Talk:Cryptozoology

I'm not going to tolerate any advancement of the idea that cryptozoology is pseudoscience. Some crytozoologists focus only on stories about mythical animals, which puts them more into an anthropology field or something like that. Are you willing to say that people who study mythology are involved in pseudoscience?

The people in this field who make discoveries (of which there are many) cannot have their findings discounted like they found them "by accident" like an alchemist. They are employing scientific method.

There is more than one discipline under the heading of "cryptozoology" and I believe I have made this clear to the reader. if you disagree, then fix that part, don't degrade the entire rest of the article by discounting it at the end by calling it pseudoscience.

---

Okapi wasn't disbelieved by Western scientists, they just hadn't heard of it. (The platypus, on the other hand, was first thought to be a fraud by Europeans who were sent stuffed specimens.) Oh, and can you identify yourself if you write long entries that start "I'm not going to tolerate". --Vicki Rosenzweig

This isn't exactly true; initial reports of the okapi were dismissed by the vast majority of scientists as nothing more than native folklore; even the few who took it seriously as a real animal believed it was a species of primitive horse. Another good example is the Mountain Gorilla, the existence of which was utterly ridiculed (natives called it the 'great forest ogre'). 80.255 07:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Okay. anyway, I just added a date I found on a net site, I don't know who said it was disbelieved. I just thought a date was in order, and I found one. I clarified the point on pseupdoscience a little better. if you call yourself a cryptozoologist because you study mythological animals, then that would be cultural anthropology, not a pseudoscience. if you are a fortean, you don't even call youself a scientist (although this would make the logos root rather misleading.) --Alan D

---

"coelacanth, a prehistoric fish." Huh? All fish species existed before humans started keeping historical records (except maybe a few that split since then). How about "living fossil"? --phma

---

Often it is considered more akin to parapsychology due to the willingness of its proponents to tackle such issues as the loch ness monster or bigfoot.

This statement is a non-sequitur. Parapsychology may very well be a controversial subject, but it has absolutely nothing to do with nessie or bigfoot. Personally I consider parapsychology somewhat more credible than cryptozoology, but I am content to have these subjects considered in separate articles without innuendo about the agenda of others. Eclecticology, Sunday, June 30, 2002

What about the new mystery ape that has recently been photographed, captured and had its mitochondrial DNA analyzed? Seems to be a third species of chimp; a few people have suggested it may be descended from a wierd Gorilla-chimp hybrid. It seems to be a previously unknown species of chimp. This topic should be discussed in our articles on Ape, Chimpanzee and Cryptozoology. (Of course, the text should not be identical in each article.) RK 04:20, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Bondo Mystery Ape (http://karlammann.com/bondo.html)

CNN article: Seeking answers to big 'mystery ape' (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/08/08/coolsc.mysteryape/)

Leaky Foundation intro on Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species? (http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/newsandevents/n4_x.jsp?id=3343)

National Geographic news: Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0414_030314_strangeape.html)

Contents

1 'Cryptid': slang or not 2 The Beast of Funen 3 You forgot nixie, hobgoblin, hydra, drow and illithid!! 4 Spiritual entities 4.1 Merger?

'Cryptid': slang or not

The majority of the significant Google hits for 'cryptid' being a slang term are site that quote Wikipedia. A significantly greater number of sites use cryptid directly and seriously, ie. not as a slang word. Tomorrow I will be re-doing my edits that 80.255 reverted, unless I can be proven wrong. - UtherSRG 14:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's two separate questions (and two sets of reverts) to deal with here. Firstly, the wording of this main article. I tend to agree that you are right and 80.255 is wrong here. The fact that a word has not yet made it into the dictionary doesn't make it slang - it just makes it new. I can't see any reason why 'cryptid' should necessarily be flagged up as 'slang' in this article.

Being in a dictionary or not does not imply that any given word is or isn't a slang term. However, words like 'cryptid' are obviously coined informally with little regard for etymological norms, and I don't believe that, at the current time, this word is suitable for formal contexts. "Cryptid" is never used in scientific papers or reports describing cryptozoological phenomena, and it is at that standard of accuracy and respectability that an encyclopaedia should be aiming. If, in a few years from now, "cryptid" becomes an acceptable word used by the scientific establishment, then I would consider its use acceptable in an encyclopaedia. 80.255 15:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I mentioned nothing about a dictionary. Please explain how you think the coinage of "cryptid" is outside of the realm of allowable usage for an encyclopedia. To wit, the "-id" ending is often used particularly in the scientific realm to form colloquialistic nouns for which there are yet no common terms. This is how "cryptid" is used, encompassing the possible animals covered in the realm of cryptozoology. (Although I'd bet it would work for the possible plants in cryptobotany as well.) Even better, though, is that cryptozoology is not a full science, although aspects of it may be science. As such, why should the term 'cryptid' be in scientific literature before we use it? - UtherSRG 17:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You did indeed mention nothing about a dictionary, and my comments were in reply to ALargeElk, not you! "Cryptid" is outside the realm of allowable encyclopaedia usage because it is not an acceptable word in scientific circles. When 'cryptozoological' discoveries are made, they become strictly matters of science; though you may not consider all those who call themselves 'cryptozoologists' to be 'fully scientists' (and in some cases I would certainly agree), zoology is a matter of science and the vocabulary used to describe any zoological matter, be it proven or not, should be to the same standard of scientific rigour. It is only when the vocabulary fails us that we should resort to coined slang terms to describe essentially scientific matters. 80.255 07:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except that the creatures in question do not exist or can not be proven to exist by scientific means throws water on your cry for scientism as a rationale. Even http://www.cryptozoology.com uses the word cryptid, boldly ad proudly. - UtherSRG 11:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whether you think they exist or not is irrelevant, and is soley your POV. Cryptozoology is concerned with investigating reported creatures in a scientific fashion. At least some of these creature probably do not exist; nonetheless, reports of them do, and such reports are delt with scientifically in order to ascertain the truth. On the other hand, some new species have been uncovered due to the efforts of cryptozoologists, so to dismiss all as ficticious is clearly nonsense. Cryptozoologists (at the 'sensible end - excluding amateur crackpots and the like) base their researches on the scientific method; when new species are discovered, or evidence is found that is significant in either the case for or against such species' existence, these are documented in scientific journals, like any other branch of science. The word cryptid is never used in such reports.

As for cryptozoology.com - it is not a scientific sight, nor does it represent anything that professional cryptozoologists make known to the wider scientific community. It is a website, and anyone could have bought the domain. Informal use of a slang term on an informal website run by amateurs is hardly supprising, is it? Type the word "fuck" into google and you'll notice that it gets 33 million results - yet I hardly think it should form part of the descriptive vocubulary of an encyclopaedia simply on the ground of widespread "bold and proud" usage! Likewise "cryptid" (lack of vulgarity notwithstanding). 80.255 14:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go as my own attempt at resolving this, by deleting the first mention of the term and clarifying where the dispute lies with the second one. (Stands back and waits for flak) --ALargeElk 15:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The second question is on the naming of the articles for the individual cryptids. For most of them, there's no problem - you can name an article Yeti and not worry beyond that. The problem comes with ambiguous words, such as 'Thunderbird'. Should the article we're dealing be named Thunderbird (animal) or Thunderbird (cryptid)? Here, I would argue for a third option. 'Thunderbird (animal)' is no use for disambiguation, as the mythological creature is also an animal. I don't believe that 'Thunderbird (cryptid)' is a helpful title, as the word 'cryptid' isn't well enough known yet. How about naming the article Thunderbird (cryptozoology), along the lines of Rod (cryptozoology)? --ALargeElk 14:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion, ALargeElk. Tannin 15:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A very good solution; praise be! Well done Elk. 80.255 15:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I've taked care of Almas (cryptid) and Almas (animal) in like manner. - UtherSRG 15:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the essay on C. Megalodon survival by Ben. S. Roesch that is linked to in the main text of the article really shouldn't be there, as it is focused solely on disproving the possibility of C. Megalodon's continued existence past paleontologically accepted norms, to the point where the author is making as many assumptions and offering up the same amount of 'Probablies' 'Maybies' and 'Surelies' as the people in the accounts he spends more time discrediting than actually discussing. It was an interesting article, but most definitely not within Wikipedia's NPOV standards.

The Beast of Funen

I don't know who linked to that article, but it is definitely not NPOV and not even very informative, as it spends more time making fun of the reports than actually discussing them. If this was a joke, it was very poorly executed. I'd remove it myself, but I'm too scared of even removing trash from my favorite Wikipedia page without backup opinions. -Drago

You forgot nixie, hobgoblin, hydra, drow and illithid!!

Cryptozoology is simply hilarious, but that doesn't necessarily make Korrigan or Leprechaun decent additions. Or Quetzalcoatl. Oh, and by the way, cryptozoology is pseudoscience.Phlebas 20:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-For the record, I didn't see Quetzacoatl listed anywhere on the page. As for the pseudoscience remark, cryptozoology is merely the study of animals that are rumored to exist, but for which no conclusive evidence exists. At some point nearly every animal on the planet would have existed under this category. It is, in the strictest sense, a science. You refer to the people who use pseudo-science and apply it to cryptozoology, giving it a bad reputation. The presence of these people does not make cryptozoology itself a pseudoscience. But you have a point. Things like elves, pixies, and their foreign counterparts, are not part of cryptozoology. Just because legend and cryptozoology often overlap does not make them the same thing, and I for one don't think the vast majority of articles listed under 'Little People' actually belong on the page. Drago 20:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual entities

Where are the angels, demons, djinn, devas, Tennin and so forth from religion and mythology? Is this the wrong page for them, or what? Sam Spade 21:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merger?

• Legendary creatures
• List of legendary creatures
• Index of fictional species
• List of species in folklore and mythology

Should these pages be merged?

Sam Spade 21:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly don't merge. Take a look at Draco's response in the above paragraph. While it is difficult to define the organisms appropriate for cryptozoology (this happens way too arbitrarily btw, i.e. not scientifically valid), there must be some occasional "reporting" and "credibility". Mythologies of nature-people (cfr. papoeas or pygmies...ebu gogo etc.) are looked at in a very different way as those of non-nature-people (the rest of the world, including your angels, djinnis etc.). There is also a huge difference between heathen, folk and urban mythology and religion (and Dungeons and Dragons). But then still... the Beast of Bodmin and Gévaudan, Nessie, giant cats in England etc. are western things. Kaboldermannikin ort whatnot are folk mythology but imho have no place in this list. Phlebas 13:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

So... where are we going to draw the line? Sam Spade 09:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)