This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Simply because Cryptozoology has the word zoology in it, does not make it a subfield of Zoology. Unless someone can point to sources indicating a consensus by the scientific community that cryptozoology is an accepted subfield of zoology, I'm removing the Zoology infobox. Justinchat 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It IS zoology, but nobody here will accept that. Elasmosaurus (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Who and what exactly defines the "scientific community" and how exactly does it come to a consensus? --Nacnud298 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
For the purposes of Wikipedia for something to be notable with regard to mainstream science it should be published or documented in respected, peer reviewed, mainstream science journals. Cryptozoology is not a branch of zoology accepted by mainstream science within this definition. If someone would like to argue otherwise, please provide support with the appropriate citations. Locke9k (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
In accordance with the above argument, I have removed the biology template and moved it to here. There is a related debate on the talk page of Template:Cryptozoology so please look there for more discussion. Feel free to address the points above and provide appropriate references if you disagree. Locke9k (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing much discussion at that template... ClovisPt (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No reason for the template to even be here, just deleted it. Obviously does not belong. DreamGuy (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I meant template:zoology. My mistake.Locke9k (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Elasmosaurus that cryptozoology is a branch of zoology. But as soon as something cryptic is described, it will become accepted by the mainstream. What's "pseudo" about looking for big cats, or other animals, outside their "normal" range? What's "pseudo" about hunting for an animal that is "supposed" to be extinct? Why does everyone snigger at people (be they zoologists, or not) who think that somewhere in Tasmania there still lurk a couple of thylacines? If there's another good sighting, I might be among the first to head down there and have another look. Does that make me a pseudoscientist? What if I say that I have zoological training and equipment, and I will conduct my search under a scientific methodology, would I still be a pseudoscientist? It's been said that "absence of proof is not proof of absence". Wouldn't a scientist need to keep an open mind, and not make assumptions because of absence of proof? BTW the current wiki entry for cryptozoology looks to me very much like a Dawkinsian argument for the non-existence of God; along the lines of "you believers are all very ignorant..." Here's a link to a journal article about alleged thylacine sightings in WA ("extinct" AND outside its "normal" range!). And here is a link to a website about two scientists and their study into an undescribed sea serpent. Is it still pseudoscience? BoundaryRider (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment- pseudoscience
Who defines whether or not this is pseudoscience? This seems to be a relative classification, depending upon the observer.66.197.222.197 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Identifying pseudoscience can be done in an objective manner. Cryptozoology fails to use parsimony in its reasoning, it's theories are immeasurable, untestable and unfalsifiable, it relies heavily on testimonials and local legend, science by press conference, lack of progress, groupthink and misleading language (using scientific names for animals that aren't even known to exist). Zoology itself is responsible for identifying previously identified animals. Cryptozoology, at least in its modern form, simply ignores the scientific method and replaces it primarily with myth and legend. The most telling factor, is that modern science itself considers Cryptozoology more of a Paranormal / Parapsychology discipline than a Zoology discipline.
As for the ArbCom case, that had to do with behavior of editors, not with the content. However, in the findings of fact you'll notice something:
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.
There is no question Cryptozoology has a large following, but has effectively no mainstream scientific following. In fact, the only notable zoologist that supported the theory was the founder of the field (Bernard Heuvelmans). And the only reason he is notable, is because he founded Cryptozoology. To me, this field is pretty clearly pseudoscience. Justinchat 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Justin. Cryptozoology does not use the scientific method. It replaces the fundamental concept of falsifiability with belief not based upon evidence. It is indeed pseudoscience. Yes, occasionally, cryptozoologic organisms are discovered by science (for example, the (coelacanth]]). However, this fact does not negate the fact that the basic principles of cryptozoology are non-scientific. Aleta(Sing) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And it's further notable that such "cryptids" (and that term is often used incorrectly, such as the coelacanth) are discovered by accident, or by biologists, zoologists, anthropologists etc. To date, I'm not aware of any "cryptozoologist" discovering any species of animal. Justinchat 07:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To my mind, the name cryptozoology is the problem. The suffix indicates a science to most people. By and large, fans of the field do not normally call themselves scientists. They just enjoy thinking about the undiscovered "wonders of nature". As has been pointed out here, no schools offer degrees in the field. This is, I think, a telling point. Since the main object of cryptozoology is to discover (or "re-discover") spectacular creatures, and since, as far as I am aware, no cryptozoologist has ever succeeded in doing so, as a science it would have to be considered a major failure. Cryptozoology is a notable category of human endeavor, but it fits no conventional definition of science. One can avoid calling it a "pseudoscience" if one wishes by merely noting that it is a "hobby" or "calling" for most of its followers. It is not correct, though, to call it science. Tim Ross·talk 11:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Cryptozoologists, by and large, do study the field with the trapping of science but not the methods - classic "Cargo Cult Science" or "Pseudoscience". Certainly not everyone within the field is necessarily pseudoscientific - but just as some people study regular biology pseudoscientifically, and yet we call biology a science, so too can we recognise the cryptozoological community is pseudoscientific, even if it's not appropriate to so label each practitioner. WilyD 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience from an objective point of view, as it usually ends up presenting "evidence" that is later proved to be false. The animals or "cryptids" that are "studied" in cryptozoology can be studied by proper scientists (such as zoologists), but in this case it is not cryptozoology. --Meronde 06:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This article may help: Anomalous phenomena. Particularly this section: Anomalous phenomena#One anomalous phenomenon. Science seeks to make universal statements and employs falsifiability in that pursuit. Cryptozoology, on the other hand, focuses on looking for anomalies, creatures thought not to exist. Science seeks to be practical.
A statement is only complete insofar as it accurately describes something free from anomalies. As in the example where the truth of the statement 'all swans are white' is falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan, any theory is shown to be falsified by a verified singular anomaly. For example, the statement 'dinosaurs are extinct' would be falsified by the discovery of just one remaining dinosaur. The burden of cryptozoologists, then, would be to find a single example of a cryptid to disprove the statement 'cryptids do not exist'. Of course, as cryptozoologist Loren Coleman notes, every time a cryptid is "discovered" (e.g., giant panda, mountain gorilla, okapi, coelacanth, megamouth shark, saola) then that species becomes part of zoology, and not cryptozoology.[citation needed]
Reversely, falsification is why various fields that pursue anomalous phenomena are often seen as not being worthwhile in mainstream science, or, by extreme skeptics, as pseudoscientific. If the aim of science is to move observations to laws, or to weed out singular existential statements in favor of universal statements through testing against falsifying propositions, anomalies suffer from a missing component of the scientific method. A falsifying proposition of anomalies as deviations from the norm would be the norm. Testing for the norm is seen as redundant.
No, cryptozoology isn't pseudoscience. It's zoology, except it's studying animals who haven't been proven yet. I would put that in the article, but of course those annoying little skeptics keep undoing my edits. Elasmosaurus (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This subject fits the definition of a pseudoscience, including the arbitration committee's definition at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. With this in mind, it needs to be made clear up front, in the definition and introduction that this is a pseudoscience. The present article relegates this point to a subsection and doesn't make it at all clear in the introduction. This clearly does not satisfy NPOV guidelines with respect to pseudoscience and fringe theories. The mainstream standing of this subject needs to be clear up front, and at all points in the article where a fringe view is being descibed, it needs to clearly describe rather than promote that view. Since there seems to be some debate on these points, I am tagging this article with an NPOV dispute. Locke9k (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think there are strong NPOV issues here. Calling cryptozoology "pseudoscience" seems to me an assertion unjustified by reference to actual arguments made by zoologists in the peer reviewed literature. The only evidence given is a personal webpage. Many bona fide zoologists have taken an interest in zoology (e.g Meldrum, Krantz, Naish, the people involved in the old International Society of Cryptozoology) and I don't know many critiques of it as a pseudo-science made by biologists (or indeed anyone who has offered a full argument of cryptozoology as a pseudoscience). Now criticism has been made of the use of eyewitness accounts but that by itself does not invalidate cryptozoology. Unless those advocates of the pseudoscience position can offer strong evidence that the consensus within the scientific community is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience it seems to me unwarranted to call it by way of introduction a pseudoscience. It is not a priori obvious to me that that it is a pseudoscience, data can be collected so it does not fit the arbitration commitees decison. The fact that some people without scientific credentials go off into forests to hunt for bigfoot does not make cryptozoology less of a science. Perhaps they should not call themselves cryptozoolOLOGISTS but that does not invalidate cryptozoology as a field of study.Tullimonstrum (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't confuse a scientist scientist interested in a pseudoscience with a scientist doing science. The scientists you mentioned are called scientists because of their work on other topics, not because they are doing science when they look at Bigfoot casts. The fact that this is widely known as a pseudoscience among the scientific community (specifically the second class in WP:PSCI) is itself widely known. I therefore don't think that immediate inclusion of more sources is necessary although it would be helpful. I currently don't have the time to search for this but I will when I get the oppurtinity. Anyone else who has the time, feel free to collect references. —Fizikertc 17:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
So much for being busy with work, I decided to procrastinate for a little while. There are some references where cryptozoology is considered as pseudoscience ([1] for example) however it would be nice to find something that deals with it more explicitly, which is why I haven't included that reference yet. Unfortunately I think it will be somewhat difficult to find something as explicit as I'd like but nonetheless I'll try to find something at a later time. —Fizikertc 17:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
OK well that is an improvement in that it is a scientist saying it but again there is no explicit statement of *why* cryptozoology is not a science. Again it is no compelling argument that the NPOV is cryptozoology is a pseudoscience rather that it is a field of study whose scientific content is thought by some to be controversial.And it is a cop-out to argue "oh the NPOV is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, we don't need to add sources because it is widely known." and circular to argue that as soon as a a scientist works on bigfoot tracks they cease being a scientist so cryptozoology is not a science. Tullimonstrum (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion is POV because it misrepresents the scientific consensus. It isn't just that it's controversial, cryptozoology is considered pseudoscience by scientists. —Fizikertc 23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Tullimonstrum raises a valid point - you don't appear to have anything backing that up that claim. Artw (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits to the version in line with WP:PSCI and have added references. I'll search for further ones later if you think it's necessary. —Fizikertc 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
To quote from one of the references you gave "Cryptozoology ranges from the pseudoscientific to the useful....". Now that is different to the situation with pyramidology and the like. Clearly there is NOT a consensus amongst scientists that it is a pseudoscience and I have never seen evidence to support such a strong position. The other quote from Prothero is a mere assertion without evidence but that does show there is a consensus. The NPOV surely is that it is a form of study some aspects of which may be pseudoscientific. I am not arguing that cryptozoology as a subject does not have proponents who are pseudoscientists what I am arguing is that clearly that there is a real debate here with scientists who are proponents of cryptozoology as well as others so the NPOV is cryptozoology is that is a body of study which is controversial which some scientists believe to be a pseudoscience but others (qualified scientists too) do not.138.251.30.10 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops I forgot a rather important "NOT" in the sentance "clearly that does NOT show there is a consensus"Tullimonstrum (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a fact tag. The claim that all Cryptozoology is pseudospcience needs to be backed up, or removed. Fizkers cites do not cut it, for the reason stated above. Note that The Skeptic Encyclopedia does not cut it, for the reasons stated above. 01:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the bizarre rant in that Evolution book equating crytozoology to antisemitism and holocaust denial: No, just no. Stuff like that is pretty much the reason why we shouldn't just randomly cite stuff we've dragged up on Google book searches. Artw (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not randomly cite anything. I have provided an additional reference on the page. It describes the reasoning behind the reason why this type of study is considered pseudoscience. You're also misinterpreting the claims of the book on evolution. It equates only in so far as they are pseudosciences, not that the people who advance them are the same. —Fizikertc 02:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a quote from that 1971 book showing that it directly supports the claim that everything termed cryptozoological without exception? If not it needs to go. These are weak, very weak. Such a strong claim requires backing up properly - possibly you should reword to something a little more supportable, rather than asking us to take something on weak evidence and faith? Artw (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about the book from 2005 (the page number was written as 1971, which was actually incorrect but I have corrected the problem). You can find the material here. The passage mentions why cryptozoology and some other fields are pseudoscience. —Fizikertc 02:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Blimey Fiziker you are clutching at straws here. So the argument is
1. The Fortean Times covers cryptozoology.
2. Forteanism is a pseudoscience ???? EEhh??? Forteans make no claim to be scientists so they cannot be pseudoscientists by definition
3. Therefore??? this shows cryptozoology is a pseudoscience
4. Therefore???? there is a consensus amongst scientists that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience
How does that work???
Anyway the point is that the strong case that there is a consensus amongst mainstream scientists that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience is clearly nontenable so I am about to revert to the earlier version of the initial sentance. I stress there is no doubt that some scientists think cryptozoology is a pseudoscience but assuming it is NPOV on the grounds of overwhelming scientific opinion needs real hard evidence given that there are vocal scientists in support of cz. 138.251.30.10 (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The proof that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience is very simple, in two parts. First, cryptozoologists claim to be practicing science. If anyone would like to dispute that, I am sure we can easily find many sources in which they effectively do so. Second, there is not now, nor has there ever been, any significant body of cryptozoological publications in mainstream scientific journals. Any set of significant ideas which the scientific community considers to be legitimately scientific at least receives some significant level of scholarly publication in mainstream journals. Finally, it is important to note that cryptozoology is not new, and thus the issue is not that it simply hasn't had time to get into mainstream journals. The mainstream scientific community has spoken its rejection of cryptozoology as a science by its cumulative assessment that crytozoological 'research' is not sufficiently scientific for publication. No other statement is necessary or possible. This is almost the only way that the scientific community 'speaks' with an overall voice. Thus, cryptozoology is a 'field' that claims to be scientific but which the scientific community does not consider scientific. This is the definition of a pseudoscience. If necessary, we can cite google scholar and web of science as a source for the statement that is has no scientific support. Locke9k (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As further support for the above, I'll quote the sourced definition of pseudoscience from the pseudoscience article. "Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status." Cryptozoology, as I said, clearly claims to be scientific. Secondly, the absence of mainstream journal articles on the topic shows that it lacks scientific status. Hence, a pseudoscience. Locke9k (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a place to give a personal opinion or try to argue your own personal view. We want reliable sources. That's not you. I provided a reliable source saying that some of it is pseudoscience and some is not. That's what we'll go with. DreamGuy (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The above isnt a personal opinion. I have cited two reliable sources. One is google scholar and one is web of knowledge. Both of these clearly show that cryptozoology has recieved no acceptance from the mainstream scientific community in the only way it speaks with an overall voice, which is through publication in mainstream scientific journals. Locke9k (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Also your "reliable source" is just the personal opinion of two people. Whether something is a pseudoscience is based on overall acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. Feel free to look at the definition on the pseudoscience page if you do not believe me. Locke9k (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Third, it seems that you may have inadvertently cherry picked quotes from that source([2]). It also states that "Many...scientists think that the field is a pseudoscience" and "many scientists and skeptics classify cryptozoology as a pseudoscience". Considering these statements in the very same source you quoted, it seems that Shermer and Linse are saying that the mainstream view of cryptozoology is that it is a pseudoscience. They are then offering 'their personal opinion that at the fringes of pseudoscience there may be some people of a more scientific nature. Since, as I said above, the designation of a pseudoscience is based upon acceptance in the overall scientific community and not upon the highly caveated opinion of a few people, the designation should remain. I would have no objection to a nuanced summary of their opinion being included further within the article. Such a discussion should also include the part of their opinion that states that any element of science occuring on the fringes of cryptozoology does not include the rampant speculation that characterizes much of the field (paraphrasing their chapter). Locke9k (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You have made a powerful argument Locke9e (and I see the reasoning and further many science do not explicitly state what they are not, we don't expect all astronomy books to commence "astrology is rubbish") but I think it does not quite do it for cryptozoology.
Firstly there are references like the Shermer book (but the chapter is not by him) that show a more nuanced approach
Secondly there are published peer reviewed articles that use cryptozoological methods or have explicitly allied themselves to cryptzoology. By this I mean that they used some method of anticipating the range/existence of the species in the absence of a corpse e.g.
I. L. Boyd & M. P. 2003 Stanfield Circumstantial evidence for the presence of monk seals in the West Indies Oryx
Volume 32 Issue 4, Pages 310 - 316
Fitzpatrick etal Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America 2004 Science
308. no. 5727, pp. 1460 - 1462
Paxton, C. 1998. A cumulative species description curve for large open water marine animals. Journal of the Marine Biologists Association, U.K. 78, 1389-1391.
Woodley, M.A. Naish, D. & Shanahan, H. P. 2009. How many extant pinniped species remain to be described? Historical Biology doi:10.1080/08912960902830210
That ignores the pro-bigfoot books by Meldrum Grantz et al.
Thirdly a variety of scientists have stated that don't believe it to be total hokum (Goodall and others)
Then there is the not exactly anti-comments made in the Nature editorial.
The argument that NPOV is that it "is pseudoscience" strikes me as rather POV and something more nuanced is clearly required. Tullimonstrum (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the papers you have referenced, think it over, and respond in a bit.Locke9k (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of looking through these papers. Let me ask up front the following question. Do these papers actually represent that they use cryptozoological methods? Are they written by self-described cryptozoologists? Or are you just independently asserting that the methods they use qualify as cryptozoological in nature. If the latter, I don't think the papers are relevant. If the former, I will continue reading. Locke9k (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thing; I forgot to respond to your comment regarding the Nature editorial. I have made these points elsewhere in this talk page, but I'll reiterate them here. First of all, the Nature editorial is, of course, an editorial. It thus represents the views of one person and not the overall scientific community. Second, if you read through that editorial what you will see is that he is actually saying is that cryptozoology may become more accepted in the future. It is inherently a 'crystal ball' statement. Furthermore, it has been several years since this article. If his speculation had been correct, we would see the beginnings of publication of papers on cryptozoology as well as referencing of cryptozoological articles in mainstream articles. I have not seen convincing evidence that either of these things has occurred. Hence, we should not give undue weight to past 'crystal ball' like predictions that have not come to pass. Locke9k (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well the authors don't say "I am a cryptozoologist". But the penultimate paper mentions the Loch Ness Monster and the last paper mentions unknown species of large marine animal. So people *do* discuss these animals in the technical literature and not soley in a debunking way. But the onus surely is on the advocates of the "cryptozoology is pseudoscience" position to show the overwhelming majority of relevant scientits support that contention. You haven't. The one powerful argument you had about web of science breaks down because people don't mention necessarily the field which the study is in. Thus a (crypto)zoologist does not say in an abstract "In this (crypto)zoology paper we found...". We (the advocates of a broader NPOV) have shown some notable people who know about zoology (not nutters on the fringe) are sympathetic to cryptozoology. So surely therefore the NPOV is that "cryptozoology is the study of blah blah bah aspects of which are consider by some to be pseudoscience or something" like that.
You are absolutely right that the editorial article in Nature, represents the views of one person. Just as the views it is all pseudoscience represent the views of *some* people. Hence referring to the latter as the mainstream position is POV. I think the vast majority of cryptozoology is complete rubbish but that does not make it NPOV that it is pseudoscience.Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You have made some good arguments. I'm not convinced you are right on all points, but in deference to your reasoning at this time and in consideration of the fact that several editors have suggested that my proposed wording may be POV, I'll table the issue for now and see where other editors take it. In the meantime, I have added a few more quotes from the Shermer and Linse book (and have corrected th authors of that quote) to give a better overall view of the overview given there, while still leaving the general approach to addressing the 'pseudoscience' issue that you and others have proposed. In line with the above, if after a bit of time I am still doubtful of whether this is the best approach I'll consider calling an RFC, but I won't proceed to revert back to the old wording approach on my own without discussion. The last thing I want is an edit war or anything less than an amicable discussion working towards the best NPOV wording. Thanks for your diligence in that regard. Cheers - Locke9k (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
About cryptozoology
The deletion was a mistake. Apologies 133.68.126.133 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Zoology Box
If Cryptozoology is going to have a Zoology Box on the page, can I suggest that someone put in a picture of something "crypto" . When you go to any of the other Zoology catagory pages there is a picture of something from that catagory in the box. re: entomology shows an insect, mammalogy shows a mammal. Cryptozoology just shows the zoology mosaic (which is actually someone inappropriate since all the animals in the mosaic have been shown to exist). AJseagull1 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I suggest a picture of an animal that has been extinct for at least a few decades, but with reports of continued sightings in the wild. This would smooth over any so-called distinctions between zoology and cryptozoology; there is scientific proof that the animal has existed in the past, but the lack of proof that it exists at present is tantalising to both scientists and the general public. How about a thylacine? BoundaryRider (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Giant Squid
Wasn't the Giant Squid considered a cryptid until recently? If anyone can find citations for it being "legendary" and then discovered, it should be mentioned here as a victory for cryptozoology. 64.81.161.45 (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like unpublished synthesis to me. Locke9k (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly not Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni, as that species has a circumantarctic distribution. The giant squid, Architeuthis, is a possiblity, but it has been known to science for over 150 years. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
150 years? You have to go further back in history to find the legends. Jules Verne is said to have based his giant squid creation in "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" on the experiences of a French naval ship, according to this website. Perhaps Verne saw malacologist de Montford's 1801 sketch? The Kraken in Lord Tennyson's poem, "...winnow with giant arms the slumbering green...", published 1830, borrowed from Scandinavian mythology. The Scylla of Greek mythology was a sea monster with a fish tail and multiple legs or heads (see also Homer's "Odyssey"). The Leviathan in the Old Testament book of Job is a large sea monster of various descriptions, something like a whale or serpent, or something else. Some of these sea monsters may have been Mesonychoteuthis or Architeuthis, or another as yet undescribed genus of squid. Of course we can write these monsters off now, with the benefit of hindsight provided by scientific proof, but at the time they were legendary, and therefore cryptids. BoundaryRider (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody else take a look at the Cryptozoology template? It looks to be broken and is spewing bits of markup into the rendered page at the top of the navbox at the bottom of the page. --TS 23:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Undue Weight
The length of the 'defenders' section relative to the 'criticism' section gives the non-mainstream view undue weight relative to the mainstream view. Refer to the wikipedia policy on fringe theories and pseudoscience for more on this policy. The 'defenders' section probably needs to be significantly shortened to correct the problem. Locke9k (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You're definitely correct about that. Your recent series of edits are dealing well with various flaws in this article; thanks, and please continue. ClovisPt (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Although the main focus should be winnowing down the defenders section by making sure to only include things that are really notable (taking into account that the fringe view itself is less notable than the mainstream one), if anyone has any more references or info that would add value tothe criticisms/mainstream science section, that would be great too.Locke9k (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have reworked the defenders section. It is still somewhat too long and has undue weight and other problems, but this is a start. I have removed the reference to Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum for several reasons. First, according to their pages they are non biological anthropologists. Second, by not mentioning that they are sasquach proponents (and therefore possibly biased) their opinion is given undue weight. Third, there is no reference supporting the claim that they said these things, which is a big no-no under Wikipedia's policy on biographical information. The relevant lines follow, should someone wish to find relevant citations, correct the inaccuracies, balance it for NPOV, and reintroduce it. For example, biological anthropologists and Sasquach proponents Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum have cited what they perceive to be ample physical evidence in support of the existence of Bigfoot, suggesting a surviving population of gigantopithecines. However, their arguments regarding Bigfoot have largely been dismissed by other scientists. I had to remove the following line because it appears to be used in a way that constitutes unpublished sythesis - it leads the reader to believe that this study actually does support cryptozoological, which is not established in the cited reference. If someone can find a reference showing that this study is a central, highly notable argument of cryptozoologists, it could possibly be reintroduced in a way that makes clear that it is a belief of cryptozoologists rather than a fact. Right now its notability / relevance is not really established and it contributes to the undue weight given to this section. By plotting the discovery rate of new species, C. G. M. Paxton estimated that as many as 47 large oceanic species remain undiscovered.[1] it is good to pay Its not clear that the section on the 'coelanth' has anything to do with cryptozoology. The article hasn't established that "paying close attention to natives' knowledge of animals" is a key trait distinguishing cryptozoology from anything else. In particular, its not clear that mainstream scientists would particularly criticize this idea as it is stated here, so its especially not clear why this point should be in the 'defenders' section of the article. The coelacanth, a "living fossil" which represents an order of fish believed to have been extinct for 65 million years, was identified from a specimen found in a fishing net in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. According to Dash,[2] the Coelacanth is a good case for paying close attention to natives' knowledge of animals: though the fish's survival was a complete surprise to outsiders, it was so well known to locals that natives commonly used the fish's rough scales as a sort of sandpaper.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
NPOV Intro
Artw: I appreciate your contribution; however, the intro as you have reworked it (actually you have essentially reverted it to an old form) has large NPOV issues. First of all, nowhere does it actually use the word pseudoscience in the introduction. If you look at the arbitration committee ruling on pseudoscience, (summarized at Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view for pseudoscience and fringe theories cryptozoology fits the criteria. The fact that 'cryptozoology' sounds like a science is already potentially confusing to readers, and by calling it "the study of..." you reinforce this non-mainstream view in the intro. Also "animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs" are weasel words. Its not at all clear what this means exactly, but it implies that the error is with the current categories rather than with cryptozoology. Same deal with "fall outside of taxonomic records" Note that Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view for pseudoscience and fringe theories requires an article to make very clear when it is describing a fringe belief, and it also must make clear what the mainstream belief is. Furthermore, the fringe theory must not be given undue weight: the article needs to make clear up front (not farther in the article) exactly what is mainstream and what is fringe. I am therefore reinstating my original edits as they have eliminated the problems above and repaired the NPOV issues in the intro. Thanks.Locke9k (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's right there in the lede. Because cryptozoologists do not typically follow the scientific method[3][4] and devote a substantial portion of their efforts to investigations of animals that most scientists believe are unlikely to exist,[5] cryptozoology has received little attention from the scientific community. In 2004, however, paleoanthropologist Henry Gee, a senior editor of the leading journal Nature argued that cryptozoology was of legitimate scientific value and could "come in from the cold." - That is, IMHO, sufficient and theres no requirement or justification to jam "cryptozoology is a pseudoscience" into the lede. Also Cryptozoology is not the study of "fictional" animals. Artw (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The statement that "cryptozoology has received little attention from the scientific community" is not the same as saying it is pseudoscience. Again, these are weasel words due to their vagueness. They can lead the reader to believe that maybe the scientific community just hasn't given cryptozoology a fair look or hasn't come to a conclusion on it. In fact, the scientific community has come to a conclusion, which is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. I will again quote from the arbitration opinion: "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." In accordance with this ruling cryptozoology should be clearly and unambiguously labeled as a pseudoscience in its definition. It should not be relegated to a vague line at the end of the intro.
Furthermore, the mainstream viewis that cryptozoology does in fact study mythological or otherwise 'unreal' animals. In other words, the majority of 'animals' that cryptozoology studies are considered to be mere folk lore or mythology by mainstream science. I'd accept "mythological" or "folk-lore based" in lieu of fictional, though, if your objection is that the primary source of cryptozoological evidence is word of mouth rather than written literature
Also, as far as that quote goes, he states that cryptozoology can come in from the cold not that it has come in from the cold. Furthermore, one scientist stating his opinion that it can come in from the cold is not equivalent to broad scientific consensus. My feeling is that including that quote in the intro actually causes the reader to overestimate the amount of support for cryptozoology within mainstream science by representing that one out of context comment as though it was representative of the scientific community. For now I haven't done anything about it because I think that point is more subtle and merits some more thought on my part before I act. Locke9k (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed "fictional" to "mythological" to more accurately represent the kind of things cryptozoologists investigate, as per our above exchange. Locke9k (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, just to clarify, I am not saying that it is in any way your intent to introduce weasel words into the article, I am simply saying that the effect of that wording on how the reader understands the article can be characterized in that way. I know we're all trying to improve the article here. Locke9k (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Locke9k on most points although the term "legendary," which DreamGuy has already included, is a better choice than "fictional" or "mythological." It should be stated clearly that the scientific community believes that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. —Fizikertc 21:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
TBH I don't see what was wrong with "animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs" - It was pretty direct, to the point, and didn't limit or exagerate the scope. Artw (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It is weasel wording. Cryptozoology deals with supposed animals that have yet to be proven to exist. The use of "fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs" implies that those animals exist but zoologists classify them in such a way that they are excluded from the catalogs that contain non-cryptids. —Fizikertc 21:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
So the aim here is to slant the article to make it clear that no such animals could be found? Artw (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No, thats not the aim. The aim is to primarily represent the mainstream viewpoint, which is that the focus of cryptozoology is on species that are considered at this time by mainstream science to not exist. Nore is the mainstream view that these species are likely to be found to exist in the future. Also I contest your argument that "animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs" is direct. That could mean almost anything. It could mean that they haven't been included due to a typo. It could mean that they are of a type of species that for some reason aren't included in those catalogs but are actually believed to exist (as Fiziker suggested). Also, the word 'contemporary' implies that they will be included in those catologs in the future, which is simply not the mainstream view as I point out above. The mainstream view is that these 'creatures' do not exist. Our personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant with respect to a wikipedia article. Even if we personally think that some of these species are real, we are restricted to primarily presenting the mainstream view until such time as it changes. As per wikipedia policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories, we can present the fringe view as being notable because of social notability, but we must make very clear what the mainstream view is, and the fringe view may not be allowed to 'swamp' the mainstream view or to be presented in a way that makes it appear more mainstream than it actually is. Locke9k (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Also I will note that the phrase currently used in the intro is "...search for animals which are considered to be legendary or otherwise nonexistent by mainstream biology". That is not the same as saying that they cannot be found. It is making a factual statement regarding the mainstream view of this subject; a view that due the the above points should be the primary one presented in the introduction. However, I do not agree that the current introduction 'slants' the article in a direction that suggests that these creatures universally cannot be found.Locke9k (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Cryptozoologists would be much better off looking for the Higgs boson. No one has ever seen one of those, either, but the lip service paid to 'fair weighting' the possibility that it doesn't exist is pretty thin, and no one would dream of calling the Large Hadron Collider geeks 'pseudoscientists'. In physics, things that aren't there are 'not yet experimentally observed' rather than 'mythical'. You've chosen the wrong field of research, guys. I'd switch fast. There's a hell of a lot of money in God particles. Grubstreet (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't tell whether you're sincerely saying that these are fringe theories or making fun of calling cryptozoology pseudoscience. BTW, some of what you said about the Higgs boson isn't correct but that's not relevant here. —Fizikertc 03:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I was being ironic, Fiziker. However, I must confess that something very, very weird has happened. Either I have started to experience hallucinations (for which there is no additional evidence) or my computer has found a way to load historical or alternative WP pages without me noticing, because some of the things that prompted my acerbic comments in the early hours of the morning simply aren't there this afternoon. Like the word 'myth' now reading 'legend' (which is an important distinction). And no, I hadn't been at the bottle, let alone the pill canister. Firefox has been behaving strangely over the last week or so (and in fact crashed at the very instant I posted that comment), but not that strangely. It's quite unnerving TBH.
I still think some of the editing here is openly hostile, mind. For example, an obligation to the mainstream would be more than adequately covered by the first sentence stating that "most biologists consider cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience". Even "the vast majority of scientists consider..." would be easily supportable. But by insisting on "is a pseudoscience" the editors here are not only joining in that debate, they are declaring a winner. Maybe I'm just an argumentative old bastard, but that doesn't feel to me like an encyclopaedic thing to do. There may be a jury of public opinion, but I'm not sure WP editors should be addressing it in the role of prosecuting counsel.
Similarly, who decides on the status of eyewitness accounts? Neutrality would be well enough served by saying that criticisms include cryptozoology's 'reliance on eyewitness accounts'. That's clear enough. At a pinch 'reliance on unverified eyewitness accounts' would pass muster. Or 'reliance on eyewitness accounts unsupported by physical evidence'. But no, eyewitness accounts must be declared unreliable to make it clear that the critics are right and the cryptozoologists wrong.
For the record, I do not 'believe in', let alone practise cryptozoology. My opinion is that it's an almost complete waste of time, money and brainpower. I just stumbled across this article and very quickly found my hackles rising at some of the wording. I could tell that there would be phrases akin to 'the mainstream must prevail' before I even turned to the discussion page. Well, IMO it isn't the job of editors to ensure that the mainstream prevails (they did that on behalf of the Pope in Gallileo's day), merely to inform readers what the majority view is, and not allow the fringe to present itself as if it were in fact the mainstream.
Oh, and I have nothing against the Higgs boson. If they find the little bugger, and it answers Life, the Universe and Everything, I'll be delighted. I think. Grubstreet (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The Higgs boson isn't a good analogy to cryptozoology but that's not relevant so despite my desire to talk physics I'll move on. Saying that the eyewitness testimony is unreliable is correct an NPOV. Science considers all eyewitness testimony unreliable, not just reports related to cryptozoology. An eyewitness report might cause a scientist to investigate something but presenting it as evidence would just get a scientist laughed at. The current wording of calling cryptozoology directly a pseudoscience is correct. To do otherwise would be weasel wording in my opinion. Change cryptozoology to flat Earth theory or any of the even-more-fringe theories out there. Saying "most scientists consider flat Earth theory to be pseudoscience" would be ridiculous when "flat Earth theory is a pseudoscience" would work. —Fizikertc 16:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You consider the wording appropriate because any and all activity related to Cryptozoology is directly equivalent to flat-earthism? Artw (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Flat Earth theory is the first pseudoscience that popped into my mind that would provide a clear example. This is an analogy, which could have been done with any clear pseudoscience, not a statement about the equivalency of cryptozoologists and flat Earthers. —Fizikertc 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I think some sort of compromise wording is possible. Perhaps we should work toward that end. DreamGuy (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
On the central point here I don't really think that a compromise position is necessary or appropriate. I quote from wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories. Here is the summary of the relevant arbitration committee decision. 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." (emphasis added) From that perspective, simply saying something like "most biologists consider cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience" or "the vast majority of scientists consider..." as Grubstreet proposed above would not be consistent with this ruling. It is subtle weasel wording because it implies that there is a debate within the scientific community when in fact there is not. It also subtly implies that perhaps just some biologists may personally rather than professionally have this opinion (perhaps unfairly), when this is also not the case. The overwhelming position of the scientific community is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, and per this arbitration committee ruling it should therefore clearly be labeled as such.
I will further quote from the guidelines in this section: "In pseudoscientific topics, the task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon...any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". Thus, the current wording is not, as Grubstreet implies, "declaring a winner" in a "debate." As this guideline points out, the first, most prominent definition of a subject should clearly and unambiguously reflect the mainstream view. In fact, the arbitration committee delineated a separate category for cases in which there is a true scientific debate called questionable science, into which cryptozoology clearly does not fall. It is therefore inappropriate to in any way present cryptozoology as being the subject of serious debate within the scientific community.
In summary, this general issue has been considered before and decided upon by the arbitration committee and addressed in the guidelines in a way that is pretty clear. Something that is generally considered pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community should be "categorized as pseudoscience" in the article. The present wording does just that, and the proposed alternate wordings do not. Locke9k (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you are a little confused here. I am well aware of the proper treatment of pseudoscience and the rulings made about it, and I am not saying that this info should be removed (see my comments further up the page). I also consider myself to be strongly anti-pseudoscience, but I do think the wording could be improved through a compromise. If you're going to approach this as anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is trying to push an anti-science POV, you're off base. DreamGuy (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, allow me to clarify. I did not mean to suggest that you or anyone is pushing an anti-science POV. I think that there is a legitimate debate occurring over the best way to word the page to achieve a neutral view. Within the context of wikipedia, I am not actually personally anti-pseudoscience myself-I just support the principles engendered within the guidelines of clearly distinguishing pseudoscience and avoiding undue weight. Within those limitations, I am in favor of pseudoscientific ideas being clearly described on wikipedia. I am not flatly against changes of wording to the introduction as it presently stands; however, I am against any change in wording that would soften the presently clear distinction between pseudoscience and science. Based on the above debate, I do not believe that the position I have just described is amenable to a compromise position that would satisfy everyone. However, I could be wrong, and I would be perfectly willing to support such a compromise position were one proposed. In fact, my opinion is that the present wording is linguistically awkward in some respects, and I would be happy to see an improvement that retained the essential content.Locke9k (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Locke9k. I don't see a compromise that doesn't involve weasel words. If there is a compromise that doesn't make it seem like cryptozoology is a science then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I haven't thought of one that would work. —Fizikertc 22:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If you can't think of one, then we can have the other side propose some. I think there is room for compromise. If I as a firm opponent of pseudoscience feel like the current wording is unnecessarily harsh, then I can certainly envision a way to tone it down without compromising neutrality in anyway. Frankly, I believe Locke9k's interpretation of the ArbCom decision goes beyond what it actually said. One can make it very clear that a field is considered pseudoscience without insisting that all scientists everywhere thinks it is and saying that they think everything any cryptologists believes can't possibly ever exist. Hell, that's not even accurate. It's not weasel words to accurately represent the situation. "No weasel words" doesn't mean "feel free to use alligator words". DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be possible to come up with a compromise; I look forward to suggestions anyone has. While you are right that no weasel words doesn't mean alligator words must be used, in this case the alligator words are correct. However, it still may be possible to come up with something a little less alligator like (lizard?) that would still do the job properly. —Fizikertc 16:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The point of the present intro is not to say that the scientific community believes it is impossible for any of these creatures to exist. The thing is, that is generally not the way science works with these sorts of things. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative (for that matter, is is virtually impossible to 100% prove a positive as well). The point is that the scientific community does not have to examine every one of these claims individually for two reasons. The first has to do with broad facts about evolution, ecology, and the degree to which new large megafauna species have already been explored. The second has to do with self selection: cryptozoologists by definition are choosing to seek things whose existence is not supported by science. There are already people going around looking for new species: zoologists. The only reason for cryptozoologists to give themselves a separate name is to distinguish the facts that their methods are not scientific and the creatures they are looking for are not supported mainstream science. If those things were not true, then they would simply be an amateur zoologist Locke9k (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is one possible rewording that I am not necessarily endorsing, but that I would like to put to discussion before deciding on.
Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kriptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") is a pseudoscience focused on the search for animals whose actual existence is broadly considered to be highly unlikely by mainstream science due both to lack of empirical support and to strong generally opposing evidence and theory.
This is somewhat softer. The basic problem with it in my mind is that it may create in a lay readers mind the appearance of a scientific debate between the two sides (there is not) or it may give understate the strength of the scientific rejection of these proposed creatures. The basic question I have is: does the lede have to included the fact that no scientific conclusion is ever final? Are we to give this impression in articles about gravity and thermodynamics just because 'absolute certainty' is not the way science works? It seems to me that this is the question here.Locke9k (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You've lost the synonym for "Imaginary" but you still have "is a pseudoscience" in there. TBH I'm still of the opinion that the original pre:Pseudoscience version was superior. Artw (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Also that the problems of tone extend beyond the lede, and need to be addressed. Artw (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the entire article has problems, but there are other discussion sections to address some of those (or there could be). I think the arbitration committee decision was pretty clear on supporting the use of the word pseudoscience, even if there is some legitimate debate (Dreamguy, above) on whether I am overinterpreting the ruling in other respects. So putting the use of that word aside, do you feel that the rest of the wording is an improvement in your view? As I said, I am not sure I want to endorse it yet myself but I am trying to throw out some ideas here. Locke9k (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that this is too wordy. The current version says something similar but does it more succinctly. I would also remove the word "mainstream" from science as it's just necessary in this instance (this is about a pseudoscience and science's opinion on the topic, not about two competing scientific theories). —Fizikertc 21:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Nature quote
I am leaning toward removing this quote from the intro for several reason. First, it is just an opinion of Henry Gee as opposed to an objective factual statement. Thus, placing it in the intro seems to be WP:Undue Weight. As further support for this contention, note that the quote appeared in an editorial article and not a peer reviewed paper. Secondly, this quote is now five years old. What he was saying was speculative, and if he was right there would have been at least some evidence of Cryptozoological papers creeping into mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific journals by this time. No such articles have been cited in this paper. This seems to indicate that Cryptozoology has in fact not "come in from the cold" as a result of the events he was discussing, again making inclusion in the intro [[WP:Undue Weight]. Thus the quote is misleading in the intro by assigning undue weight to an outdated opinion of one person. Normally I would just be bold and remove it, but I am posting this here before acting to avoid inflaming the above debate. I'll give it a bit of time for comment.Locke9k (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
As a note, let me emphasize that this same information is included further down in the article and that I am not suggesting that we removed its second appearance. (Right now it is redundant.)Locke9k (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Locke9k, this sounds like a reasonable suggestion. As long as the information is still included in the body of the article, removing it from the introduction would be an improvement. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Also note that it rather seems to contradict the claim that any and all activities within the field of Cryptozoology are equivalent to flat-Earthism, unless Nature is staffed by flat Earthers. Artw (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't really understand. What claim about flat-Earthism? Thats not in the article anywhere...Locke9k (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Artw is referring to something I said above. Needless to say the point has been lost on him or her. —Fizikertc 03:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
So long as as the second mention is kept, I don't see a reason to keep Gee's quote. I believe Locke9k's analysis is correct. —Fizikertc 01:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
All right, there seem to be a reasonable consensus in this discussion, I have removed the Nature quote from the intro and left it in the body. Locke9k (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In order to improve the balance in the intro I have also moved the more extensive scientific criticism discussed there to the criticism section. Just denoting it as a pseudoscience in the intro is is sufficient there. Going more into the specific objections is unnecessary; thats what the body is for. I think this change has yielded a tighter and more NPOV feeling intro. Locke9k (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Pseudoscience sometimes
While people are looking for sources, I think the most spot-on one I've found says the following:
"Cryptozoology ranges from pseudoscientific to useful and interesting, depending on how it is practiced." -- The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by Michael Shermer & Pat Linse, 2002, ISBN1576076539
If two of the world's leading figures in Skepticism only go so far as to call cryptozoology as sometimes pseudoscientific, I don't think this article can be any harsher than that. It might be useful to track down which parts are considered useful and which are not. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It is logically a pseudoscience. There is already a scientific field for people who look for undiscovered animal species. Its called zoology. It seems to me that the entire basis for having the word "cryptozoology" is to distinguish from real zoological science. Any research that was actually following the scientific method in a search for new species would just be called zoology. This seems to be a definitional issue of demarcation. There is no accepted field of science called cryptozoology because anything cryptozoology did that was scientific would already fit within an existing field of science. Therefore the word can only be taken to mean things outside the sphere of science. "Fields of study" outside of science but purporting to be science are by definition pseudoscience. Locke9k (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
For you to say it's "logically pseudoscience" is mere original research/POV. I'm not interested in debating the topic of whether it IS pseudoscience with you, I am interested in reflecting what the reliable sources say, per Wikipedia rules. This reliable source shows that even those strongly opposed to pseudoscience -- enough to write a book exposing it -- don't consider everything in cryptozoology to be pseudoscience. If you believe otherwise, you're perfectly entitled to that personal opinion... but you cannot force your opinion onto this article.
So, staying on topic here, do you consider Shermer & Linse to be reliable sources, or not? I think they obviously are. Are you going to try to argue against them just because they disagree with you on this topic....? DreamGuy (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not original research. You are free to include in the article their opinion that it is useful and interesting in some limiting cases. However, they are not the voice of the scientific community. Quite simply, the body of mainstream journals is the voice of the scientific commnunity. I am happy to cite web of science and google scholar to show that despite the fact that cryptozoology has existed for some time, and despite the fact that its proponents have characterized it as a science, it has recieved no acceptance from the mainstream scientific community in the form of mainstream publications. This is the definition of a pseudoscience. So, to clarify, my sources are web of knowledge and google scholar cryptozoology search. Simple searching these sources for the term cryptozoology or any related term shows that these mainstream, reliable, comprehensive, authoritative sources state that there is no mainstream acceptance of cryptozoological theories. If necessary, we can add these references to the article. Locke9k (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're clearly pushing your own POV onto the article. You are perfectly willing to accept what those authors say when they agree with you, but as soon as they disagree with you you're ready to throw them under a bus. And what they say certainly is not out of the mainstream of scientific opinion, despite your bizarre linking to search engine results instead of actual articles. I've given you more than enough time to try to do the right thing and follow NOV policy yourself, but since it's clear you are opposed to doing so, I have fixed it myself, both on this page, the list of page, and the pseudoscience template. I don't know yet if there are other refs that need to be updated, but if so they will be done in time I'm sure. Again, if you would like to create a section that tries to spell out WHICH PARTS of cryptozoology are considered pseudoscience and which are not, and use reliable sources to demonstrate it, go for it. But a blanket description of everything in cryptozoology as being pseudoscientific is clearly not appropriate and seems to be based upon your own personal opinions, which contradicting famous, well respected authors on pseudoscience. DreamGuy (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I honestly am not trying to push any POV here. There is an RFC on this subject above, and I have focused my discussion there rather than in this senselessly isolated discussion section. This section doesn't get comment by the wider community, and I thus suggest that we focus on the RFC thread above. If you will look at the RFC section above, I posted the following:
"Third, it seems that you may have inadvertently cherry picked quotes from that source([2]). It also states that "Many...scientists think that the field is a pseudoscience" and "many scientists and skeptics classify cryptozoology as a pseudoscience". Considering these statements in the very same source you quoted, it seems that Shermer and Linse are saying that the mainstream view of cryptozoology is that it is a pseudoscience. They are then offering 'their personal opinion that at the fringes of pseudoscience there may be some people of a more scientific nature. Since, as I said above, the designation of a pseudoscience is based upon acceptance in the overall scientific community and not upon the highly caveated opinion of a few people, the designation should remain. I would have no objection to a nuanced summary of their opinion being included further within the article. Such a discussion should also include the part of their opinion that states that any element of science occuring on the fringes of cryptozoology does not include the rampant speculation that characterizes much of the field (paraphrasing their chapter). Locke9k (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)"
So in fact, the very references that you cite show that in the mainstream this topic is considered pseudoscience. In my opinion the quote you have used is taken out of context and does not represent their overall discussion of the topic. I am thus reverting your edits back to how they previously were in order to let the RFC continue. Please understand that if the RFC ends up reaching a consensus in agreement with your position, I will let an edit along these lines stand - I am not looking to edit war. I just find your edit to be premature and unwarranted at this point. Lets please move any further conversation on this issue to the RFC and keep things friendly. Locke9k (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
RFC? Where?
The editor who was using this article to push his own personal POV, even though the only reliable source that directly weighs in on the question contradicts him, reverted my edits (on this article and a number of others) with the claim that there is an RFC going on and that we shouldn't do anything rash and therefore we'll keep his wording in the meantime...
..what RFC? I've not seen one, and none links to this page. Is there some hidden one somewhere? DreamGuy (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a section above entitled request for comment that has been longstanding. I have long assumed that this was an outstanding RFC on the topic. Apparently it is not actually set up as a real RFC for some reason. That rather changes things, and I withdraw my earlier remarks to the effect that your edits were premature given an outstanding RFC. I'll try to work on remedying the problem. Maybe the old thread needs to be archived at some point or have a title change to prevent confusion. Locke9k (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That RFC was more than a year ago. They don't stay open more than a month or so usually. People continued to post comments to it later, but the RFC was long gone. And the claim we can't edit during an RFC is bogus anyway. This is cited to a reliable source that is written by recognized experts on pseudoscience. DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Tried to fix the pseudoscience issue
I think that once the various sides of the discussion can find cites for those three points...that it's mostly called a pseudoscience, that some followers never claim it to be a science in the first place, and that on rare occasion it does follow proper zoology stuff....that would be a summary that's both accurate and agreeable to all. 92.4.79.108 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That's unlikely to be uncontested by the "is a" folks, but it looks alright to me. Possibly worth looking through some of the pre-"is a" versions for some better wording in the first sentence, and some of the attempts to cite "is a" might actually work for the cites required by this version. Artw (talk)
Yeah, my wording's always rubbish...feel free to change it however, just reckon that this is the way to go rather than either 'is' or 'isn't'....the rest of the article is crap too btw, shouldn't be divided into for and against sections....92.4.79.108 (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Expert
If this article is going to pass the GA review, we need to get some pros on this topic. We need a second opinion on the coverage of this article.--Gniniv (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can come up with. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
missing stuff
Discussion on the rhinoceros as genesis for unicorn myth for starters seems to be a significant omission. I'll check some more Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Good Article Nomination
I have nominated this article for GA, and I am curious if there are any problems with that nomination...--Gniniv (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Umm..the expert tag is a little disconcerting. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Have you read WP:GA? The article does not meet GA criteria. serioushat 05:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Should probably reword this...
"Cryptozoology proponents further cite as support instances in which they claim that species accepted by the scientific community were initially considered superstition, hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications.[4] For example, they claim that the Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) was previously dismissed as folklore/myth, owing to lack of evidence and fossils, before being confirmed in 1902.[12] Similarly, they claim that the Hoan Kiem Turtle was thought to be a local legend[13] before conclusive evidence for its existence was accepted around 1998-2002. The popularly reported European discovery of the okapi in 1901, earlier hinted at but unseen in his travelogue of exploring the Congo by Henry Morton Stanley later became the emblem for the now defunct International Society of Cryptozoology."
It says "they claim" here and "they claim" there, but despite the fact that I think Cryptozoology is a bunch of nonsense, they are correct in stating that the Hoan Kiem Turtle and mountain gorilla were thought to be myths before their discovery. See the articles on them. Claim should probably be changed to "states" or something similiar. I'd do it, but I just wanted to see what others think first. Plus, I'm an IP editor, and our edits tend to get reversed rather quickly. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you and will fix that issue...--Gniniv (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
From Talk:Cryptozoology/GA1 by J Milburn
This article does seem to be strongly in favour of cryptozoology- if you'll note the comparative lengths of the sections, the section defending the discipline (which is, afterall, not the most respected scientific discipline...) is over twice as long. Lending too much credence to a discipline that is not widely respected creates serious problems concerning undue weight. The general tone is also a little non-neutral- to pick out some phrases at random- "countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects" and "often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence". To be honest, I think this is bad enough to warrant a maintenance tag...
This needs fixing. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree! would someone be willing to expand the criticism section? The article itself needs to be increased in length...--Gniniv (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Warring "criticism" and "defense" sections make for a very poor quality article, per WP:CRITS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh* here we go again. There was a big debate about this (strangely removed from this talk page) between one side that suggested NPOV was "cryptozoology is not a science" whereas the other side pointed out there were several prominent proponents of cryptozoology in the zoological community, published mainstream papers. In fact the "cryptozoology is not a science" position asppeared to be supported by assertions, no survey of scientists opinions on cryptozoology was presented to support the contention it was rejected as a field by scientists. So in the end the "cryptozoology is not a science" were forced to concede that their position was rather POV. The NPOV in my opinion is best covered by something like cryptozoology is "investigation of... . Its status as a science is controversial." or something like that. I think it rather sinister to delete all previous mentions of this on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.202.73 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is periodically archived. Have you checked the archived discussions linked from the top of this page? mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, unless someone can produce some evidence that the consensus of zoologists say cryptozoology is bunk, then the NPOV should be that it is controversial. I think CZ is mostly bunk, you may think cz is bunk but if there are some zoologists think it is not then
it is POV to say that it is not a recognized branch of science and something more neutral is required.
Some papers using cz ish methods
I. L. Boyd & M. P. 2003 Stanfield Circumstantial evidence for the presence of monk seals in the West Indies Oryx Volume 32 Issue 4, Pages 310 - 316 Fitzpatrick etal Ivory-billed Woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) Persists in Continental North America 2004 Science 308. no. 5727, pp. 1460 - 1462 Paxton, C. 1998. A cumulative species description curve for large open water marine animals. Journal of the Marine Biologists Association, U.K. 78, 1389-1391. Woodley, M.A. Naish, D. & Shanahan, H. P. 2009. How many extant pinniped species remain to be described? Historical Biology doi:10.1080/08912960902830210
That ignores the pro-bigfoot books by Meldrum Grantz et al. Thirdly a variety of scientists have stated that don't believe it to be total hokum (Goodall and others) Then there is the not exactly anti-comments made in the Nature editorial. The argument that NPOV is that it "is not a recognized branch of science" strikes me as rather POV and something more nuanced is clearly required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.202.179 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what all that is you wrote in the middle, or to what it's intended to refer. Please clearly cite reliable sources which back up the assertion that Crytozoology is a recognized branch of zoology within the scientific community. Jesstalk|edits 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The refs in the article state that it is pseudoscience sometimes (see discussion above). I have cited papers that use cryptozoological methods (see above) and there is a reference in the article to a comment by Nature editor saying there may be something to it. Surely the onus is on those who believe it is not a branch of zoology, to justify their dogmatic assertion with a reliable sources that gives details of a survey of zoologists. One cannot just claim as LuckyLouie did "No controversy as to it not being recog. branch of the science of zoology". Not recognised by who? LuckyLouie? Just because I think cz is bunk does not make it NPOV that it is. But read the Talk archive for this page we have been over this before. Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Zoology is a science, and if (as you said) Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, then cryptozoology is not a branch of zoology; it's not even a branch of science. The burden is on you to provide a source which claims that cryptozoology is a legitimate branch of zoology before we can place that in the article. I see a bunch of sources to random statements in 132.251's comment. If one of those sources backs up your assertion, then please specifically point out which one and why. Ultimately, we need a scientist or scientific organization within the field of zoology saying "Cryptozoology is a branch of our field", or something similar. Jesstalk|edits 17:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, since cryptozoology departs significantly from mainstream academic zooology, it falls under WP:FRINGE, which requires us to clarify its marginalized, minority status. While the article can and should describe the cryptozoologist's minority views, we don't represent those views as a significant "controversy" within mainstream science, or as having equal WP:WEIGHT to mainstream opinions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, it (if it isn't a pseudoscience) is certainly a disputed science, with many amateurs and a minority of zoologists (See Bernard Heuvelmans and Karl Shuker) accepting it. I am totally agreed that all statements made need reliable referencing, but I don't think there is enough evidence to write this article off as a completely "fringe" view (See Lazarus taxon for a related field accepted amongst paleontologists and zoologists).--Gniniv (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that cryptozoology is a very good example of fringe: It is neither accepted as science nor completely pseudoscientific. And it has many of the problems described in WP:FRINGE. E.g. its notability derives mostly from summer hole news story topics such as the Loch Ness monster, which live somewhere between pseudoscience and entertainment. HansAdler 09:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree but the issue is the statement that it is not recognised by mainstream zoology. That in itself may be true but it needs to be supported with evidence of zoologists saying that. Jess, myself and LuckyLouie may think cz is pseudoscientific rubbish but that does not make it NPOV that it is so. No evidence has been supplied so I inserted the weaker (but clearly justified by the current article) line that its status as science is controversial only to have it reverted. But surely the onus is on those that prefer a stronger position to justify it by reference to something that says cryptozoology is not part of mainstream zoology. Especially so given the article quotes zoologists as speaking favourably about it. No one has yet produced such evidence. 138.251.202.179 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
138.251.202.179 wrote that "examples of zoologists speaking favourably about cryptozoology" means that "NPOV is that it is controversial". No, a tiny minority view does not equal a controversy within science. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
LuckyLouie you have not given one source to back up your position. Is CZ supported by a tiny minority? Show me the evidence! Your personal opinion is not NPOV! 138.251.202.179 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
A consensus of editors appears to disagree. Be aware that as a single-purpose unregistered account, your opinion may hold less weight in discussions, but you may want to bring up your concerns at a noticeboard such as the WP:NPOVN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Nope life is too short. I presented changes backed up by refs, they get deleted to be replaced by mere assertion (and indeed a deliberate partial quote from a source). Another triumph of the Wikipedia vox populi, *sigh*.138.251.202.179 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Reverting well sourced neutral statements (e.g. "Cryptozoology is considered controversial") and replacing them with your personal opinion is absolutely against WP:NPOV.--Gniniv (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
@Gniniv Just noting for the record, that isn't what happened. The editor proposed a change (without proper sourcing, I might add), and clear consensus emerged in opposition. This is pretty clear-cut per WP:BRD. As I stated on my talk page, please feel free to muster support for a new version from other editors in your section below. As a note, references would certainly help. Jesstalk|edits 05:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
@Mann jess My version (I don't know about his) was well referenced and presented two sides to the topic. If you can improve what I added or help that would be greatly appreciated...--Gniniv (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Compromise
We need to come up with a compromise solution to this edit war. I have attempted to put a trial paragraph in, and I am curious how it could be improved (it was reverted).--Gniniv (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Cryptozoology is considered controversial by most zoologists[3]. It relies heavily upon anecdotal evidence, stories and alleged sightings, and has been referred to as a pseudoscience.[4]****Please add your negative opinion sentence here, remember that it will be rejected if it has no reference**** However, prominent zoologists such as Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans and Dr. Karl Shuker have supported it. [5][6][7]. Scientists also use Lazarus taxon in cladistics despite its similarities to cryptozoology[8].
Above is the trial paragraph. Please comment on improvements. If it is polished enough please indicate your agreement for its placement in the article.--Gniniv (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, any attempt to call real animals by the term "cryptids" (a made up word used only by proponents) is automatic bias. And it's also biased to refer to mainstream scientific work as "using cryptozoological methods" to try to promote the field unless there is confirmed scientific consensus that those methods are actually cryptozoological and not just standard science at work. Otherwise it's like saying, hey, this guy wrote something up, cryptozoologists write things down sometimes, therefore any scientist writing something must be using cryptozoological methods. It's a personal argument clearly intended to push a view. You would need a real reliable source pointing it out, not just your own wording asserting it as such. Unless Boyd and Fitzpatrick or their editors say their methods were cryptozoological, then you CANNOT use them as a source. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for you to make your own original research and personal arguments. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The proposed paragraph is written like a cryptozoology promoter's view of the subject, rather than a mainstream view. Its assertions that certain real animals are examples of "modern cryptids now accepted by mainstream zoology" is especially disturbing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the prominent POV issues you guys brought up. Please comment...--Gniniv (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I am going to place this paragraph back in if there are no objections.--Gniniv (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I object. The problem is not just with the wording, but the context of the paragraph. It is a synthesis of reliable sources combined with unreliable ones. You need a reliable source that summarizes what is written above, otherwise it is still original research. AIRcorn(talk) 10:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay...I need specifics though, which references are unreliable (I need to remove them if that is the case.)?--Gniniv (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I made the paragraph's wording more clearly agree with the references. What do you think?--Gniniv (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean crytozoology's status is altered from "not a part of mainstream zoology" to merely "controversial". A couple of cherry-picked statements favorable to cryptozoology does not constitute a "controversy" within the academic or scientific communities. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The edits are making the article less NPOV, not more. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a basic misunderstanding on Gniv's part about how NPOV works. It doesn't mean an article must be altered so both positions get equal validity or are equally compelling. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The reliability of a source depends on what information it is supporting. In general if discussing a scientific topic then scientific sources are best. I would think that [3], [4],[5] and [6] are not appropriate for the information they reference. Even more of a problem is drawing your own conclusions from sources. Refs [7], [8] and [9] appear to be examples of WP:SYN. If you want to write a neutral article the best way is to look for a review in a reliable source (i.e notable journal) that describes cryptozoology and summarize it here. That should help alleviate some of the problems you have with undue weight. AIRcorn(talk) 07:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Found this. Might be useful. AIRcorn(talk) 07:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I removed the WP:Synth violation, and I am going to put the result in the article to see if it is accepted...--Gniniv (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't. You ignored the NPOV issues and proceeded as if WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that if the vast majority of zoologists refer to cryptozoology as a pseudoscience or at best highly controversial then this must be presented in the article. Your paragraph is giving too much weight to the minority viewpoint. AIRcorn(talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
That fact is mentioned in the paragraph as "Cryptozoology is considered controversial by most zoologists". I think that is neutral and communicates the point without to much POV either way (To deniers or fanatics)..--Gniniv (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay...Please add a (referenced) negative opinion sentence where the asterisks are in the paragraph. Will that add to the WP:Weight?--Gniniv (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
^Paxton, C. G. M. 1998. A cumulative species description curve for large open water marine animals. Journal of the Marine Biologists Association, U.K. 78, 1389-1391.
^Cite error: The named reference luumsh was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Paxton, C. G. M. 1998. A cumulative species description curve for large open water marine animals. Journal of the Marine Biologists Association, U.K. 78, 1389-1391.
^Shuker, Karl P N (2002). The New Zoo: New and Rediscovered Animals of the Twentieth Century. House of Stratus.
