created? If not, I may have used too many pings at once. Joe (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists usually frame those that they perceive as opponents to be "skeptics"—this is typical of pseudoscience proponents in general and always a red flag. To be perfectly clear here, Darren Naish is a cryptozoologist and has long been a proponent of (and apologist for) the pseudoscience (cf. "I still maintain that cryptozoology cannot and should not be considered a pseudoscience", 2012, while using the Scientific American blog to promote a new journal from none other than cryptozoologist Karl Shuker—and to which Naish, in fact, contributes an article! You can't make this stuff up.).

While Naish has evidently distanced himself from the subculture, he has a long history with it. Naish is historically been quite friendly with figures in the subculture and has in the past popped up here and there to defend it. For example, adding to the Shuker journal promotion above, here's an interview he completed for cryptozoologist Loren Coleman's cryptozoology blog from 2007. He's also self-published cryptozoology stuff like this with C. M. Kosemen.

The section you're proposing to restore is almost entirely built around Naish's pro-cryptozoology claims. We're not here to promote fringe positions: As indicated by the numerous high-quality sources in this article from scholars, the overwhelming take from scholars has always been that cryptozoology is classic pseudoscience closely entwined with Young Earth creationism and related topics, and that the subculture was built on hostility and rejection toward mainstream science (otherwise it'd just be zoology or folklore studies). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, Scientific American that well known fringe journal/website! Naish (or it could be David Attenborough or Jane Goodall- google it) is very well respected in the zoological/palaeontological community but according to the argument here, Naish does not believe all cryptozoology is pseudoscience, therefore he is fringe, therefore his work/arguments cannot be mentioned on this page and the lack of any pro cz arguments from anything other than people on the fringe prove that cz is pseudoscience and fringe. So circular and so much confirmation bias.

Also actually read Naish's work, he has not ever argued bigfoot, Yeti, the Loch Ness monster etc exist, quite the opposite. Indeed by the definition of this WK page, he (or even Karl Shuker for that matter) cannot be a cryptozoologist at all, as he is not "seeking to prove the existence" of things! See the problem?Tullimonstrum (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

For those of you who haven't had to pleasure to interact with this user on this talk page in the past (or users like him on other pages), Tullimonstrum is an excellent example of what is known as a single purpose account ([22]). This user has been around for years, editing almost solely to promote cryptozoology. Just about all fringe articles on Wikipedia seem to have similar users standing by for email alerts when their pet articles are edited. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Just about all fringe articles on Wikipedia seem to have similar users standing by for email alerts when their pet articles are edited." Not only is user bloodofox's comment about user Tullimonstrum a needless ad hominem attack, it is also classic WP:GASLIGHTING, specifically "projection of one's own foibles onto others". Bloodofox, how would you feel if someone dismissed your argument with an ad hominem to the effect, "This user has been around for years, editing almost solely to promote folkloristics." Perhaps you would argue that you're a 'well-intentioned editor with a niche interest'. (JoePhin (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

I word of advice for a new editor: Accusing a well-established account (for example, created 2005, several thousand page watchlist, over 31,000 edits, and several hundred articles created) of being an WP:SPA is not a great way to be taken seriously in any discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a SPA, I accused you of projecting your own behavior ("Just about all fringe articles on Wikipedia seem to have similar users standing by for email alerts when their pet articles are edited.") onto Tullimonstrum. I asked how you would feel if your arguments were dismissed with an ad hominem because someone called you a SPA. To put it absolutely clearly, I was not implying that you are a SPA, bloodofox, I was merely trying to highlight that calling Tullimonstrum a SPA as a way of dismissing his argument is neither helpful nor convincing. I will try to be more direct in the future. Joe (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Armchair analysis aside, the account is inarguably a WP:SPA. Anyone, like myself, who edits a lot of pseudoscience articles asees a lot of WP:SPAs popping up to 'defend' their topics along with new users popping up now and then—such a yourself—hoping to muddy the waters or somehow plot to get the word "pseudoscience" removed or obfuscated. It's nothing new. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, it's a non-sequitur, but was your comment in the revisions, "This is not a typo, "Young Earth creationism" (YEC) is standard, over redirect" directed towards my typo correction? Because, if so, the correction had nothing to do with the spelling of Young Earth Creationism, as you can see, I changed "...mainstream science : it is neither..." to "...mainstream science: it is neither..." Perhaps you were referring to someone else's edit? It doesn't really matter, don't worry about it. Joe (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised you see skeptic as a negative term, it has always seemed like a positive term to me, and there's a whole Skeptical movement focused around rationalism and debunking.

To an extent I see your point about Naish, it's silly that he likes the term cryptozoology so much, but his writings show he does not actually believe in any 'cryptids'. With greater context, it's clear he is just trying to steer the cryptozoologists in a more scientific direction. An example is in the first several pages of Hunting Monsters (2016) which is previewable on Google Books. Naish criticizes the bulk of cryptozoology claims, calls most of them rooted in fantasy, and says that what some cryptozoologists practice pseudoscientific. For very much the same reasons as currently cited sources in this article. However, ultimately, we can leave the discussion of Naish's writings or the previous removed sections of the article for later. I shouldn't have brought it up as it is irrelevant to the current topic, sorry about that.

The proposed changes to the lead section are consistent with the scholarly consensus on cryptozoology and they don't have any fringe views or any significant synth. It just looks like an expansion of the current section, and there are no great leaps of logic to justify expanding a sentence into a more descriptive version of itself. In plenty of the already cited sources as well as in statements present in the article body, there is phrasing to justify such a lead section. For example in Paul Thomas' book critical of the Creation Museum, in the cryptozoology chapter starting page 80, he uses the phrase "cryptozoological research" to describe what cryptozoologists do, and when calling it a pseudoscience he uses qualifiers like "according to Western scientific standards". It doesn't mean a defense or burying, it's just a more specific way to refer to it. Rauisuchian (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised you see skeptic as a negative term bloodofox does not. The cryptozoologists he mentioned do. They use it for othering and for poisoning the well. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Joe I didn't get a ping from the article talk page, just from the user talk page. Perhaps there were too many pings in a row to work. Rauisuchian (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• This revision is not acceptable, it is full of WP:Synthesis and WP:PROFRINGE WP:FALSEBALANCE. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What in the edit did you find to be WP:PROFRINGE or WP:FALSEBALANCE, Crossroads? Joe (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Why does the proposed edit state that cryptids actually exist? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that that JoePhin's proposed edit states explicitly that cryptids "actually exist", so I don't see your accusation as valid, CambridgeBayWeather. If you think Joe's choice of language gives off that impression, you need to indicate clearly indicate which passage you mean. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the proposed edit says (emphasis added) "Other cryptids like the Loch Ness Monster or Champ are supposedly enormous, yet are rarely seen and even more rarely recorded on film or in photographs." Rarely is defined here as "not often" or "seldom". That is less than zero. So they are saying that, at the very least, those two cryptids exist. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct. "Reports of sightings" or "claims of sightings" would be closer the mark. GPinkerton (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the two of you (CambridgeBayWeather, GPinkerton) that "existence" is clearly the meaning that comes across.

To me, the 1 qualifier "supposedly enormous" is sufficient to indicate this as something that "supposedly exist" and not exist for sure, and adding 2 more qualifier words like "reports of" and "claims of" in a single sentence is over-parsing.

Let's just say I agree with you two in principle, and in fact, if we were talking about a legal disclaimer, but not here, in the lede of a wiki page.--Kiyoweap (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Kiyoweap, "supposedly rarely seen" GPinkerton (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

On re-reading, yeah, maybe the original has something awkward about it, so "the alleged reports and photos number only a few" might suffice. not insisting photos are rarer.--20:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope JoePhin's isn't overly disheartened by the believers of the POV Wikipedia article (not an WP:RS) sling their usual substance-less WP:SYNTH or fringeWP:PROFRINGE criticisms at you.

JoePhin's edit should be lauded for, first of all, "While there is nothing inherently unscientific about searching for or attempting to study something which is currently unknown.." some sort of statement like that is needed to state that acting on a possibility, and allowing for the possibility of existence, neither of these are pseudoscience. In fact, it is scientific objectivity (no pre-formed judgment).

Unfortunately, one might be hard-pressed to find scientists or experts willing to go on record explicitly stating that "cryptids" "maybe exists" for the obvious reason of sounding ridiculous. So please cf. #FAQ Maybe exist is not pseudoscience. --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)--typofixed 1 word that read not as intended22:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Kiyoweap. Joe (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, GPinkerton, Kiyoweap, you're all quite right, that could definitely be better worded. Saying 'rarely reported to be seen' or just 'rarely reported' would be much clearer and as for 'and even more rarely recorded on film or in photographs.' it should be something more like, 'and supposed videos or photographs are even rarer.' I certainly didn't mean to imply that real photographs had been taken of the Loch Ness Monster. It's clear that people had a lot of objections to the proposed edit, so I'm going to re-write it and propose another version that's hopefully more acceptable to everyone. Thanks for reading it, and please do give me any other suggestions for improvements. Joe (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Rauisuchian that the proposed rewrite is more towards NPOV, but I disagree that it cryptozoology should be called a "pseudoscience" categorically as if everyone in academia agrees with this. I believe JoePhin also expressed some sort of doubt, and necessary adjustment on this, but he can elaborate.

In the proposed edit, "Cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by the academic world" needs to be changed to "many in the academic world" at the very least.

And "many" is not "most"; "many" is not consensus. I should have hoped everyone to have learned this when they left kindergarten, but apparently not.

The "many" was cited to in ShermerRoesch & Moore (2002) (in Shermer ed. Skeptics Ency) [23] by Psychologist Guy, but the same Ency entry also gave voice to some "others" who expressed the opinion that cryptozoology was (not a pseudoscience) but more like "natural history", an opinion I already pointed out could be ascribed to Paxton.

Obviously the censoring of the voice of "others" here is NPOV. This is along the same NPOV behavior pattern in the contested current version, which stresses the "bad cop" and ignores the "good cop" in Loxon & Prothero, as I already pointed out.

The current edit is blatant NPOV editing, period. It does not fairly and impartially reflect what is contained in the various WP:RS sources. So scrap it and give it a go at revising it, Joe. --Kiyoweap (talk)

Ok, slight correction, "others suggest, is natural history" (Sherman 2002) versus: "more in common with history" (#Neutral-pro source (Paxton)) so Paxton may have had "history of science" in mind.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)::Citation tweak--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)