User talk:Bloodofox/Cryptozoology

I'm not exactly sure about what you're going to use this for, but you probably could add some discussion of the problems cryptozoology sources bring to articles, such as undue weight on fringe views and the need to use the best quality independent sources when discussing legendary animals or urban legends about mythical animals. Also, most people will respond better to concrete suggestions rather than generalized gripes. So perhaps some "before and after" examples of articles that show the benefit. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback, . I'll bring them into the draft. Since all of this requires some explanation to groups with varying exposure to these issues, I figured I'd put this all in one place so that I might simply link to it rather than explain and re-explain. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also consider a section that lists folklorist sources; academic texts that editors can draw from to improve articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea, particularly since topics such as the Aarne–Thompson classification systems are so poorly represented on the site. Do you recommend a particular article that was once dominated by cryptozoology references but has gone on to be a solid example of, say, good article criteria? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: examples; I can't locate a decent length Good Article-class example, but this would do in a pinch: before and after. Re: providing a comprehensive list of folkloristic sources; I think most editors who are interested in improving articles will respond, "OK but I Google searched and saw millions of crypto sources but only one folklore source". So pointing them to a way to get at those sources will be important. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Great suggestions. I'll apply them to this article now. Thanks! &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You might also add a note about the abuse of infoboxes (I think the most egregious one is called "infobox/mythical creature" but I could be wrong on the name) which acknowledge myth yet attempt to classify subjects according to cryptozoological methods ("grouping", "subgrouping", "first reported" etc.). Also I should mention that edits like this are not helpful, since Wikipedia has MOS guidelines such as summary style which makes use of appropriate section headers. Also one needs to accept that seemingly frivolous but well-sourced popular culture material has a place in such articles, especially in the lead. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, feel free to edit this directly. I've included a mention of the template situation, but it could use a bit more. As for pop culture stuff, I'm perfectly fine with that — when I've removed it, it's usually because of poor sourcing. I'll keep an eye out for MOS stuff. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Cryptid
Is this claim of yours true, do no academic works use the term in their titles?Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Folklorists don't use this term to refer to entities from the folklore record. This term was coined by cryptozoologists in place of monster to imply that the entity may be other there wandering around somewhere. That's deep fringe territory. You'll find this term used solely by cryptozoologists, in works influenced by cryptozoology, or in items discussing cryptozoology and cryptozoologists. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this claim, can you substantiate it? As an example "items discussing cryptozoology and cryptozoologists", so then yes if a scholarly work is discussing this it might well use the term in the title. Also why limit this to folklorists, what about biologists or anthropologists?Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, no academic discipline incorporates the term cryptid into their field. You could keyword search the major scientific journals. Cryptozoology is a lot like ufology or parapsychology, i.e. "professions" where anyone can be an expert. Pop culture and news cycle infotainment freely adopt pseudoscientific lingo, but serious science and scholarship avoids it like the plague, except when discussing or referring to it (at arms length) as a curious sociological phenomenon. I agree that mainstream biologists and anthropologists are also preferred sources for articles on mythical animals, especially if they have commented on monster sighting claims. Limiting sources to folklorists would be a little unrealistic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That was not the point made, it was that they never ever use the term, thus any sources that does is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is someone saying "any source that uses the term is not valid"? Not sure I understand the issue here, but *context* is important in how a source uses the term. Academics, sociologists, paleontologists, biologists, anthropologists, etc. may use it when discussing the subject at arms length. That doesn't mean they incorporate the term in their formal discipline. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that was my point.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Cryptid: Does it use the word cryptid or does the site or publication's name have any variation of crypto- in it? If yes, this is a red flag. As mentioned in a note above, the term cryptid is used solely by cryptozoologists and amateur works influenced by cryptozoology. It is not used by academics. Avoid this source."
 * So yes, that is what is being said, academics never use this term so any source that does should be avoided (emphasis mine).Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, we have Wikipedia's (almost unspoken) tradition of covering pop culture subjects in a way that accurately reflects how they are covered in society and general media, e.g. List of reported UFO sightings, List of reportedly haunted locations. Which could be what motivates many experienced editors to not see this as a big problem. I'm not going to get involved in the List of cryptids controversy, but I'm a big believer in accepting the consensus of experienced editors, even when I don't agree with them. Of course no article on a mythical creature should say "X is a legendary cryptid..." because, per WP:FRINGE, the encyclopedia does not use the taxonomy of pseudoscience. But it may turn out that the term "cryptid" is so ingrained in pop culture that a carefully curated list of entries sourced to non-cryptozoological sources like magazines and news outlets is appropriate, with appropriate disclaimers in the lead that explain the cultural reference. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I should point out that discussing folklore with biologists is a lot like discussing biology with folklorists — it's outside their discipline, and they're likely to have a poor understanding of the field. That said, there happens to be far more biologists than there are folklorists out there these days, and biologists seem quite open to lambasting cryptozoologists as a wrongheaded imitation of their discipline. It's also likely that the thousands of Wikipedia articles claiming [x] is a cryptid over the last decade have probably influenced colloquial discourse on this topic to some extent, but I haven't seen any publications out there addressing this to date. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What Louie says above is sort of how I see it. I do not see bigfoot as the sole domain of academia, and have no problem with multiple groups using different kinds of vocabularies to talk about it, so long as we do not use Wikipedia's voice for making pseudoscientific claims and so long as we're using reliable sources. Folkloristics is the social scientific study of folklore and thus comprises one aspect of the larger subject that is folklore/legend/mythology/culture. That a subject has been talked about and documented within a culture for decades or centuries or millennia is significant, and coverage of some of the subjects predates the establishment of folkloristics, and continues to exist in sources outside of folkloristics. That doesn't mean we should make pseudoscientific claims -- it just means we cover the whole subject. We still need it to be documented in reliable sources, but reliable sources aren't limited to academic sources, and use of a term like "cryptid" does not disqualify a source from being reliable -- we're not necessarily trying to source whether it exists, after all, but how the concept exists in culture. Where this is easy for me to buy into is when mainstream press uses cryptozoology terminology; where it is less easy is when books about cryptozoology are the sole basis for using the terminology (if that's going to be the case, we need strict guidelines for when that's ok, for example when a book receives some amount of press coverage or based on publisher, etc.). TL;DR - When it comes to a scientific claim, science wins; when it comes to using Wikipedia's voice about statements of fact, academic sources win; when it comes to the subject broadly, we can use newspapers, magazines, etc., too.
 * I will say, however, that the more I look at the list of cryptids, the more I'm having trouble finding sources justifying inclusion that aren't "in universe"... What would make the most sense to me is to have a list of legendary creatures which includes in its lead a mention of the different perspectives, qualified accordingly. That would include cryptozoology and an explanation that there is substantial overlap with the concept of "cryptid". It has a place, but I don't think it need affect the lists themselves (i.e. organizing according to the same scheme as the list of cryptids would lend undue weight to that classification scheme, but there may be a compromise possible that mentions it in a footnote). Eh. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe there's something necessary to point out here: cryptozoology consists of a tiny fringe group tremendously over represented on Wikipedia. Additionally, cryptozoology as we know it today — eg., Heuvelmans, Sanderson, et al, and the coinage of the term cryptozoology — is a far more recent development than what we today call folkloristics, and the term cryptid is far more recent development still, again wildly over represented on the platform due to a lack of scholars working in this area for Wikipedia over the years. This stuff is finally getting some attention from editors such as myself, so rather than unintentionally pander to a tiny fringe group that has for all purposes exploited the platform due to a hole in its coverage, let us embrace the academics and experts. I'm quite glad that we have WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, which protects us from giving unjustified space to fringe groups, such as cryptozoologists, and allows us to produce solid articles based on the highest quality sources. Seriously, enough is enough with being soft on fringe groups hijacking Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience, it's time to take some action and get these articles up to par. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * CZ is fringe for sure but fringe ≠ pseudoscience nor is cz badly done folkloristics although it overlaps with folkloristics for sure. Certainly it looks for the zoological origins of some folklore but also there are hypothesised species with no folkloric history (coelacanths, long tongued moths etc) There were zoological precursors to cz: Denys de Montfort, Steenstrup, Henry Lee, Willy Lee etc. etc. I suggest, you read some actual academic zoology and you would realise that your Manichean view of cz is awry. See your comments on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hypothetical_species . This is what some academics who are interested in  cz do. There are published papers on cz. Lots of cz is rubbish but the "it is all pseudoscience" position is falsified. Are you saying the following is not science?:
 * Paxton, C.G.M. (2009) The plural of “anecdote” can be “data”: statistical analysis of viewing distances in reports of unidentified giant marine animals 1758 – 2000. Journal of Zoology 279, 381 –387. Hardly the work of a "cryptozoological apologist" as you imply on the cz comment page. Paxton is a signed up skeptic.
 * Woodley et al. 20090 How many extant pinniped species remain to be described? Historical Biology 20, 225–235. One co-author Naish has identified himself as a skeptic and runs a prominent zoological blog in Scientific American, hardly fringe.
 * You will notice that this work is not proving "the existence of entities from the folklore record" (your own personal definition of cz unjustified by any source, BTW) but something else. Interestingly some of these papers were cited on the cz page but they were deleted by ultra-skeptical editors presumably to avoid cognitive dissonance over their "it is all pseudoscience" position. The majority of cz is indeed rubbish but some isn't and Wikipedia editors should reflect that subtlety rather than engage in a witch-hunt.Tullimonstrum (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)