Talk:Cryptozoology

Add more to the criticism and pseudoscience section?

I feel like the majority of the first section is dedicated to criticism of the subject. Wouldn't that fit better under the criticism and pseudoscience section of the page? Especially the creationist/media organization ties KanyeWestDropout (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great spider

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023

I would like to update the opening sentence in 1st paragraph: "Cryptozoology is the generally pseudoscience-following study" with "Cryptozoology is the controversial study" Nbk8zpe (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

THis will not get any traction, I think you need to make a very good case. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. If I consider Popper's Falsification Principle as a way of demarcating science from non-science, then I can take a theory such as 'there exists a Loch Ness Monster' and call it scientific, if it can be be tested and conceivably proven false. With a depth of 788 feet (240 metres) and a length of about 23 miles (36 km), Loch Ness has the largest volume of fresh water in Great Britain, so it is an ongoing scientific search. So far this creature's existence not been proven to universal acceptance, however, this does not render cryptozoology false and thus pseudoscientific. Given numerous sightings from people over many years, the existence is what I would deem controversial, as those who claim to have seen the creature assert this as epistemologically true. If 'Nessy' were to be verifiably proven to exist and accepted by many people then cryptozoology is true. My point is that the choice of language here is not precise and seeks to denigrate an alternative viewpoint. Nbk8zpe (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Its does if RS say it does. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I understand this reply. Can you kindly elaborate? What does "Its does is RS says it does" mean please? Nbk8zpe (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If wp:rs say it is pseudoscience so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates via a consensus of editors who agree to adhere to a set of editorial policies. Internet debating skills do not apply here. The relevant policy in this case is WP:FRINGE. . - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd settle for fringe instead of controversial. I believe have a made a reasoned suggestion in good faith for my view to be considered, however I'm not sure this is being given any logical consideration for replacement of 'pseudoscience' with 'controversial' or even 'fringe'. I'm applying philosophy of science perspective here and science does not have uniform agreement on a theory to give it treatment as an alternative position. Nbk8zpe (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Read Cryptozoology#Criticism_and_pseudoscience and pay special attention to the footnotes. This is how the encyclopedia's editorial policies work. We go by what high quality expert sources say rather than Talk page arguments by editors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted these edits that added unsourced material and contradicted sourced material. Besides the obvious WP:PROFRINGE problems, language like "a generally pseudoscience following study" is quite WP:WEASELly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from; however calling all of cryptozoology pseudoscience could be misleading. While I agree that the vast majority of it is, it isn't all folklorists. Snake Enthusiast (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? if a biologist discovers a new species its science, and will be published in academic journals. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Now some edit warring happening, claiming changing this back would be going against Wikipedia's entire purpose - neutral factual information. WP:NPOV's relationship to WP:FRINGE is often misunderstood by new editors. See WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't aware of Wiki's take on neutrality. Snake Enthusiast (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes... but that's not what I'm saying. Not every so-called 'cryptozoologist' is making up stories about random animals they saw in the woods that are probably black bears. Some are scientists; and a handful of organisms have been discovered by investigating a 'cryptid' (which I'm sure you know as you seem to haunt this page so often); without which these organisms would likely have remained hidden for years more. Snake Enthusiast (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

And when they are they cease to be cryptids, the point here is this is about the "random animals they saw in the woods that are probably black bears". Not actual biology. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

But then you get into the whole mess of what a cryptid is and more warring. I'll leave the page as it is, but I still think that it is heavily biased towards skepticism and needs reworking in future. Snake Enthusiast (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Bottom line: we can't base Wikipedia text on personal opinions. That would be WP:OR. We go by what the majority of reliable independent sources say. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:YESBIAS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

New Hatnote: Distinguish?

Could someone please add a hatnote 'Distinguish|Cryptozoa' ? People can easily confuse the names "cryptozoology" and "cryptozoa" (undiscovered microscopic animals). I don't want to have to log in to edit the semi-protected page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:403:ABC0:E50B:CCC2:4A45:5B72 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

lider of grope krittozoologia kosmopoisk [1] 176.65.112.181 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

spelling correction?

' a pseudoscientic extension of older belief in monsters and other similar entities from the folkloric record, yet with a "new, more scientific-sounding name: cryptids". '

- seems to read better with 'pseudoscientific' -

i'm not sure on this article how to suggest this possible correction ... Hirbey (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing where the spelling error that needs correcting is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

pseudoscientic —> pseudoscientific. Done. Thank you, Hirbey. Bishonen | tålk 18:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC).

Really could not see it. Now I do, sorry. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Dendle

Dendle (2006) seems to have been quote mined. In the same "Folklore" article quoted, he also says "The point of this paper is not to disparage the important work of cryptozoologists nor to imply that there is no legitimate place for cryptozoology within contemporary zoology. The International Society of Cryptozo from 1982 to 1998), for instance, published sound research and reflection in its newsletter and in a refereed journal." For balance should we not include this as well? The implication in wiki article that he thinks it is all pseudoscience that clearly is not his position. 193.130.15.245 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Quote mining indeed. Folklorist Dendle goes on to say: ...There are, of course, new species that remain to be discovered, and early reports of them will naturally appear folkloric before a specimen is secured and the scientific community can verify it. My intention is rather to unpack certain facets of the social significance of the widespread interest and even belief in such creatures before they are confirmed by science. In keeping with his intention, Dendle is used in our article for his observations re the social significance and belief regarding cryptozoology, not to argue whether it, or anything else, is a pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Folklore mention in lead sentence

Hi @Bloodofox, I see you reverted my update. I understand your reasoning and I don't dispute the examples in the lead or the fact that many/most cryptids are from folklore. My concern is that defining cryptids/the object of cryptozoology as "particularly those [unknown, legendary, or extinct animals] popular in folklore" is over-broad because many animals/creatures from folklore are not generally defined as cryptids. Would you be comfortable with something like "including many of those popular in folklore"? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists have historically considered every creature they've encountered from folklore to be a potential "cryptid". There are multi-volume encyclopedias of this sort of thing from cryptozoologists, like Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures. There is no criteria for what makes something a "cryptid" in this pseudoscience because there's no central authority or any kind of criteria, just a general rejection of relevant mainstream fields like biology and especially folklore studies. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on the general points. I worry that "particularly" in the opening sentence implies the broadest possible definition. I don't think Babe the Big Blue Ox or centaurs are (widely?) considered cryptids although one might be able to find a PROFRINGE source trying to claim them. Do you object to my proposal including many of those popular in folklore? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't dictate what is and is not considered a "cryptid", we can only describe what scholarship says, and it is clear that there are no paramaters as to what would fall in this category: literally every animal, even some from fiction (such as the case of The Monster of "Partridge Creek"), are potential "cryptids" to the subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)