Talk:Cryptozoology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cryptozoology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 365 days

Cryptozoology was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 26, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Cryptozoology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Paranormal Top‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animals Low‑importance

Cryptozoology is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Creationism: Young Earth creationism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great spider

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]