Talk:Cryptid whale

Defining this article

Currently this article consists of a pseudoscientific essay. The term cryptid is not used by academic zoologists but rather by cryptozoologists (a pseudoscience), yet this article stitches together pseudoscientific sources (like Karl Shuker) with actual material from academic journals (which, again, do not use the term cryptid). For this article to pass WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and meet WP:UNDUE, we're going to need to strip the pseudoscience from the article. But what do we call it? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

though they may not use the word "cryptid" all the academic journals agree cryptozoologist are adamant these creatures exists, but there's not sufficient evidence to be accepted by mainstream science, and all that exists of these creatures is anecdotal evidence, which is the definition of a cryptid, so I think Cryptid whale is okay   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The page is fine as is, per Dunkleosteus77. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the definition of cryptid (Cryptozoology#Terminology,_history,_and_approach), which is a term restricted to the pseudoscience and in works influenced by the pseudoscience. Neither folklorists nor biologists just assume something is hiding somewhere.

Currently this article synthesizes biology and pseudoscience sources, which isn't OK. As the academic world has pretty thoroughly rejected cryptozoology today, the use of pseudoscientific concepts and terms needs to be crystal clear wherever they occur on Wikipedia, whether it's on a global warming denialism article, a gay conversion therapy article, or here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's an article about cryptids, we should be citing, among others, cryptozoologists   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to keep this article at cryptid whale, then we need to be restricting this article to discussion from cryptozoologists on the topic, as they're the only ones using the term cryptid whale. We're otherwise in WP:SYNTH territory, and in violation of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That’s effectively what this article is now with less names named   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Name calling are we now BOF? That's not cool.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not seed any impermissible WP:Synth. So I disagree with the hypothesis on the scope of the article. I see no requirement to do that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Article protected

As there appears to be a revert-war going on here, I have fully protected the article. Please work out content disputes on the talk page, not by reverting. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard

This article is currently the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cryptid_whale. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Trunko

Even in an article about hypothetical or reported whales, there doesn't seem to be anything to support the addition of Trunko, "a thoroughly bizarre sea monster with snowy-white fur and a huge elephantine trunk." The closest thing is Darren Naish in the main article quoted as saying (based on photos of what washed up on the beach afterwards) "They show that it was the rotting carcass of a large vertebrate, most likely a whale." --tronvillain (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, the Whales are Slain by Hairy Monster appears to be a possible repetition of the original story, with "H.C. Balance of the Margate estate" (same as the original story) witnessing "two whales battling for life against a strange sea monster whose head reared up 20 feet above the surface of the sea." The measurements are the same: 47 feet long, a tail 10 feet and 2 feet wide, a "trunk like an elephant's" 5 feet long and 14 inches in diameter, with "snow-white hair 10 inches long." In any case, definitely not a "cryptid whale." --18:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The removal of this has just been reverted. 7&6=thirteen, do you have an argument for keeping this section which is clearly not about a whale? It's not even trying to be about a whale. --tronvillain (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm involved here only as an admin, so I'm not making judgments about the content. I will say, however, that if we have a main article on a subject, as is the case with Trunko, any other article that includes a section on it should summarize that article. That isn't what's being done here. The material in the "Trunko" section of this article cites no sources and bears little relationship with the Trunko article. So my recommendation is either replace the paragraph with a valid summary of the main article, or remove it. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone unblock me so I can do it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: You aren't blocked as far as I can tell, and the article isn't protected.

I'll also add (and this may be a stretch) that if any reliable source refers to Trunko as something like "an unidentifiable/unidentified/legendary/mythcal large aquatic mammal", well, that's the definition of "cryptid whale" so it may belong here... but only if sources describe it in similar terms to fit the definition. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The word “cryptid” is not used by academics and is obscure to the general public. It was coined by adherents of a pseudoscience, cryptozoology, after ‘cryptozoology’’. It does not simply mean ’mystery’ but rather contains specific anti-mainstream science implications, as it is used by a subculture strongly associated with a general anti-science approaches, such as a general hostility toward academics and strong associations with other pseudosciences, like Young Earth creationism. We’re bound by WP:FRINGE and especially WP:PROFRINGE here like anywhere else. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, "an unidentifiable/unidentified/legendary/mythcal large aquatic mammal" is not an established definition for "cryptid whale" even within fringe sources, as far as I can tell. --tronvillain (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

All I suggested was, if sources use language that is synonymous with "cryptid" and "whale" or "whale-like" to describe some creature, then it isn't a violation of WP:OR to mention it in this article. Sources don't have to use the verbatim terminology in Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

And all I meant was that "large aquatic mammal" isn't synonymous with "whale", especially not if you're looking at legend and myth. --tronvillain (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, the fact that academics — in both STEM and the humanities — do not use the word "cryptid" should be a red flag. This is a problem word, and a mark of the pseudoscience, and needs to be handled with care to avoid violating WP:PROFRINGE. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that just shows my own ignorance, I guess. That's why I'm here in an admin capacity, not as a contributor. I thought "cryptid" was an acceptable term, due to my first exposure to that term being a Wikipedia category Category:Cryptids that somebody slapped onto one of my own articles 7 years ago (Up-island spider, not my best work, and the category isn't there anymore). Your comment above is the first I've heard that it's unacceptable somehow. What's wrong with it? It seems like a concise term for a concept that would require more words without it. It seems to me that just because it originated from pseudoscience practitioners, doesn't mean it isn't useful. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Applying it to every unconfirmed report is arguably undue promotion of a fringe theory - it concedes the report (or myth or folklore in other cases) to cryptozoology. --tronvillain (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, you'll find a lot of discussion from academics regarding the pseudoscience and cryptozoology and the pseudoscience's concept of a "cryptid" at our cryptozoology article, which has seen a total rewrite over the past few years. At one time it was written from the perspective of the adherents. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, are you going to actually participate, or just keep reverting? Also, someone reverting you once is neither edit warring nor a violation of the three revert rule, especially when your initial revert summary was just "I disagree. No consensus for removal." yet you didn't bother reply here. --tronvillain (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Snooky

Currently under "Rhinoceros dolphin" there are two sentences: "Supernumerary dorsal fins are apparently a genuine mutation, as with Snooky the dolphin, however none have turned up a considerable distance from where the dorsal fin should be positioned, let alone on the head." and "A two-finned Burrunan dolphin named "Snooky" has been seen in Port Phillip." Nowhere in the referenced page or the attached page does it say "Port Philip" - in fact, it says Cornwall. And it's clearly an April Fools Day prank (which the WDC confirmed to me), as should be apparent from the 31 March release date and lines like "This is a rare and never previously photographed example of Lamarckian Inheritance, caused by the large number of dolphins that have damaged or lost their original dorsal fin as a result of ship strikes and entanglement in nets." From an April Fools prank, some editor apparently synthesized "Supernumerary dorsal fins are apparently a genuine mutation..." --tronvillain (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Where's the facepalm emoji when you need it? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Edit Request

Please remove the sentence "A two-finned Burrunan dolphin named "Snooky" has been seen in Port Phillip.[3]" because it is bullshite. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget the "as with Snooky the dolphin" from the paragraph above that. --tronvillain (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, removed as it's apparently an April Fool's prank. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Searching for reliable sources

I'm having trouble finding non-fringe sources discussing the phrase "cryptid whale". Because cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, per WP:FRIND, we need reliable sources independent from fringe sources discussing these topics. @Tronvillain:, @LuckyLouie:, any luck? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I note that Eberhart in fact nowhere uses the phrase "cryptid whale", instead placing his observations under "Mystery Cetaceans" (p. 94). It's increasingly clear that this article should be called something like mystery whale, with the science front and center, and the fringe stuff restricted per WP:UNDUE. I also note that Eberhart's entries are extremely brief (which we obviously shouldn't be relying on to begin with). So where's all this text coming from? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Eberhard references this and this. And yes, as discussed on the noticeboard (I think) something like "hypothetical whales" or "mystery whales" would be more appropriate and less WP:PROFRINGE. --tronvillain (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The stuff by Carl Linnaeus would be notable to include. Surely we could find reliable sources discussing his comments on whales, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I gave some initial comments about this article at FTN and I don't really have anything to add, nor do I have a solution to the problem of what to do with this article. I still don't understand why — if it's all about fringe ideas sourced to fringe sources — it isn't simply a redirect to List of cryptids where non-independent sources are more or less tolerated. I would advise against trying to make the article more ambiguous by mixing fringe and scientific material into a worse WP:SYNTH stew. New species of whales are being discovered all the time, and (at least in the scientific journals) there's no mention of "mystery", "hypothetical" or God forbid, cryptids. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Now this is really interesting. Louie you sensibly accept Morin et al. (2017) as good science. But Heuvelmans would have called this straight out cryptozoology. Locals (fishermen) report a strange animal, zoologists come along and identify a new species. Now this is not what you guys think of as cryptozoology (a TV program about eccentric bigfoot hunters in the forest at the weekend or the inaccurate lead about "proving" folklore in the cz article or similar). Of course, the complication is that the zoologists concerned do not call themselves cryptozoologists but it illustrates again how the status of cryptozoology really is unclear.Tullimonstrum (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Heuvelmans would have called it cryptozoology, but so what? Cryptozoology is filled with attempts to appropriate the discoveries of actual scientists in an effort to legitimize the term. --tronvillain (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It would not be "legitimization" of the term for Heuvelmans or indeed the zoologists who founded the ISC. "Cryptozoology" was the term they created for the above process/study. They were not consciously thinking "we have this idea which we think is a bit sketchy so let's legitimate it by making it sound sciency." it was more "there is this discovery on a hunch/meagre evidence thing that zoologists do a lot of the time that needs a name." The former might be (as Sharon Hill partially demonstrates) a motivation of current cryptozoologists though.Tullimonstrum (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Eberhart uses "unknown whales" if that helps, and I think a lot of places are overly-wordy or are just not said in the source   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't share your concerns. See Google books 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So, what non-fringe sources did you find there using the phrase “cryptid whale”? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Claimed to exist by zoologist, naturalist, historian

As I already posted on Current WP:FT/N#Cryptid whale, the change in the lede paragraph to read "claimed to exist by cryptozoologist" does not accurately reflect reality. I've revised the lede accordingly.

The claim of existence, as I am sure you realize, were made by those who reported the sightings, namely a zoologist Enrico Hillyer Giglioli, naturalist Robert Sibbald and maritime historian Willem F. J. Mörzer Bruyns, etc. They also clearly proposed the new taxa, even if "cryptozoologist" may have written of them as possible new genera or species as well. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to write an article on mystery whales, please do. However, please don't conflate pseudoscience and science. If this article is about cryptozoology, stick to the quacks and change the name (academics don't use "cryptid", as you know). If this article is about science, let's stick to peer-reviewed sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't start accusing other editors now of pseudoscience. Just stop. You are not even a science major. I don't really believe you have any grasp.

Article can be renamed from "cryptid whales" to "mystery whale", it suits me fine. Whatever the name, this is a collective article on the Giglioli's Whale, Alula whale, High-finned sperm whale. The initial claims (and taxa propositions) on these were made by a past zoologist, naturalist, and a living historian. Surely they are not "cryptozoologists". A lede is supposed to encapuslate what the article's body states. So stop this misrepresenation.

And on #Alula whale, I completely fail to see the merit of you going back to just saying "According to cryptozoologist George Eberhart, this may represent a subspecies of killer whale".

My addition here which you deleted was that Willem F. J. Mörzer Bruyns actually proposed Alula whale should be a separate genus within the killer whale "group" (≃unaccepted subfamily).

Your defense that we need to "stick to the quacks" is utterly preposterous. --Kiyoweap (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

As you know, the project has a plethora of policies and guidelines about promoting pseudoscience (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). These include undue emphasis and weight, identifying pseudoscience where it appears, etc. It also includes not presenting it as on equal terms or footing with science (which you're well aware at this point). If this article is about mystery whales, let's move it and do it. If it's about pseudoscience (like cryptozoology), then we need to go ahead and start digging for reliable sources discussing the fringe (assuming the fringe is notable in the first place). Playing pretend science and passing it off as the real thing make up core hallmarks of pseudosciences, including cryptozoology, and Wikipedia's policies fortunately prevent the site from conflating the real stuff from the quackery.

As for the "You are not even a science major": Interesting observation considering I don't recall providing you with any information about myself whatsoever. In short: Now is a great time for you to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Insults aside, the way I’m reading this article as a description of whoever first reported it (like what Giglioli had to say about the two-finned whale) and possible explanations (like possible birth defect causing two fins) and then maybe some other notable references to the whale   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Even an Etiquette practitioner would understand WP:Civil. Lighten up. No personal attacks were articulated; we neeed niot need to be thin-skinnned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Bloodofox's interpretation of Wiki policy is not on the same page as actual Wiki policy.

WP:DUE weight is about not giving prominence to a cryptozoogist's view that is far different (WP:FRINGE) from a mainstream scientist's view.

It is nothing like some apartheid segragation policy disallowing cryptozoologists from even being mentioned on the same page as university zoologists and other academics.

Repeatedly calling them "quacks" is also uncalled-for.--Kiyoweap (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:VALID: “Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.” Please take any concerns you have to, say, WP:RSN or the fringe theory noticeboard. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No. Stop saying this or that rule abstractly applies. You are just sidestepping the issue. You need to explain why you think your revert is justified in concrete terms.

The article had Alula whale down as "subspecies", as per Eberhart, but this did not match the Willem F. J. Mörzer Bruyns paper which proposed "genus". Another dolphin source (Jean-Pierre Sylvestre) said "species or subspecies". The latter two was what I elaborated on.

So can you provide some rational reason for your revert that the rest of us understand ? You want to keep the version by the cryptozoologist who you say engage in pseudoscience? But the latter two info need to be purged? This does not make any sense to me.--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, you don't need to write entire essays in talk page edit summaries. Anyway, why don't we just move the page to a name that doesn't involve cryptozoology? --tronvillain (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, that was a pretty substantial edit. It may have been reverted purely based on the lede changes, and not the Alula whale changes at all. --tronvillain (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Enrico Hillyer Giglioli to Cryptid whale, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)