Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Neutral source (Regal)

Brian Regal's book[1]

Regal attributes what is "To date, the most coherent attempt to codify cryptozoological thinking" to Chad Arment (2004).

Arment in turn says cryptozoologist seeks "ethnoknowns" in the field of cryptozoology which "is a targeted search methodolgy for zoological discovery".

>vs. Current edit:

Regal says.. "cryptozoology has been studied as much as cryptozoologists have sought hidden animals".

I am alleging POV muting of voices which should be heard. Comments please. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Regal's book is called Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia: A Critical Encyclopedia and it has an entry dedicated to cryptozoology. We cite it exactly as it is presented by Regal. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

What you want to cite provides no substance as to what it is that has been studied and said about cryptozoology. The portion I emphasize has that substance.

Your apparent "exactly as" argument is that you are justified in muting an author wherever he cites a different scholar. An utterly feeble an excuse for POV censorship. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutral-pro source (Paxton)

Charles Paxton's essay[2]

Heuvelman's "formal definition" ("the scientific study of hidden animals") "doesn't accurately describe what most self-styled cryptozoologists actually study"; "Cryptozoology, as actually done by the most methodically rigorous cryptozoologist, is an intellectually valid.. area of study"; "Cryptozoology isn't a science"; "has more in common with history than zoology".

>current edit:

While used by most cryptozoologists, the term cryptid is not used by academic zoologists.

A different work by Paxton got cited here, but there is overlapping information enough to get his views[3][4]--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My favorite part about the links you've provided for the pseudoscience platform Biofortean Notes is that the first issue ends with an ad for Young Earth creationist cryptozoologist's William Gibbons's Mokele-Mbembe: Mystery of the Congo Basin—because it's from the same publisher. Good find—obviously quite far from being WP:RS-compliant but on the up side very funny! The article already notes that now and then a few scientists do dabble in the subculture and there's not much of a reason to belabour the point. The same thing happens with Young Earth creationism, ESP, etc—it's pretty common. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The scholar Paxton's opinion is published by Routledge, and is WP:RS. Period.

In trying to argue he is not RS, you are just connecting dots as if they are significantly connected. People have names for this type of dot-connecting, but let's just call it the Kevin Bacon Game what you are doing.

You also exaggerate the nefariousness of each dot, but that doesn't really change the tenuousness of making connections such as an this-author-contributed-in-another-journal-which-had-this-ad-for-a-book-by-someone-else.--Kiyoweap (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources

Is it just me or is most of this entry written as a debunking with no sources cited? MegaHarald (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It's just you. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any better souces?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no.

Since cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, how else can you name the branch of science dealing with describing new and unknown species? In my opinion, if there is only a general term for a biologist, it is definitely not enough. And the fact that cryptozoology is discredited by the fact that most of them are pseudoscientists,do not use scientific methodology and are hostile to science is ridiculous and idiotic to say the least. So let's call astronomy pseudoscience because there will be, for example, 5,000 pseudoscientists or eccentrics. Just assume such a scenario. And where do you see the logic in that? Maybe scientists think it's logical, but I think it's absurd and I'm right. Change my mind. Definitions cannot be narrowed down by views certain groups of people. -AlexTrevex (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure of the point you are making here Alex, but our article on Biology is pretty comprehensive, you should take a look. The pseudoscientific nature of cryptozoology is undeniable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

Minor correction: In the first line of the section "Reception and pseudoscience", please change the part "broad consensus" to "scientific consensus".

As the topic is pseudoscientific, it is not a recognized topic in science; hence the term "scientific consensus".

Thank you! 2409:4042:4D31:3524:85F4:E2F3:FFEB:AA5 (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Not all of them are scientits, some are folklorists as well, or "professional sceptics".Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Lead

I see there is a revert war going on with the lead. I should point out a) the "aims to prove" definition is not what the used source (OED)says b) no cryptozoologists has ever used that definition c) I do not know of any source that supports that definition. You would also have to show that any source that did, did not arise through citogenesis. d) Plenty of cz does not aim to prove e.g. Paxton, C. G. M. & Naish, D. 2019. Did nineteenth century marine vertebrate fossil discoveries influence sea serpent reports? Earth Sciences History 38, 16-27. Anything by Nickell or Radford in Skeptical Inquirer. Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you think "The search for" means if not looking for evidence of them?Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Who says "search for"? OED and Heuvelmans said "study".Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"The search for and study of animals whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the Loch Ness monster and the yeti." (my emphasis), the source you say does not say it says it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I am looking at the page right now https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/267314?redirectedFrom=cryptozoology#eid. It does not say "search for" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullimonstrum (talk • contribs) 13:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No you are not this is the link we use https://www.lexico.com/definition/Cryptozoology.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cryptozoology " the study of" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cryptozoology "the study of " https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cryptozoology "the study of evidence tending to substantiate the existence of, or the search for,"

So it seems to me most say it is a search for...Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, my bad. But "study" not "search for" is in all the definitions.Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

One is clearly saying the study of evidence for the existence of (or search for). Most also use search for. So in fact the wording now sums it up, they are looking for evidence that these creatures exist. After all what is the point of looking for them if you are not trying to look for them? I can study the Jabberwocky by reading about it, I do not need to poove its existence to study itSlatersteven (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, I added "searches" for and "studies" which reflects the sources and includes work that do not "search for" like that cited above.Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be that is overly long, and (in essence) cryptozoology is the attempt to find evidence for these creatures, that is what sets it apart for those who study mythological creatures (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not in the sources and is a "straw man" caricature of cryptozoology as I showed above it ignores all those not "seeking to prove" i.e. Joe Nickell, Darren Naish, Charles Paxton and Robert France.Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Joe Nickell even describes himself (albeit reluctantly) as a "skeptical cryptozoologist" in the latest copy of Skeptical Inquirer. So this pages definition goes further that the house journal of skepticism without any sources to back up! So much for NPOV. Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have objected to your change, and per wp:consensus you should self revert. It is time for others to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"Monster hunting" or "cryptid hunting" are terms often used within cryptozoology, and our high quality WP:FRIND sources back this up as a general concept. Certainly not all cryptozoologists physically hunt or search for cryptids, although collecting anecdotes and compiling descriptions can be a form of "searching". Nickell, Prothero, et al, are not primarily known for being cryptozoologists, and the example of Nickell describing himself as a "skeptical cryptozoologist" was given in the context of a critique of cryptozoology. It was not meant to be a definitive description of his career focus. All this is to say I support the current lead since the bulk of independent sources also support it. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

As Tullimonstrum points out, "aims to prove" is editorializing. Actually a serious piece of fraud to allow this "prove" phrase to encompass all of cz activity.

The implication being that if a cz studies/writes about a cryptid, he's "aiming to prove" its real existence? Gimme a frickin' break.

I know where this is coming from: just read at WP:FRINGE/PS. Qualifying as pseudoscience hinges on the keyword "prove", so, the perpetrator injected "aims at proving" as a blatant attempt to artificially cause WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE to be applicable to any piece of cz's writing.

This is Wikipedia malfeasance of the highest order, and needs upbraiding, not blind cheerleading. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any malfeasance. There are plenty of citations contained in the article body to justify cryptozoology being characterized as a pseudoscience:

There is a broad consensus among academics that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. The subculture is regularly criticized for reliance on anecdotal information and because in the course of investigating animals that most scientists believe are unlikely to have existed, cryptozoologists do not follow the scientific method.

References

- - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

LuckyLouie. Pooling 7 sources on "many scientist" does not add up to majority consensus, unless you believe in some sort of idiot math, and it is not the present issue. Your sources do not convert to "aims to prove" without a flying leap.

Whoever the architect was that used the "aim to prove" language, its effect of triggering the WP:FRINGE/PS/WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE should have been known to the person.

WP:FRINGE/PS rule states that simply writing about "Santa's magic reindeer" or cryptid is not pseudoscience. Therefore, a cz-written book on cryptids is not pseudoscience, and academic publishers' such books should be accepted as WP:RS.

Annoyingly however, a certain contingent goes around censoring/deleting them systematically. The conduct is not justified by cited guideline, as demonstrated, so AFAIK the censorship hinges solely on this artifice of inserting "prove" into the lede. And I'm calling this a shenanigan and gross misconduct. --Kiyoweap (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

break

I've got to say, it is fascinating to see the regular attempts this article sees from IPs and the site's resident cryptozoologists to overturn WP:RS. As will be obvious to anyone who looks at the article, the article has quite a lot of well-sourced material from scholars in various fields referring to the subculture and pseudoscience as, well, exactly that, and spanning to at least the 1980s.

Looking at the article, while we have a fair amount of coverage on the subculture's deep connections to Young Earth creationism, we should also flesh that coverage out more, as there appears to be a lot more to be said about this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe there is a certain election-results-denying rhetoric in the U.S. about how "we won lots of votes folks".

At least, in their case, their "lots" actually meant close to 50% in those states in contention.

However when an RS says "many" without % stats, a Wikpedian is not licensed to interpret "many" to mean "half" which then would be <opinion is divided> or as "significant more than half" which would satisfy <consensus>. This is what you are doing, and it is POV-editing on overdrive.

Compared to you lot insisting on interpreting "many" as "consensus", the mob shouting to overturn the election were far less delusional, because they were only contesting a few %-age points, maybe even decimal figures.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The reality is that there are few, if any WP:FRIND sources arguing that cryptozoology is not a pseudoscience. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This is circular reasoning, if you even mention cryptozoology in a semi-positive light you're labeled a cryptozoologist and unreliable source, so of course there aren't any when if you say that Cryptozoology isn't a pseudoscience you're labeled a pseudo scientist KanyeWestDropout (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

All the sources favorable to cryptozoology are either cryptozoologists or WP:SENSATIONAL pop culture exploiting interest to get clicks or sell books. There are zero WP:INDY independent sources that treat it seriously. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the "deep connection to YEC"? What prominent cryptozoologists have endorse creationism? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The article contains a section on this subject; reading the cited sources will provide answers to your question. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Except it doesn't, it shows that creationists embrace parts of cryptozoology but it doesn't show any prominent cryptozoologists (Shuker, Coleman, Sanderson, Heuvelmans etc.) embracing creationism KanyeWestDropout (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

"deep connection to YEC". I don't see that phrase in our article, so there's no need to find a citation for it. it doesn't show any prominent cryptozoologists. The section in question summarizes a series of expert opinions that are properly attributed (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). There is no requirement these experts must name 'prominent cryptozoologists'. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Right I'm discussing Blood's comments here KanyeWestDropout (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Compress the article

We get it, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. The article essentially has point after point repeating the same thing for 80% of it's length. I think compressing the article's reception and/or terminology and approach section should be done, it's a very bloated article. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we do not need to keep saying it, once in the lede and a discussion in the body is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It probably appears bloated and repetitive because so many of our WP:FRIND sources frame the topic as a pseudoscience when discussing various aspects of it. I think such framing, especially when it helps clarify context, is quite useful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they discuss various aspects Most say essentially the same thing (Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience) without anything really unique to add. Hill's and Card's sections have relevant and unique info. Prothero, Ward and Regal's section's don't add much besides repeating the "cryptozoology is a pseudoscience" line which is supported by 8+ citations KanyeWestDropout (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The attributed statements are each quite different, and they help illustrate the overwhelming consensus among relevant experts that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience — something that a number of fringe-friendly editors have demanded text and citations for in the past. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

We have citations, it seems like the bulking of the article was just done out of spite to those fringe-friendly editors and not because the article needs it KanyeWestDropout (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

But do we really need all those quotes when we have something like 10 cites for "There is a broad consensus among academics that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience"? Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Might be helpful to hear what others think, so tagged at FTN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If anything, we need more discussion of this topic, not less. Almost everything about the history of this subculture—from its foundation to its continued existence in internet corners—centers around its opposition to mainstream science and mainstream academia. Here we discuss why and how it came into existence, and its continued fixation on presenting iself as a science to the general public. This is exactly what our reliable sources focus on and exactly what we cover here. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Why? What else is there to say about Cryptozoology that isn't said multiple times in the article already? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the organization could be improved, but the length does not look excessive to me. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Length of the whole article or length of sections? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)