From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCryptozoology 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
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2010 Good article nomineeNot listed


The Lead

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

What do you think "The search for" means if not looking for evidence of them? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Who says "search for"? OED and Heuvelmans said "study". Tullimonstrum ( talk) 13:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
"The search for and study of animals whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the Loch Ness monster and the yeti." (my emphasis), the source you say does not say it says it. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I am looking at the page right now https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/267314?redirectedFrom=cryptozoology#eid. It does not say "search for" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullimonstrum ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
No you are not this is the link we use https://www.lexico.com/definition/Cryptozoology. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply


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

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

Fair point, my bad. But "study" not "search for" is in all the definitions. Tullimonstrum ( talk) 13:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
One is clearly saying the study of evidence for the existence of (or search for). Most also use search for. So in fact the wording now sums it up, they are looking for evidence that these creatures exist. After all what is the point of looking for them if you are not trying to look for them? I can study the Jabberwocky by reading about it, I do not need to poove its existence to study it Slatersteven ( talk) 13:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
OK, I added "searches" for and "studies" which reflects the sources and includes work that do not "search for" like that cited above. Tullimonstrum ( talk) 13:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
It seems to be that is overly long, and (in essence) cryptozoology is the attempt to find evidence for these creatures, that is what sets it apart for those who study mythological creatures (for example). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
That is not in the sources and is a "straw man" caricature of cryptozoology as I showed above it ignores all those not "seeking to prove" i.e. Joe Nickell, Darren Naish, Charles Paxton and Robert France. Tullimonstrum ( talk) 14:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Joe Nickell even describes himself (albeit reluctantly) as a "skeptical cryptozoologist" in the latest copy of Skeptical Inquirer. So this pages definition goes further that the house journal of skepticism without any sources to back up! So much for NPOV. Tullimonstrum ( talk) 14:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see any malfeasance. There are plenty of citations contained in the article body to justify cryptozoology being characterized as a pseudoscience:
There is a broad consensus among academics that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] The subculture is regularly criticized for reliance on anecdotal information [8] and because in the course of investigating animals that most scientists believe are unlikely to have existed, cryptozoologists do not follow the scientific method. [9]

References

  1. ^ Mullis (2021: 185): "Eschewing the rigors of science, cryptozoologists publish for a popular audience rather than for experts resulting in the practice itself frequently being derided as a pseudoscience."
  2. ^ Uscinski (2020: 38): "Cryptozoology is the pseudoscientific study of animals ..."
  3. ^ Lack & Rosseau (2016: 153–74): "Cryptids are the focus of study in cryptozoology, a field most scientists label as pseudoscientific."
  4. ^ Loxton & Prothero (2013: 332): "Whatever the romantic appeal of monster mysteries, cryptozoology as it exists today is unquestionably a pseudoscience." Loxton & Prothero (2013: 320): "Cryptozoology has a reputation of being part of a general pseudoscientific fringe—just one more facet of paranormal belief." (Both quotes from Donald Prothero)
  5. ^ Church (2009: 251–52): "Cryptozoology has acquired a bad reputation as a pseudoscience... Until detailed, methodical research becomes standard practice among cryptozoologists, the field will remain disrespected by more traditional biologists and zoologists."
  6. ^ Roesch & Moore (2002: 71–78): "Pointing to this rampant speculation and ignorance of established scientific theories in cryptozoology, as well as the field's poor record of success and its reliance on unsystematic, anecdotal evidence, many scientists and skeptics classify cryptozoology as a pseudoscience."
  7. ^ Lee (2000: 119): "Other examples of pseudoscience include cryptozoology, Atlantis, graphology, the lunar effect, and the Bermuda Triangle".
  8. ^ Shermer (2003: 27).
  9. ^ Dash (2000).
- - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
LuckyLouie. Pooling 7 sources on "many scientist" does not add up to majority consensus, unless you believe in some sort of idiot math, and it is not the present issue. Your sources do not convert to "aims to prove" without a flying leap.
Whoever the architect was that used the "aim to prove" language, its effect of triggering the WP:FRINGE/PS/ WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE should have been known to the person.
WP:FRINGE/PS rule states that simply writing about "Santa's magic reindeer" or cryptid is not pseudoscience. Therefore, a cz-written book on cryptids is not pseudoscience, and academic publishers' such books should be accepted as WP:RS.
Annoyingly however, a certain contingent goes around censoring/deleting them systematically. The conduct is not justified by cited guideline, as demonstrated, so AFAIK the censorship hinges solely on this artifice of inserting "prove" into the lede. And I'm calling this a shenanigan and gross misconduct. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 17:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply

break

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

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

I believe there is a certain election-results-denying rhetoric in the U.S. about how "we won lots of votes folks".
At least, in their case, their "lots" actually meant close to 50% in those states in contention.
However when an RS says "many" without % stats, a Wikpedian is not licensed to interpret "many" to mean "half" which then would be <opinion is divided> or as "significant more than half" which would satisfy <consensus>. This is what you are doing, and it is POV-editing on overdrive.
Compared to you lot insisting on interpreting "many" as "consensus", the mob shouting to overturn the election were far less delusional, because they were only contesting a few %-age points, maybe even decimal figures.-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 08:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The reality is that there are few, if any WP:FRIND sources arguing that cryptozoology is not a pseudoscience. - - LuckyLouie ( talk) 22:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
This is circular reasoning, if you even mention cryptozoology in a semi-positive light you're labeled a cryptozoologist and unreliable source, so of course there aren't any when if you say that Cryptozoology isn't a pseudoscience you're labeled a pseudo scientist KanyeWestDropout ( talk) 01:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
All the sources favorable to cryptozoology are either cryptozoologists or WP:SENSATIONAL pop culture exploiting interest to get clicks or sell books. There are zero WP:INDY independent sources that treat it seriously. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
What is the "deep connection to YEC"? What prominent cryptozoologists have endorse creationism? KanyeWestDropout ( talk) 01:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The article contains a section on this subject; reading the cited sources will provide answers to your question. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Except it doesn't, it shows that creationists embrace parts of cryptozoology but it doesn't show any prominent cryptozoologists (Shuker, Coleman, Sanderson, Heuvelmans etc.) embracing creationism KanyeWestDropout ( talk) 19:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
"deep connection to YEC". I don't see that phrase in our article, so there's no need to find a citation for it. it doesn't show any prominent cryptozoologists. The section in question summarizes a series of expert opinions that are properly attributed ( WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). There is no requirement these experts must name 'prominent cryptozoologists'. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Right I'm discussing Blood's comments here KanyeWestDropout ( talk) 19:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Compress the article

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

I agree, we do not need to keep saying it, once in the lede and a discussion in the body is enough. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It probably appears bloated and repetitive because so many of our WP:FRIND sources frame the topic as a pseudoscience when discussing various aspects of it. I think such framing, especially when it helps clarify context, is quite useful. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't think they discuss various aspects Most say essentially the same thing (Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience) without anything really unique to add. Hill's and Card's sections have relevant and unique info. Prothero, Ward and Regal's section's don't add much besides repeating the "cryptozoology is a pseudoscience" line which is supported by 8+ citations KanyeWestDropout ( talk) 19:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The attributed statements are each quite different, and they help illustrate the overwhelming consensus among relevant experts that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience — something that a number of fringe-friendly editors have demanded text and citations for in the past. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
We have citations, it seems like the bulking of the article was just done out of spite to those fringe-friendly editors and not because the article needs it KanyeWestDropout ( talk) 01:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
But do we really need all those quotes when we have something like 10 cites for "There is a broad consensus among academics that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience"? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Might be helpful to hear what others think, so tagged at FTN. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
If anything, we need more discussion of this topic, not less. Almost everything about the history of this subculture—from its foundation to its continued existence in internet corners—centers around its opposition to mainstream science and mainstream academia. Here we discuss why and how it came into existence, and its continued fixation on presenting iself as a science to the general public. This is exactly what our reliable sources focus on and exactly what we cover here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Why? What else is there to say about Cryptozoology that isn't said multiple times in the article already? KanyeWestDropout ( talk) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Perhaps the organization could be improved, but the length does not look excessive to me. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Length of the whole article or length of sections? KanyeWestDropout ( talk) 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Cryptozoology&oldid=1195351594"