Talk:Karl Shuker

Text lifted from Shuker's website
To whoever is adding text lifted from Shuker's website, posting anonymously from IP address 195.93.21.5, thank you for your interest in this article, but please be aware that you cannot just lift copyright material and incorporate it into Wikipedia. To do so is illegal and detrimental to Wikipedia. Thanks. Flapdragon 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi to Flapdragon. As I am Dr Karl Shuker, I am able to lift text from my own website without infringing copyright, as I obviously own the copyright to my own website.

Hello. It's not quite as simple as that actually. You need to send a message to the licensing dept at permissions at wikimedia dot org, from an address associated with the original publication (presumbly Karlshuker at aol dot com), to assert the fact that you are Karl Shuker (after all you could be anyone) and that you own the rights to the text, and lay on record the fact that you're officially releasing the text into Wikipedia. If you just post anonymously and without explanation stuff that's marked copyright elsewhere people will naturally revert it as a copyright violation. (After all it's fair enough people will take steps to ensure the legality of Wikipedia content as well as protecting your copyright for you.) Also, you need to be aware that you will be effectively losing all control of the text you orginally cared about enough to mark as copyright. It will be instantly mirrored all over the internet and you may come across it quite legitimately in all sorts of unexpected places. Wikipedia content is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which as I understand it basically means you can use the stuff for any purpose at all as long as you credit it to Wikipedia. I don't even know whether strictly speaking you would be in the right in continuing to label it copyright on your own website. I'd advise you to look at the details of that and make sure you're happy with the terms under which you're releasing the text. Or of course you could avoid the whole problem by just rephrasing the content so it's not identical to the text on your website. Finally it would be helful to finish the job by "wikifying" (marking up) the text rather than leaving it as a screed of raw text. You also need to ensure that the tone of the text is appropriate to an excyclopaedia as opposed to an author's personal website, which is likely to be a lot less neutral in tone (for example "countless articles" isn't very encyclopaedic, and it should be "Shuker" rather than "Dr Shuker") To be cynical, you might wonder if it's worth the effort to reproduce verbatim that which was one click away via the "External links", but don't let me put you off! Best wishes, Flapdragon 02:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Thanks for your message, which I have taken on board. Following your advice, I have indeed rephrased my previous contribution to the Karl Shuker entry, as I naturally wish to retain copyright of my own website's text. Re my identity as Dr Karl Shuker: please feel free to email me at karlshuker@aol.com requesting confirmation of this, and I will be happy to do so. Best wishes, Czbiker 21.17, 15 January 2006

I think rephrasing was the right choice. The article could still use some editing (more wikilinks, italics, toning down into a more encyclopaedic style) but it no longer looks like a copyvio. Flapdragon 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Autobiography tag
In response to revision revert by editor Bradv: While I appreciate that under some conditions it may be a conflict of interest for a person to edit a Wikipedia article about himself, in this particular instance I removed the autobiography/extensively edited tag heading the Wikipedia article about me for the simple reason that it is inaccurate and therefore unwarranted. As I noted in my revision note, the vast majority of the info about me in this article is contained within the entry on me in Newton's book The Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology, and in the Coleman/Clark book The A-Z of Cryptozoology - both of which are wholly independent, third-party sources and are cited in the references to the Wikipedia article on me. (If you doubt my word concerning this, or have no access to either/both of these books, I am more than happy to type out the entire text entry on me from each of these books and include them here for you to see for yourself.) How, therefore, can the autobiography tag be justified? In addition, as I have also previously noted, the only major edits that I have added to this article are the inclusion of the reference list (as requested by TheRedPenOfDoom Wikipedia editor) and the addition of the my 3 most recent books to the list of my publications. How can this be claimed to be 'extensively edited'? At present, therefore, the autobiography/extensively edited tag not only is unjustified but also is serving to smear the authenticity of the article re me (and hence my own reputation and good name) in the eyes of those readers accessing it - which is thus surely approaching the level of being deemed libellous? As a result, if you feel unable to remove this tag or to discuss the matter further with me as a means of reconciling any problems currently preventing you from doing so, I would prefer for the entire article concerning me to be deleted, and thus bring an end to this troublesome matter. I have maintained a very successful, high-profile career in cryptozoology and writing long before this Wikipedia article came into being, and feel certain that I would be able to continue doing so were it no longer in existence. Many thanks. Czbiker (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker


 * While your opinion as the subject of this article is certainly appreciated on Wikipedia, there are standards that need to be maintained. One of them is neutrality, which an article edited primarily by the subject may not meet. The tag is not meant to serve as a criticism of you or of the article, but alerts the user and other potential editors that the article may not be entirely neutral. This can't be helped when you write about yourself, as there are certain inherit biases in any autobiography. For example, if there was a magazine article that was very critical of your work (and I'm not saying there is) you would hesitate to include it as a reference in the article. If there are other editors that can confirm that this is a neutral article and there is no cause for concern they are free to remove the tag - but removing it yourself is a conflict of interest.


 * Regarding deletion, I don't see any reason for it. The subject is obviously notable enough for an article. You are free to bring it to articles for deletion, but without a valid reason it is unlikely to be removed. BradV 19:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly take your points concerning neutrality, I must yet again return to the matter that the major facts in the Wikipedia article about me are contained in the entries on me present within the respective books by Newton and Coleman/Clark cited in this article's reference list. As these books are third-party, wholly-independent sources, surely the neutrality requirement has been fully met? As I stated in my previous talk, I would be more than happy to type out the relevant text from each of these books for you to see for yourself, as I feel certain that once you have read them you would see that the Wikipedia entry is indeed neutral. Please get back to me regarding this, as I am naturally anxious for this situation to be reconciled in a mutually satisfactory manner as swiftly as posible, so that this unjust autobiography tag can be duly removed. Thank you. Czbiker (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi all. I understand that the tag is in effect an accusation, and I see why the subject of this article would desire to have it removed.  On the other hand, tags like that do serve a purpose on Wikipedia, and a review of the edit history reveals a number of times where this article has been substantially added to by Dr. Shuker (for examples, see:
 * [] and [] ).
 * To me, it seems like the solution would be for a few editors to go over the article, make sure that it isn't negatively impacted by these edits, make any changes necessary, and then remove the tag. Thoughts?  ClovisPt (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As the subject of this article, I would be happy to see the above suggestion by ClovisPt be implemented by some editors, as I consider it to be a perfectly reasonable and sensible one. Czbiker (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker

Criticism
I find it hard to believe that someone who purports this pseudoscientific nonsense does not have any critique or criticism of his work in the article? All the sources are clearly biased pro-cryto sources, or self-sources... surely this isn't even CLOSE to WP:NPOV. Placed some relevant tags in the article to bring attention to it's deficiencies. — raeky  t  04:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned or naive, but surely a Wikipedia editor, just like any other editor, is supposed to be objective about what he/she is commenting upon? I certainly do not deem Raeky's above outburst "pseudoscientific nonsense" in relation to cryptozoology to be objective. Consequently, in my opinion this person is hardly the most suitable to be dealing with cryptozoological entries on Wikipedia, because he/she is, I feel, very clearly biased against the subject. Moreover, I respectfully suggest that this person actually takes the time and trouble to read up on the subject before making such an unprofessional, not to mention inaccurate, statement. Cryptozoology is the search for animal species currently unknown to science but known to locals sharing their environment (i.e. ethnoknown). There is nothing pseudoscientific about this - such discoveries are being made on a regular basis every year, and not just with insects or other small, relatively insignificant species, as my book The Encyclopaedia of New and Rediscovered Animals (Coachwhip Publications: Landisville, 2012) would readily reveal if Raeky could be bothered to read it - or even read down the lists right here on Wikipedia of new mammals and birds discovered in recent years. Might I also suggest that this person makes an effort to improve his/her knowledge of basic English grammar and typing at least to the minimum standard that one might expect of a Wikipedia editor? See: pro-cryto (should be pro-crypto), it's deficiencies (should be its deficiencies), and incorrect usage of the verb to purport, in Raeky's above comment. Czbiker (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker

Having now taken the opportunity to read the Wikipedia entries for several other contemporary cryptozoologists, such as Loren Coleman, Jonathan Downes, Roy Mackal, Richard Freeman, and Bernard Heuvelmans, I can find little if any presence of "critique or criticism" of their work in their entries that Raeky so vehemently laments is apparently absent in mine. So why has my entry been singled out for such a stinging rebuke by Raeky, not to mention his/her profuse array of "relevant tags"? Even his/her claim regarding the sources cited in my entry all being "clearly biased pro-cryto [sic] sources, or self-sources" is blatantly incorrect. There is only one self-source, my website, in that list. The others are sources written by other authors entirely. As for the various subjects of Raeky's tags, these have already been queried and dealt with satisfactorily long ago, as Raeky would realise if he/she took the time to read the previous comments on this Talk page. Once again, therefore, I would respectfully suggest that Raeky is not the most neutral, unbiased, objective person to be addressing the content of my entry, as he/she evidently has in my view a sizeable chip on the shoulder concerning cryptozoology in general (and quite possibly concerning me in particular?). While I definitely appreciate that management of such a vast, valuable resource as Wikipedia is an enormous task, and that uniformity of editing will unquestionably vary from entry to entry when such a large editing team is employed, editing in such an unprofessional, subjective manner as that which I personally consider Raeky to have practised with my entry cannot help, I feel, but reflect badly on Wikipedia as a whole, which is a great tragedy and is also in turn an unfair reflection upon all of those editors who do such sterling work here. Czbiker (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker


 * Well before we even wade into the waters of WP:COI, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, all of which you clearly are in violation of, lets address WP:N. If we assume you meet notability for an Academic, then you must meet WP:ACADEMIC, which states you must:
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * I just don't see that, even broadly construed. Writing a book is not "significant impact" and since "cryptozoology" isn't a recognized science by any mainstream institution you'd have to fall back onto zoology. Doesn't appear you've published, so... I'd say you don't meet #1. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So.. you don't meet WP:ACADEMIC, so lets move on to WP:AUTHOR:
 * 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * Arguably... But I just don't see it.. . More evidence needed. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications.
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 3. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * Probably not.. since no published papers. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 4. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * Heres where the books come in, limited distro, very tiny publishers, not in print most of them, you put "Dr." in the by-line (something no self-respecting academic does, since it's screaming "appeal to authority"), and virtually unheard of out of a tiny group of crazies. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 5. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * Nope. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So very tenuous notability here under WP:AUTHOR, if all else fails we can fall back to WP:GNG but I don't see "significant" coverage in reliable sources to satisfy this criteria. So before I waste time looking up what scant sources are available on you, or bothering to see if your books are even obtainable via interlibrary loan, I'm seriously entertaining a WP:DR. — raeky  t  03:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine. If I am not considered significant enough a cryptozoologist to warrant an entry here, bearing in mind that I am the author of more than a dozen books on the subject (published by leading publishers such as HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and Reader's Digest, to name but three, and including two titles - The Unexplained, and Dragons A Natural History - that have each sold more than 100,000 copies worldwide and been translated into over a dozen foreign-language translation editions), the Life Sciences consultant for Guinness World Records (one of the world's bestselling books of all time), and the author of hundreds of articles on the subject, then how do all of the other cryptozoologists with entries on Wikipedia line up in comparison? Are you going to delete them too? I have a PhD in zoology and comparative physiology from a major British university - do they? No. So what are your criteria for retaining them and deleting me? If you are not consistent, then I have grounds for major complaints here, which I shall certainly pursue. Oh and yes, my books are indeed available via inter-library loans, both here in my native UK and worldwide (including the USA). Your lack of knowledge regarding cryptozoology and the figures within it is as disturbing as it is astounding - check up Michael Newton's Encyclopaedia of Cryptozoology and George Eberhart's 2-volume definitive coverage Mysterious Creatures, and see the dozens upon dozens of references to my published works in these tomes.

However, if you want to delete my entry, go ahead! I shall be free of the tedium of dealing with petty little dictators like you, but as my entry's absence will naturally reflect badly upon my professional status I shall most definitely be consulting my legal representatives with a view to pursuing the matter rigorously on the grounds of damaging my reputation. Czbiker (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Dr Karl Shuker
 * That a legal threat? — raeky  t  15:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a clear threat of the "if you do this, I'll do that" variety. Accordingly, I've blocked his account from editing. Rklawton (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well.. I put it up for WP:AfD, to see if it's even notable enough before I waste time to try to improve the article. The other "cryptozoologists" that he listed, I'll be examining their articles as well for same WP:NPOV compliance and if they meet WP:N... *sigh*. Articles for deletion/Karl Shuker. — raeky  t  16:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that the inclusion or exclusion of other (even highly similar) articles and their relative strengths and weaknesses is of little or no relevance to whether this article meets notability guidelines. According to a pillar policy, this and any article must stand on its own merits in that respect.  That being said, if Mr. Shuker is being forthright in the details he has presented concerning his publication history, then he very likely passes GNG, however much a joke his field and research may be.   Of course the article still needs loads of work in order to instill it with anything resembling neutral tone and realistic interpretation of the relevance of his work. Snow (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

He is a major and long-standing contributor to the arguably popular and widely available UK periodical Fortean Times, to which I'm a subscriber, and I'd argue satisfies

"2. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications."

and possibly

"4. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Surely he's as notable through that as any of the comics writers and artists I've created pages for? Lborl (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "significant" is a subjective term, to demonstrate that there would need to be reliable 3rd party sources to state he was, or unambiguous consensus based on number of contributions in comparison to other contributors of that magazine. Plus "major" is also subjective, is Fortean Times a major publication with circulation "just over 17,000 copies per month?" None of his books are "significant" or "Well known" as evidenced by any sources I can find. You're welcome to chime in on the WP:AFD discussion if you wish.. but you should have a better argument then that I think... — raeky  t  17:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Raeky, I think the responses you've received from other editors at Articles for deletion/Karl Shuker has demonstrated quite clearly that your assessment of Shuker's significance and notability and that of his books, is quite wrong, and also that you have some pretty big misconceptions of what cryptozoology is. I hardly think the British Natural History Museum would be recommending his blog to their readers if they thought his work was "pseudoscientific nonsense", as you have quite mistakenly characterized it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore, Raeky has already withdrawn the AFD, so there was really no need for this. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion that Cryptozoology is pseudoscience. The article makes it clear, and uses this source, plus others to make the argument. Why a link to his blog is on that webpage, hard to say. It's not impossible for someone with scientific background to write something that doesn't scream pseudoscience, and be useful to readers, doesn't mean all his views and books are legitimate scientific works. — raeky  t  18:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it's bogus science. But that's irrelevant. It's a notable bogus science, and Shuker is a notable author. That and reliable sources are all we need. Rklawton (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd be happy to email you a copy of the review of his book The Beasts that Hide from Man: Seeking the World’s Last Undiscovered Animals and two other books by cryptozoologists in the The Quarterly Review of Biology, which contradicts quite a lot of what you have said. Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have access to JSTOR... Links to the others would be helpful though. — raeky  t  19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All 3 are reviewed in the same article. I'll list it again below in a separate section with some other useful sources. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl Shuker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312064111/http://revistapiaui.estadao.com.br/edicao-78/chegada/ciencia-dosseres-imaginarios to http://revistapiaui.estadao.com.br/edicao-78/chegada/ciencia-dosseres-imaginarios

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)