Talk:Cryptid/Archive 1

Jackalope
I am offended at the missing jackalope in this article. Also, perhaps a little expansion on the different sorts of cultures that enjoy this class of critter.

When I was a young scout, we were taken into the woods and told to search for snipe. Later, imagine my angst when photographs of snipe appeared making the good fun in the woods to be, eh, not as fun? -- carol 07:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a question that I have, as with some of the modern definitions for autism, is there a psychiatry definition for people who create cryptids and perhaps a ranking of their danger to be among other humans? -- carol 07:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)
 * Huh? I'm not aware of any diseases that make you create cryptids... As for including the jackalope, this is meant to be a prose article and for a lsit of cryptids see, well, List of cryptids. :) The article's still in its early stages and the list is pretty rubbish, which is why I'm working on it off-site. Good to see you followed me from commons; as you can see I'm a bit more in my element here. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, the study of virus and of the people who invent them is always interesting to me, but I was trying to bring to mind the groups of people who invent and then either pretend to believe in these mythological critters or who need to believe. Then I was thinking about atrophied brains.  The familiarity with your user name made me think that the response to my suggestions might be a little less defensive or aggressive -- whatever it is I have been experiencing here on English Wikipedia.


 * It was a good enough hook. I admit it. -- carol 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ??? What was a good hook? I wasn't intending to be defensive or aggressive - sorry if it came across that way. I'm unsure of your post's actual meaning - Familiarity with my user name? Atrophied brains? It's all a little confusing for me... *Shuffles feet* Spawn Man (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. I would type something about eyerolling except the french and their seemingly preferred publisher seem to own that statement now. I was inspired to 'find' images of all different variety of jackalope and kin -- would that be useful anywhere? -- carol 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)


 * Erm, not sure about what eyerolling and the French have to do with anything lol, but there's an article on the Jackalope here if you wanted to add images there (I'm assuming that's what you were refering to...?) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Drat, those are somewhat legitimate photographs of Jackalope. At home, approximately every 30 miles you can find a bar with a real one hanging as a trophy -- I never ever thought I would want photographs of those things.  Never say never. -- carol 13:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

The Jackalope isn't a cryptid, as few people accept its existence. It is an animal of American folklore and cryptozoologists have little interest in it. Jackalopes exist only as stuffed cottontails with pronghorn antlers stitched to their heads, and today they roam bars and steakhouses throughout the continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What happened to so much detail that can be found?
It is very easy to find a lot of detail, but your article is considered a stub when compared to how long other articles are when given so many sources. You are talking about cryptozoology, which is different from cryptids. I think you should differentiate them better. Also, please mention more examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastanaki (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's basically a stub (Just above if you go by the 1.5K rule of thumb). There's a distinction between cryptids and cryptozoology and I think it's basically shown here (Please edit it if you think you can make the seperation larger, since I agree it's not the best). The trouble was redirected before however due to it being too much like a list of cryptids, so no, I do not think I will add more examples - not without more prose in anycase, but since I don't have any.... See list of cryptids if you want a lot of examples, but again, this is not the place for numerous examples of cryptids. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is redirected from "Unidentified Mysterious Animal" or Uma. So, we must mention about it, or not? Kadzuwo (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove Loch Ness Monster
The Loch Ness Monster has been proven to be a hoax, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.22.46 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No it hasn't. 67.164.0.50 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Itself has not but one famous pic only.Kadzuwo (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is no way to ultimately disprove the nonexistance of anything. You can only prove something that can be identified.  Nonexistance cannot be identified.  This is a common point that often comes up in religious vs. atheist conversations. Someone arguing from a religious standpoint will tell an atheist to prove that God does not exist.  Of course this cannot be done.  The aethist will in turn tell the religious person to prove that God does exist.  Of course, this also cannot be done (though very sincere attempts are often made).  —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 15:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sightings of the Loch Ness Monster have been proven to be a hoax. They have also been proven to be misidentifications of things in the water. Yes, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to not exist (the above comments don't deal with scientific proof) but the same is true for the rest. There's no reason to single out the Loch Ness Monster out from Bigfoot and Yeti. —Fiziker t c 17:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiziker, nonexistance cannot be proven using the scientific method. Discredited observations only affects how the observation itself and the conclusions based on those observations. The reason that Nessie cannot be disproven is that you need observable evidence that it does not exist. However, if it does not exist, there is nothing to observe. Without something to observe, one can neither prove or disprove it. This is the same reason that God cannot be addressed by science. Even if Loc Ness was drained, and everything in it accounted for and Nessie wasn't there, someone can still say it existed (it hid, it left the Loc, it is an interdimensional being that phases in and out of our dimension at will, it is a thoughtform that exists on the astral plan, etc). There is just no way to address that using scientific method and or current knowledge base. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kraken
I'm not sure if you've heard but they have found a squid that was 33-feet long and weighed half a ton, they named something in Latin meaning colossal squid. Not to mention Architeuthis which has recently been proven to exist. nether one of these squids are belligerent, but the Humboldt squid are extremely ferocious and are the size of a large dog. Humboldt have been known to "attack" boats but they are to small to actually do anything. Hypothetically speak a long time ago maybe a species of squid existed in the waters off of Norway and have now gone extinct, besides some parts of the ocean remain unexplored and the sea-floor is in almost constant change. Who's to say there isn't a "kraken" within the Mariana Trench.

I find this article of cryptids to be otherwise very awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.238.244 (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Explaining my edits
I thought I should explain my changes here.


 * 1) First, "unknown biological organisms" doesn't make sense in this context. Someone must at least claim to have encountered a creature for it to be considered a cryptid. A cryptid is not recognized by mainstream science, but the premise behind cryptozoology is that there is some logger/sailor/native/etc "out there" who does know about the creature.
 * 2) Along those same lines, it's misleading to say that cryptozoology is concerned with "creatures appearing in fiction and mythology". That makes it sound like cryptozoologists study Cerberus or the Wampa. They're only interested in creatures that are claimed to actually exist.

I'm not trying to argue that any cryptids do exist, but we need to explain what cryptozoologists actually try to study. Zagalejo^^^ 09:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe your first point is valid. Unknown is not the right word. I think that purported organisms works, although purported creatures might be better. However, you're incorrect on the second point as cryptozoologist do attempt to find some mythical creatures. Bigfoot, for example, developed out of the conglomeration of legends about mythical wildmen among the indigenous peoples of the American North West. It also works as things like the Loch Ness Monster and any of the other famous ones develope into mythological creatures of the culture even if they're based on real but extinct animals. — Fiziker t  c 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is OK to mention somewhere in the article that Bigfoot, the thunderbird, etc have roots in mythological traditions. That's absolutely true. I was mainly concerned with the specific wording used in the lead, which seemed to conflate cryptozoologists with mythographers or literary scholars. The lead needed to more clearly explain that cryptozoologists are people who think monsters may exist in the real world. There have to be relatively modern reports of sightings for a creature to be considered a cryptid. Zagalejo^^^ 19:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree on your overall point. Nice work on the edits.Locke9k (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cryptozoology
I have reverted recent edits that eliminated the description of Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience. This has been debated on the pseudoscience talk page and the descriptor reflects the present consensus wording on the Cryptozoology page. The wording, BTW, is supported by the arbitration committee decision on these matters, which has been incorporated into the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience and fringe theories. Locke9k (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Locke9k, This article is not about cryptozoology nor any pseudoscience.  That article is about supposed animals that have not been proven to exist.  There is no discussion about Cryptid in the artibration page.  The previous revert is appears to be inappropriate and against WP.  If you have a source that supports stating that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, then that statement belongs on the cryptozoology article, not here.  When placed here, it is an unnecessary qualifier that attempts to frame a POV for the article.  I refer you to NPOV.  This is a minority view article.


 * Also, to say that Crypid is part of cryptozoology is fine (if there's a source for this). To frame crypotozoology is not appropriate for this article, and a lot of wikipedians are going to be making the same edits as I when they come across this article.  I'm betting it has already happened.  I'm reverting your reverts and will note if any other reverts have happened on this change on this topic.  Please discuss your reason here before reverting again.  —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 15:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that a reference saying that a cryptid is a term in cryptozoology is unnecessary because I don't think anyone would dispute that claim, but since you asked I added one in. You're argument against using pseudoscience is an interesting one. Nonetheless, calling a pseudoscience a pseudoscience anywhere on Wikipedia, on its page or off, is NPOV. —Fiziker t c 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "cryptid" is a part of the jargon of cryptozoology, which is a pseudoscience. Readers need to know that this is not a term used within mainstream science, but primarily just within a pseudoscience.  As per the arbcom committee decision found here, fields that are considered pseudoscience should be denoted as such (note that this decision has been incorporated into the wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories).  Given that the term "cryptid" is of primary interest within this field, it is appropriate based on this decision and policy to frame the matter in those terms. Locke9k (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that Fiziker has added the relevant reference demonstrating that the term "cryptid" is part of Cryptozoology, I believe that your above objection has been addressed. I am therefor readding, based upon my reasoning above as well as Fiziker's, the "pseudoscience" descriptor.  Locke9k (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As noted, this item will be constantly removed by other wikipeans over and over. The faction that is in support of keeping descriptor of psuedoscience is already in violation of 3RR a couple times over.  Also, the link provided to WP does fully not support the claims of the person providing that link.  I read that already too.  For the descriptor to be valid, it has to supported as a notable point (regardless to the specific WP regarding pseudoscience, there are general rules about articles that must first be satisfied).  This question should be answered:  Why is the pseudoscience status of cryptozoology notable within the Crypid topic?  Additionally, cryptozoology's status of being a pseudoscience is self-evident when one goes to the linked article.   If this article can be updated to make the fact that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience relevant to the topic, I do not object to its inclusion.  At such a point, we should cite references in the introductory sentence that supports this.  That will help prevent other wikipeans from coming along and editing it out (which is currently repeatedly happening).  —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  16:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Add Category:Hallucinations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.194.30 (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

~ There are most certainly new species of animals to be found today I guess the issue here is if they will be large ones and the truth is there a biologists that have suggested that there could be some large unknown animals alive today mostly in place such as the amazon for example which is largely unexplored. I have found three cryptids which have recieved support from mainstream scientists and some of these are respected scientists these animals include mapingauri, a large sloth-like creature 6 feet tall, giant bats with 3 foot wingspans or larger, and giant anacondas ranging from 28 feet to potentially 37 feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebirdop (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

~Claims of anacondas 50 to 60 feet and beyond exist but there is simply not enough food to support a 50 or 60 foot snake and people are terrible at estimating the size of animals especially if they are measured by nonscientists so automatically any claim of a snake beyond 8-11.4 meters can't be considered reliable unless measured by a scientists or unless there is a dead body to back it up.

I think the Cadborosaurus and Kting Voar are considered very likely to exist by mainstream scientists as well. By the way, why is it that this article sounds so doubtful about the existence of most cryptids, I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge with cryptozoology
No clear reason why this should be separate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The field of study and the subject being the distinction is one. Rppo (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be merged with cryptozoology. The "field", if you can call it that, and the concept of the "cryptid" are so extremely intertwined that there's no separating them in discourse. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppoze. For the same reason that zoology and animal do not share on article. One is the field of study, the other is the subject of study. Dimadick (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That's nonsense. Animals exist outside of zoology, whereas the concept of the cryptid exists only within the pseudoscience of cryptozoology. Trying to force a parallel between a science and a pseudoscience is wrongheaded to say the least. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How about ghost and ghost hunting then. ?ZayZayEM (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ghosts exist in folklore, exterior to folkloristics and the pseudoscience of ghost hunting. The concept of a "cryptid" is specific to cryptozoology. That is not a parallel. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * oppose no clear reason why they should be merged. Article is sustainable. ZayZayEM (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Intro - edit revert - including organisms out of place or out of time
This edit adding organisms known to exist but not at this time or place was undone | (see here) on the grounds that it wasn't discussed and it's not what the article is about. Well I'm discussing it, and I'm discussing the fact that the article already mentions exactly what I said in the middle in the overview section:


 * "Cryptid" has also been applied by cryptozoologists to animals whose existence is accepted by the scientific community, but which are considered of interest to cryptozoology, such as the coelacanth, once believed to be extinct, and the okapi, at one time thought to be entirely fictitious"

And at the bottom in Eberhart's classification:


 * Distribution anomalies [known animals reported outside their normal range, e.g. the anomalous big cats of the U.K.]

So it would appear it's exactly what the articles about, I was only adding a summary in the intro of what is already mentioned twice already. If someone only reads the intro as it is, it would lead them to believe things like a living mammoth or coelacanth, or a big cat population in the UK are in no way Cryptids as they are known to be real animals, but according to the definitions already in the article, the opposite is true. I believe having this in the intro is helpful but not excessive in anyway, and follows the pattern of many articles, summarizing main points in the lead. Do others think having this in the intro is correct or not, and helpful/appropriate or not?  Carl wev   12:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

'none has been proven to exist'???
There are a few things wrong with the first sentence of the last paragraph, and I will try to point out some of them. Depending on which way it is taken, the sentence is either wrong or completely unnecessary. It is true that no cryptid has been proven to exist, but only because it is no longer a cryptid once its existence is proven. I would imagine a great many cryptids have come to be recognised as real species. The gorilla once had mythical status in the west, as did wild polar bear/brown bear hybrids before DNA testing proved their existence. Is anyone prepared to alter the dodgy sentence? Melaena (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The animals you mention are were not considered cryptids. An inherent part of being a cryptid is that cryptozoologists are interested in it—an undiscovered species of ant would not be considered a cryptid by anyone. Instead the animals you mentioned were investigated and discovered by zoologists. If you want to keep this part removed, please provide references for animals that were considered cryptids before their discovery. — Fiziker t  c 04:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored the sentence in question, but I am also attempting to track down a good source. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first poster on this topic. You're going to say that "none has been proven to exist" when you just above said that cryptozoologists have considered the coelacanth and the okapi to be cryptids.  It doesn't make sense.  Obviously they're no longer cryptids once they're well documented.  When it comes to discovering new/unknown species, if someone just "finds" a species and documents it immediately, it never has time to be a cryptid, but every species first found/observed under less documentable conditions has been a cryptid (completely anecdotal to all who have not observed it) until the documentation is made.  Whether "cryptozoologists are interested in it" is largely subjective - it merely depends on how interesting/bizarre the creature is reported to be, and just how long it takes to document.  Even creatures known from ancient times may prove hard to document.  As an example, take the Giant Panda.  If someone came back from wandering the jungle and told me he'd seen a black and white bear with sharp teeth eating bamboo, I'd have reason to be incredulous.  So must Westerners have been for some time.  "It took sixty-seven years from the time of the giant panda's discovery by Westerners until its live capture. During this period twelve well staffed and equipped professional expeditions failed to collect a single live specimen of the giant panda." 65.0.208.124 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Definition must contain meaning. Cryptozoology has nothing to do with discovering small, unknown animals in remote jungles (N.B. unkown also means there are no legends about it, which would otherwise make it of interest to cryptozoologists). Calling an ant prior to classification a cryptid is highly mislead; it makes it seem like bizare legends are coming to life rather than the comparatively mondane animals that are actually found. What we are talking about with cryptids are legendary animals that are believed by cryptozoologists to exist (I include currently extinct animals being extant as well). — Fiziker t  c 05:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Riiight... Because there are no legends about sasquatches, mongolian deathworms or dinosaurs in South America. Cryptids by their nature require legends, otherwise no one would try to look for them. Gorillas, Pandas, and okapi are all legitimate examples of "ex-cryptids". This is not "an undiscovered species of ant", these are creatures for which mainstream evidence did not exist, and for quite some time existed in a hazy realm between myth and natural science. Cryptid does not mean "made up crap", it means poorly documented putatively made-up crap with limited and questionable evidence.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to dwell on ants but I just listed to a video in which the speaker mentions seeing an unknown species of ant in a redwood. Attempts to find that species again and collect specimens have been successful. In essence, all we have is a story about someone seeing an unknown ant (this is not the same as my other references to ants and cryptids). Is that a cryptid? No--at least not at this point. It was seen on the largest tree in the world, Hyperion, where it is obviously difficult search. While the ant was unexpected, it is entirely reasonable to believe that there could be truth to this story. However, should further study return negative results, the probability of this species decreases. Eventually, the probability will become low enough that one can safely say that it probably doesn't exist. At that point--the point where scientists loose interest--the animal might move into the realm of cryptozoology and would be appropriately classified as a cryptid. Gorillas, okapi, and pandas were in a different set than Bigfoot, and Nessie. While some people may have doubted their existance, given that they live in locations remote from scientists of the time of discovery, there's no reason why they shouldn't have existed. On the other hand, Bigfoot and Nessie have very low probability of existing (this was not necessarilly the case when the legends firs developed, e.g., Bigfoot was not all that unreasonable in the 20s but 50 years of negative results has reduced its probability of existing). Cryptozoology does not deal with animals likely to be found but rather with animals that reasonably should be found or are just bizare (e.g., Nessie). — Fiziker  t  c 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The ants is a red herring. So yes, I do mind you pulling the discussion back in that direction. You are using your own originally researched and unverified definition of cryptozoology. Gorillas, okapi and coelanths are different from Bigfoot and Nessie - they were confirmed. The statement that "no cryptid has ever been confirmed" is a self defeating sentance. It's like saying "no pseudoscientific theory has ever been accepted" - because pseudoscience is defined as something not accepted by science, as soon as it gets accepted it becomes non-pseudoscience (or science). --ZayZayEM (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please substitute any animal that you may wish for ant. It is simply an example of an undiscovered animal that would not be considered a cryptid. This phrase is not a tautology; as I interpret it, it says "nothing that has been considered a cryptid has been found" not "nothing now considered a cryptid has been found." Of course to avoid confusion I would not oppose a clarifying change. — Fiziker t  c 07:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that "cryptid" is a neologism coined in 1983 it may be hard to find non-cryptid example uses of the term, beyond the retrospective examples already provided.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a large part of the problem. There certainly are things prior to 1983 that should be considered cryptids (e.g., Bigfoot) but there is a limit to how far certain things should be considered cryptids. For example, creatures with some legends about them in ancient Rome that have since been proven to exist probably wouldn't be considered cryptids (although there could be some exceptions, e.g., if a sphynx was proven to exist). Gorillas were discovered when a lot less of the world was explored by scientists and does not fit into the same category as creatures as Bigfoot. I think we should probably include somthing about claims by cryptozoologists that Gorillas are former cryptids since this is fairly common but we should not be saying that they definitely are. — Fiziker t  c 07:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just thought of a better analogous statement: "No extinct animals survive today". Extinct animals by their nature are, well, extinct. If any extinct specimens were found surviving, the species would cease being extinct. The statement is in essence true, and indeed states the obvious - but it does so in a way that offers no real information, and could be construed as being deceptive. Several declared extinct animals survive today, but they are no longer considered extinct. Similarly, no cryptids have sufficient evidence for their existence, those that do are no longer regarded as cryptids.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a false analogy. Not all animals that are not known to exist are considered cryptids. Animals that are currently considered cryptids, if found, would no longer be considered cryptids but they would be considered former cryptids. Animals that are not known to exist that are not currently considered cryptids do not retroactively become cryptids prior to their discovery. You first have to be a cryptid to be considered a former cryptid. — Fiziker t  c 03:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That pretty much sums it up. I see no reason not to add the information in question back to the article.  ClovisPt (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Today a user,, who has attempted to strip cryptozoology's classification as a pseudoscience off of the main cryptozoology article (see ), removed its classification here as well. I've reverted this change. Users should keep an eye out for the continued attempts at presenting cryptozoology as somehow scientific in nature, which has long been a problem on Wikipedia. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK two issues. Firstly the pseudoscience comment here is unjustified as we are talking about a concept *within* cryptozoology and so the mention is just incongruous (see debate above). Secondly since you brought it up (although here is not the right place) the "cz is pseudoscience period" position is unjustified in a number of ways (check out the cz talk archive for debate) as
 * a) every informed skeptical source says something akin to "most cz is mostly bunk but..." including the ones cited in the cz article which means that the pseudoscience comment should be more nuanced. Infact very few cites in the cz article mention pseudoscience at all.
 * b) despite what Wikipedia assumes, because something is fringe does not make it pseudoscience (philosophy of science 101 really). The demarcation problem is a really difficult one for philosophers of science but not apparently for Wikipedia editors.
 * c) the first para in the cz article on Wikipedia only has one source see above that explicitly addresses the pseudoscience question which does not support (see above) the extreme position you are taking
 * d) there is peer reviewed cz in mainstream zoological journals (Naish and his co-workers amongst others) so the "it is all pseudoscience position" is actually falsified.
 * In short your position is more extreme than any informed skeptical or zoological author would state (Naish, Loxton etc) and above all is not backed up by high quality sources so I don't see how your position can be argued as NPOV. But I have given up trying to get this evidence and sourced based nuanced position into the main cz article as it is like arguing with multiple Randies from Boise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise who have even in the past deleted reference to peer reviewed cz in mainstream (and highly cited) zoology journals. I noticed you recently even deleted Rossi's edits at the cryptozoology article because, horror, *he was a cryptozoologist* rather than based on the actual content of his rather sensible article. *sigh*. Anyway I'll let other editors decide on your revert.Tullimonstrum (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There's really no two ways about this: Cryptozoology is a classic example of a pseudoscience. Folklorists handle folklore, biologists handle biology. Both do so by applying scientific principles and academic rigor. Frankly, this article should simply be merged into cryptozoology, but until we get some solid rewrites, there's no real point in discussing it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If anything were to be merged. How important is the terminology, concerning plant - animal- something else? May I simply remind people of the fact there is also an article "Cryptobotany". Logically a cryptid would be an organism of any domain of life who's "existence has been suggested but has not been discovered or documented" (Although some are obvious like a Bigfoot looks like an animal real or not. It might be hard to place, undiscovered or simply not real organisms into terms or fields of science concerning real organisms. Cryptozoology, strictly speaking only covers animals? doesn't it? I've never heard cryptobiology used, but apparently that word redirects to cryptozoology, but I don't think the word appears in any article here anywhere. Stories of animals seem to be be more common than plants, and the word cryptozoology is more often used though. I haven't tried looking but I've not heard of any organism that's a fungus, bacteria, virus or something else, who's existence is suggested but not proven, considered a cryptid, as one wouldn't logically be covered by a plant or animal term? or would it? One could argue a mythical mushroom could be a cryptid but might be covered by cryptozoology or cryptobotany. Study of fungi is Mycology, but there is no word cryptomycology. Logically cryptid could cover all bases regardless of what a thing is said to be. I don't know, just sharing my thoughts.  Carl  wev   05:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Like this article, the cryptobotany article should just be merged into the cryptozoology article as well. They're simply internal elements of cryptozoology. The reason that you're not finding a logical system here is because there isn't one. After all, we're neither talking about science nor something produced by academia. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Bloodofox "Cryptozoology is a classic example of a pseudoscience." Ok if that is the case then you should be able to find a good quality reference that says that unequivocally and without caveats and stick it in the first para of the cz article without synth. Strangely no one has managed to do this. And you will have to ignore several prominent people who say it might be in part worthwhile: e.g. Jane Goodall, David Attenborough, Darren Naish (who blogs for that font of irrationality, "Scientific American"). And ignore the fact people are people are writing peer reviewed cryptozoology in mainstream zoology journals and ignore the fact that is not actually what *skeptical* books say. Funny sort of unequivocal "pseudoscience".Tullimonstrum (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources noting cryptozoology as a pseudoscience are plentiful. I'm also not really interested in debating the status of cryptozoology with a cryptozoologist at this point—cryptozoologists running wild on Wikipedia has resulted in the mess we have on so many Wikipedia articles today. It has long been time to reign it in. Let's just stick to academic sources, thanks. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it should be simple to quote a high quality academic source in the lead in "cryptozoology" that states cryptozoology is pseudoscience without equivocation and without requiring synthesis and in addition perhaps you can re-instate Rossi's article as it is the only peer reviewed work that addresses this issue. It is a pretty odd NPOV that feels free to disregard peer reviewed articles.Tullimonstrum (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You could also just do a Google Books search and get the same result. Meanwhile, I'll prepare a rewrite of the article as my schedule allows. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)