Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Kappa

This appears to be a purely mythological creature. What prominent cryptozoologists are claiming that a small humanoid with a turtle shell that needs to keep its head wet to retain its power is actually running around Japan? In the edit history we have "If it can be sourced as a cryptid, it can be in this list", but where is the reliable source? Not in the kappa (folklore) article, certainly. --tronvillain (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what the Kappa article is, and it doesn't really matter. This is a list of cryptids and the criteria bar is pretty darned low. What we look for is outside sources that describe it as a cryptid. Whether it's a cryptid book, newspaper, magazine, etc. If there's no mention of this creature with the term cryptid or cryptozoology, then it doesn't belong here. If there is then it does belong here. I'm also looking at some of your other non-discussed deletions such as the Tennessee Red Cheetah. Just because it has no wikipedia article is no reason not to include it. That would be silly. Astronomers have huge lists of asteroids by name, thousands of them in lists, but there is no wikipedia article for most of them. The thing we have to look for is has the creature been described with the term "cryptid" or "cryptozoology." We want people to be bold in their editing, but if it gets challenged bring it to talk and we'll see if we can build consensus to add or remove something. All these silly cryptid entities should have an outside source that shows they are considered cryptids. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, having no Wikipedia article (and no reason to expect one) is a great reason to not include it on this style of list, given the guideline for standalone lists: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers." This isn't one of the other two options, "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" or "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." If there are verifiable reliable sources for a kappa being a cryptid, where are they? You can't just assert that they exist.--tronvillain (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The kappa is an iconic entity in Japanese folklore. It is of course deeply fringe to claim that such an entity exists. However, I'm not surprised that some cryptozoologist somewhere claims that there may be such a critter hiding somewhere and that it is thus a cryptid. This again comes down to an issue of the article's scope: where do we draw the line for this list? Should it include every creature that every cryptozoologists has ever claimed to be a cryptid anywhere? Is a list without a scope OK?

In response to this edit by Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) (preceded by two other reverts of the same material removed by a different editor: [1],[2]): Not only is this textbook edit-warring, but the claim is incorrect. The burden is in fact on the editor who restores unreferenced material to cite it when restoring it, or else it goes (WP:PROVEIT). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the list should be restricted to "notable" cryptids, with existence of a Wikipedia article on a subject as a cryptid being a reasonable rough test of notability - otherwise the list gets polluted with every mythological creature, folk/tall tale, urban legend and hoax that some idiot has suggested represents a real but unknown animal. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how that could ever be enforced. If you can find sources that say something is a cryptid then it should be allowed in the list. Otherwise we'll have to let the asteroid list people know, and the tennis umpire list people know, that they are in danger of having their lists expunged because there is no wikipedia article on each and every entry. What we need is proper sourcing that tells us what has and what has not been described as a cryptid. An extra "source" column would help with this. Something like this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

See above. Asteroids are a completely different type of list. --tronvillain (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It really isn't different. Non-notable entries fill the asteroid list. We have lists of Nirvana concerts. None of those individual concerts is notable, but they are in a list at wikipedia. There are many lists of this sort, and cryptids should be no exception. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Asteroids are clearly the "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria", which "...are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles." This list is clearly not that style.--tronvillain (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't since some of the objects DO have notability and DO have articles. See the list of numbers 4001-5000 Most do not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As quoted above (emphasis mine) "...are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles." A few asteroid lists are "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group."--tronvillain (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And we don't just remove entries because they have no source. We should be doing at least a cursory check to make sure if it's bogus or simply a poor addition without the source added. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I double checked Veo and I had no problem finding a source for it as a cryptid. If we all took a letter of the alphabet and worked on entries under that letter, we might be able to find (or not find) cryptid sources for all of these critters. It would be daunting for one person to do it alone. I still think the sourcing should have its own column as I said above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As explained above and in the edit history by referencing the guideline, I removed Veo because it does not meet the criteria for inclusion in an list article of this style: a page or a reasonable expectation of a page.--tronvillain (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia criteria for that. There are suggestions on why lists are created. This one is a list of cryptids and you have now removed a fully sourced entry. If that continues, administration will be brought in to make sure complete discussion takes place before more removals happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make threats. The source you added clearly failed WP:RS, and earlier you violated WP:PROVEIT after edit-warring. If you think it's necessary for "administration [to be] brought in", please go ahead and do it. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If he continues to make blanket removals of sourced material without discussion, an administrator will be brought in to take a look. Best to warn before doing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There has been no "blanket removals of sourced material." I linked directly to the guideline for lists which provides common selection criteria ("Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria"). As it says, As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." Remember, this is for the "Veo" and "Tennessee Red Cheetah", not the Kappa. For the Kappa, we would need a reliable source establishing it as notable within cryptozoology. By all means, pester an administrator if you think it necessary.--tronvillain (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1) Yes, everything on its list should have its own article. Most lists on Wikipedia are not intended to be exhaustible topics. A list of numbers, a discography, a list of presidents, etc. are exhaustible -- there is a well defined set that you can include all of. Otherwise it's a list of examples. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc. included examples should be notable in order to make an encyclopedic list. Sometimes that can be satisfied by including enough citations to reliable sources showing that it could have an article, but more often it's just a requirement that there be an article (after all, if you've gathered that many sources, just go WP:WTAF). 2) Something must have a reliable source calling it a cryptid to include on the list. If that source is in its respective article, I consider removing rather than just going to get it to be inappropriate per WP:PRESERVE and whatnot; if there's no such source, then remove it pending an added citation. 3) If the issue is a dispute over the reliability of that source, you cannot keep removing and claiming BURDEN, as a source has been provided, and there is no clear guidance for what is/isn't considered a reliable source for this page. Determining that will be important (it seems that all noticeboard threads, etc. have so far failed, so I guess an RfC is next). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no such source on the Kappa (folklore) page - I actually did read the page before deleting the entry here, as opposed to saying "I have no idea what the Kappa article is, and it doesn't really matter."--tronvillain (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see one either, but I didn't actually look through them (or all of Fyunck's comments to see if he/she linked to one). As there seems to be a valid challenge to the material and no source is available, it would be justified to be removed unless someone adds a relevant source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I remove longstanding entries, I do a cursory google check on outside sources to make sure the entry should be removed. Just because something does not have a source does not mean you start blanket removal of things. You do a check on outside sources. Maybe the original editor was lazy or maybe he made things up, but there is no way to know unless you check. On something like the Veo I had no problem locating a source that described it as a cryptid. Goodness, I've never owned one but am I going to have to go out and actually buy some crypto books so I can link to more exact pages? With the Veo I linked to a page number, a publisher, a title... yet it was still expurgated. That's ridiculous for an entry and removers should be more careful. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, Veo was removed because it has no article and there is no reasonable expectation of one being written, not because of a lack of a source.--tronvillain (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And per wikpedia, that is no reason to removed sourced content. And why is there no expectation that an article will be written? I could write one tonight... it just isn't needed to be included in this list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is - see Rhododendrites explanation. And articles have to meet notability, which this seems extremely unlikely to meet.--tronvillain (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Not much different than many other creatures as far as I can tell. And like I said before, you'd have to tell the Astronomy Project that they are about to lose their minor planet lists, since they use the same criteria as the Veo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't use something like "there are articles on other creatures that don't meet notability criteria" as an argument for the creation of one on the "Veo" being plausible. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, minor planet lists are different types of list: complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group, or lists where most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles (usually both).

Also, "The Cryptopedia: A Dictionary of the Weird, Strange & Downright Bizarre" is in no sense a reliable source, even for something as in-bubble as establishing notability within cryptozoology.--tronvillain (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We are oil and water on this I guess, because we see things totally differently. Maybe we can find a patch of grey to locate ourselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Revisited

Let me weigh in on this now:

• While kappa is considered a yōkai, it is also now commonly labeled as "UMA" (Unidentified mystery animal), i.e., "cryptid", in Japan.

• Also easily verified "kappa" is listed in George Eberhart's book.

• Now, tronvillain's method of deleting based on whether the wiki article refers to "prominent Cryptozoologist" is flawed. Because user:Bloodofox for one goes around systematically purging the word "cryptid" and any works by cryptozoologists them and content sourced from them.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC) —Inserted phrase accidentally deleted 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You're taking an intermediary step by equating "unidentified mystery animal" to "cryptid" (and citing an article about a show on the History channel, no less). As you know, Eberhart is himself an apologetic cryptozoologist and his book is highly defensive about academics who take cryptozoology to task for being a pseudoscience. As you're also aware, the cultural inheritance that makes up the category of yōkai inhabit a very different cultural space than, say, a cryptozoologist preparing for a Young Earth creationism field trip because someone claimed that they saw a brontosaurus. For inclusion here, we're really bet off with an academic source demonstrating context. If it's notable, then it's easy to find. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You have this habit of accusing other people of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR whenever you encounter an inconvient piece of information for you. But if you performed a cursory on Google, you would have found a folklorist saying this: "tsuchinoko is a cryptid; or to use a Japanese categorization, it is a UMA-- an unidentified mysterious animal".

So tsuchinoko is a cryptid. Now this is a mystery snake pretty much entirely from eyewitness accounts. The kappa situation is somewhat different. It is sort folklore and fiction as a yokai, but there have also been reported sightings. I have just one book on yōkai, and it does mention there are sightings under its entry for kappa.

Not allowing Eberhart's book which is published by ABC-CLIO, an academic press of sorts, and disallowing mainstream media coverage is an unreasonable hurdle for those who want to maintain entries in it. I think preferably the list should be creatures significantly connected with sightings, but don't hound on newbies for good faith edits. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole sentence is "In the language of cryptozoology (the study of 'hidden animals') tsuchinoko is a cryptid; or to use a Japanese categorization, it is a UMA - an unidentified mysterious animal." It is absolutely synthesis to extrapolate from that to "kappa are cryptids", simply because of claimed sightings. Allowing cryptozoology to appropriate every unexplained sighting or claimed sighting is undue promotion of fringe theories. --tronvillain (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe I ever suggested "deleting based on whether the wiki article refers to 'prominent Cryptozoologist'." Can you quote where I said that? Looking back, I can't seem to find it. --tronvillain (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

First, I'm sure you can make your point without resorting to personal attacks. Second, the whole quote is actually: "In the language of cryptozoology (the study of "hidden animals"), tsuchinko is a cryptid; or to use the Japanese designation; it is a UMA-- an unidentified mysterious animal". I won't make any guesses as to why you included only a partial quote or why the author makes the comparison, but both points are frankly irrelevant: it is at this point very well established that the overwhelming majority of academics in both STEM and the humanities deem cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience on par with ghost hunting and ufology, and make no secret about it.

Third, Wikipedia simply isn't a platform where it's acceptable to write from the perspective of a pseudoscience, no matter how you slice it (WP:PROFRINGE sums it up), and Eberhart's book is unabashedly a work of pseudoscience, regardless of the publisher (in fact, Roy Mackal's notorious A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe was published by the usually highly respectable Brill — pseudoscience slipping through otherwise reliable publishers has been of a discussion a few times recently over at WP:RSN). Eberhart is a cryptozoologist. Typical to form, despite apologetics, he promotes a fake science with close connections to Young Earth creationism and commercial anti-science quackery. Crackpottery requires context on Wikipedia. Whenever you're dealing with cryptozoologists, you're dealing with deep fringe, much of it quite obscure, but if it's notable, then there's an easily available reliable source for it.

Finally, people report "sightings" (however one may define this) about stuff all the time, completely exterior to the subculture of cryptozoology. This has always been the case. However, most people don't start spinning false taxonomies. This is a form of folk belief or, in many cases, simply a hoax. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have a habit of claiming people that don't agree with you personally attack you. You've done it with me, and you've done it with several other users... That's not cool man..--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks if you have questions about where to draw the line. In particular, see the second sentence: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". :bloodofox: (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Again. In recent years Japanese media and publishing have referred to kappa as a mikakunin seibutsu or mikakunin dōbutsu or "unconfirmed organism/animal", aka UMA. Foster's footnoted reference on UMA/mikakunin dōbutsu also includes kappa, though it's really a catalog from a museum exhibit, not a previewable book with ISBN.

Note that mikakunin dōbutsu (ja:未確認動物) ⇔cryptid are interlang wiki-linked. So Foster's quote should jsut be taken as concurring that these are pretty much synonymous, rather than engaging in the make-believe he is making any appreciable distinction. I think you guys need to get real on this. I do concede these being new terms, the actual Japanese-English entries are hard to find. There are some entries under in Eijiro

As for the quote user:Tronvillain asked for I was referring to you saying "There is no such source on the Kappa (folklore) page - I actually did read the page before deleting the entry here.". This sounds like if you checked the en.wiki article and didn't find cryptological references, you deemed it ok to delete from list. And my point was one or more editors do go around systematically purging mention of cryptid/cryptozoology, although if user:Bloodofox thinks I shouldn't have he can say there are X many others who do the same that he knows of, or whaterver.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make an article on the concept, please do. However, you're taking an extra step by combining the two. As you know, original research is not OK on Wikipedia. Some editor's decision to interlang these two articles is irrelevant. To improve these articles, we need reliable sources from experts in relevant fields, not more of whatever you can find scraped off of the internet somewhere combined with a smattering of original research to fill in the gaps. If we can't find a reliable source explicitly stating it, then it just doesn't go on Wikipedia. There's nothing radical about any of this. What has changed is that people are now paying attention to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No Bloodofox. Your unhelpful suggestion of creating a separate page for UMA would obviously just be a WP:CFORK.

I don't know why you would even make this a point of contention. The terms mikakunin dōbutsu or mikakunin seibutsu or "UMA" are the words used to translate "cryptid" and that is the plain fact. If you pretend to know bettter, I beg you to tell me what the correct Japanese transations for the terms are.

Note that Abominable Science" The Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids (by Daniel Loxton and Donald R. Prothero, Columbia University Press ) has been translated into Japanese, and bears the title Mikakunin dōbutsu UMA wo kagaku suru: Monstā wa naze mokugeki sare tsuzukeru no ka ISBN 9784759818215.--Kiyoweap (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:OR. Find a reliable source that explicitly discusses it and we can use it. As you know, translation decisions vary by translator. This goes for anything, but particularly so when we're dealing with a pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's completely possible that those terms are used to translate "cryptid" or "mystery animal", but so what? It's still unsupported synthesis to extrapolate from that to "kappa are cryptids." As has already been said, "wto kappa as that was one newspaper article about a show on the history channel. --tronvillain (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no viable WP:SYNTH issue here. The example there is a second sentence that invokes an interpretation by the Harvard manual, which is blatantly an opinion. This is a far cry from providing the dictionary definition of mikakunin dōbutsu as "cryptid", on which there is no demonstrable divided opinion.

As to your but so what?, WP:OR under WP:TRANSCRIPTION will allow me to directly quote the newspaper piece as talking about "the kappa, mermaid, tsuchinoko.. cryptids (UMA) passed down orally from times of yore..", since "faithfully translating sourced material into English .. is not considered original research".

The piece may cover the History Channel Japan TV show, but it is not a quote from the show that the kappa is called UMA. It is in the words of Mishina, the staff reporter who writes for the culture section of the newspaper (which I'll add to cite).--Kiyoweap (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You know that's not going to fly. You also know translation can be quite controversial and subjective. Bluntly: Find a reliable source explicitly discussing this or move on. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you doubt it should fly. It's a clear rule that shows you can't use a bullcrap WP:SYNTH argument against someone faithfully translating a source from a foreign language. So are you going to drop this ridiculous notion that UMA (mikakunin dōbutsu) = "cryptid" is somehow totally wrong? You have zero, nothing, nada basis for doubting it. And dwelling on this is just trolling.

There is an additional book I can cite, co-written by Kyo-goku and Tada (in Japanese) that says kappa is "more like an early precursor of cryptids than a yōkai", so this is a second title cited by Prof. Foster that says kappa is a cryptid. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The concern is obviously the ‘faithful translation’ part (combined with your dubious decision to provide an edited quote above). Is this another example of a word or phrase you’re again deciding to translate to “cryptid”, or is the word “cryptid” actually used as a loan by the author in the context of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology? It looks to me that you’re looking to render ‘unidentified mystery animal’ as ‘cryptid’, which is obviously original research on your part. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, a mystery writer and self-described "yōkai researcher"? --tronvillain (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I said to drop this non-issue Bloodo. There is no need for two separate lists for UMA and cryptids that both include tsuchinoko.

As to Tronvillain's point, Kyogoku's period-piece novels require immense knowledge on yōkai, and he is considered an expert.[3] Prof. Michael Dylan Foster refers to "yōkai expert Tada Katsumi".

The well-known experts in this age group are not academics. The first person awarded a doctorate on yōkai is named Masanobu Kagawa[4] born 1969.--Kiyoweap (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Pleass come back when you’ve got reliable sources supporting your position. All you’ve provided to date can be summed up as an edited quote from one academic who compares the Japanese phrase “unidentified mystery creature” to cryptozoology’s “cryptid” and a personal desire to go wild translating the phrase as “cryptid” from there. Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of original research and synthesis. If you can muster up enough reliable sources, consider making an unidentified mystery creature article for the Japanese cultural phenomenon. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually Bloodofox, you should only come back when you have actually researched kappa or UMA and can bring to the table some source that supports you. It is not up to you to disqualify an author that a university professor refers to as a "yōkai expert". Wake up. The reality is that some people at large as well as some mainstream reporters and some yōkai experts in Japan say what I said. Wikipedia is not your fantasy world where something isn't true unless people with formal folkloristic credentials concede to it. It is a waste of time, it is trolling, and you need to stop.--Kiyoweap (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please take it up over at WP:RS, either the board or a relevant talk page there. While you’re at it, it looks like it’s also a good time for you to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

References

WP:SYNTH and WP:RS violations reintroduced

Recently Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted ([5], [6]) several sources for an entry on this list. These sources make no mention whatsoever of either the words "cryptid" or "cryptozoology". :bloodofox: (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, this edit introduces a book by Loren Coleman, which is a fringe source. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We all know your hatred of this article, but when someone asks for a source on the sentence "Unrecognized physetroid form reported from the Shetland Islands in Europe" I looked up and easily found multiple sources that supported that sentence. I properly inserted those and you reverted them. If you want more all you have to do is ask instead of throwing away good links. Goodness. As for whether it is mentioned in cryptozoological sources or as a cryptid, that's not what that section was asking. It's asking for a description. The cryptid sources really need to be in their own column. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the links you mentioned include anything to do with cryptozoology, and the last was a link to a book by Loren Coleman, which falls flatly in the fringe bin. You know better than that. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's where we have a HUGE disagreement. If we want to know if some entity is called a ghost, we use sources from people who have written books/articles on ghosts. If we want to know if something is a mythological beast we use books/articles on mythology. We don't use them in any scientific way, but we use them to show those groups consider them ghost and mythological entities. The same with cryptids. We use the press and magazines as a first choice, then other published sources. Whether it's the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or High Fin Whale... these entities are cryptids by definition and by huge groups of people. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Like anywhere else on the site, stick to WP:RS (specifically Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship) and abide by WP:OR (especially Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material), please. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There was no synthesis or original research, only you reverting an entire section of sources.... as usual. You misidentifying wikipedia violations is a big habit of yours. Whether this is a notable cryptid is of course up for debate here, but the sourcing citation was asked in the description, and was sourced for a description. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No personal attacks, no fringe sources, no synthesis, and we'll get along just fine, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No silly incorrect violation topics, no improper use of WP terms, no bullying tactics, staying on topic, and treating cryptids as we do ghosts and mythology, and all will be well. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Usually I ignore it, but a word of advice: this tendency to mockingly repeat my comments when I say something you don't like isn't helping your case. It's juvenile. As for folklore topics like ghosts and myth, we treat them like anything else: we turn to reliable sources, of which there are plenty. Ignore policy at your peril. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• note -re-added after removal by Bloodofox - You never ignore anything I say, you just spout your own baloney. I keep telling you to knock it off and you just keep doing it. So keep your warnings to yourself and stay on topic. I simply added sources that were requested and you deleted them. That's all I did and this topic popped up. Very typical and unwarranted and uncivil. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

All I did was add some sources that were requested. That's all I did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out in the edit summaries, the important thing is that it doesn't even have an article at this point. It has to have an article before other considerations even become relevant. --tronvillain (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's a different issue. My adding requested sources was not based on whether it was a legitimate candidate for the article. It probably should have an article as there is a wealth more info on the creature compared to say the Partridge Creek monster‎. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, once one exists, whether or not it should be added to this list will be a relevant question. --tronvillain (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If it's not notable, I agree it shouldn't be in here. As for the sourcing, I don't think there's been any clear answer to whether, for what, and under what conditions a cryptozoology-related source would be considered a reliable source. If it's just being used to verify that something is indeed considered a cryptid, as opposed to making any sort of scientific claim about it, then a book from a cryptozoologist published by a mainstream publisher (Penguin in this case) does not seem unreasonable. But indeed it may be moot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise reputable publishers have now and then published fringe items, which you'll find from some of the better known cryptozoologists. Then comes the question of who considers something to be a cryptid, and why Wikipedia should consider that particular cryptozoologist to have some level of authority in what is by no means a scientific field. As cryptozoology is a pseudoscience (rather vehemently) rejected by academia (and especially biologists), it's not like there's any level of formalization or organization in cryptozoology to turn to. If they're internal to the pseudoscience, they're all operating in the fringe, deep in pseudoscience-land, and all of their opinions are equally valid (e.g., it's all nonsense to academia). On the other hand, we do have a handful of sources where academics discuss what cryptozoologists consider to be cryptids. These sources do not run afoul of WP:RS, and these are the sources to which we should be turning. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Bloodofox on this matter. Fringe sources spouting nonsense should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia, and if such sources are now used in articles about ghosts and mythology, then they should be weeded out of those articles as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Rhododendrites on this matter. We aren't using it for scientific research. If there are 100s of cryptid published sources, they can certainly be used as a source to what is a cryptid. Pretty much nothing else though. Same for mythology. None of these mythology creatures are scientific so all the sources on them are fringe. Magazines that talk of Hydras or Centaurs are simply using fringe sourcing from authors of an ancient fringe topic. Because it's old we tend to be more accepting in this encyclopedia, but it's the same type thing. We would need to get rid of all the articles in the list at List of Greek mythological creatures... and note that many of those creatures have no articles so I guess they shouldn't be in that list at all, just like what is happening in the cryptid list. Now I don't advocate removing that list nor do I advocate removing the list of cryptids, but I do say treat them similarly. Make sure everyone understands they aren't science, make sure they are sourced as mythological or cryptid or ghost or zombies or whatever by whatever groups seem to judge them as such. Don't use these beasts or these sources in any real science article. What I don't really like is double standards for old vs new or for topics that some like or some hate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As you're aware, we turn to scholars for topics like folklore (and myth as a genre), just like we do for anywhere else. For folklore (like, for example, ghosts or fantastic beasts), that'd be academics active in folklore studies. For myth (a folklore genre), we simply turn to the experts: folklorists, philologists, and other academics active in related fields. There's no shortage of easily available academic sources on these topics that fully meet WP:RS requirements.

Fringe theorists don't get to define themselves on Wikipedia, whether they be cryptozoologists, ghost hunters, Young Earth creationists, Holocaust deniers, or gay conversion therapists. This is a central tenant of the project: sticking to reliable sources. And if you can't find a reliable source? It's right there in the opening paragraph of WP:RS: "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." :bloodofox: (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"If there are 100s of cryptid published sources, they can certainly be used as a source to what is a cryptid." No, no, a thousand times no. We do not allow pseudoscientific sources to define the parameters of their delusions. Our coverage of pseudoscience must be based on summarizing the highest quality reliable sources, and rigorous exclusion of references to pseudoscientific publications. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There lies the problem. We "turn to scholars" or "experts" on pseudoscience topics such as mythology and folklore. I look at all of those with as much scorn as cryptids. They are all mostly hogwash but the hogwash was written centuries ago. One person's mythology is another person's cryptids. There are zero reliable sources on the existence of centaurs so we really shouldn't have an article on them. They are the cryptids of their era. There are articles by the fringe experts that study these ancient myth hoaxes just as there are today people who write books about cryptids. It's all hooey but it's also fun. I can't help it if there are bunches of books on mythology or cryptids, but there are. I can't help it if the term cryptid has entered our dictionaries, but it has. All we can do at wikipedia is make sure that creatures that are called cryptids can be sourced to published books and magazines, or preferably to newspapers and other news media. If it isn't called a cryptid by some published source then it shouldn't be in this list... we should not synthesize the dictionary definition to include more creatures in the list. And by all means, we have to keep them all out of anything related to science articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, please take them to Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources or even Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. This isn't a place for your personal opinion on these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. HUGE DIFFERENCE. I only have a problem with hypocrisy and fairness when it comes to articles. I care about our millions of readers. And reading the "guideline" WP:RS I see no problems anyway since WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If these were academic articles, that would be a completely different ballgame. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't intend to dive into this specific discussion, but I must admit that I'm getting annoyed by the high-handed bludgeoning with one specific interpretation of "reliable" information about undiscovered species (if it has the term 'folklore' in it = good research, if it has the term 'cryptozoology' in it = bad research). Not to put too fine a point to it, at the current time all cryptozoology topics seem to be subject to hack-and-slash justice as enforced principally by the interpretation of one very active editor with a strong opinion, Bloodofox. While I generally applaud their efforts, I disagree with them acting as if the issue of cryptozoology source reliability was settled in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. The fact is, we never had a definitive, well-attended, centralized discussion about this particular issue, despite many smaller episodes and attempts (the last one I noticed was here). If there was one, please point me to it. I think it may be time to finally have a decisive RfC to settle on terms and thresholds here - what constitutes a reliable source for statements about cryptozoology? Strongly held convictions are very nice, but I think the ongoing outbreaks of conflict in related articles show that unless there are clearly defined, subject-specific guidelines, we'll never get rid of the turbulence around this subject matter. Pinging @Rhododendrites:, who also expressed interest in getting this sorted in a decisive manner (see discussion linked above).--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "if it has the term 'folklore' in it = good research, if it has the term 'cryptozoology' in it = bad research", yet this comparison sidesteps an important and central fact: cryptozoology is inarguably a textbook pseudoscience, whereas biology and folklore studies are exactly the opposite. We've long had a problem with pseudoscience dominating our coverage of "fantastic beasts" on the site, complete with the same sort of quackery, slippery sourcing, and sly ideological promotion we see at Young Earth creationism, Holocaust denialism, and elsewhere.

As anyone who has dealt with the many "living dinosaur" articles sprawled all over Wikipedia knows too well, it's long been time to reel this stuff in. Rather turn a blind eye when editors repeatedly add links to amateur cryptozoloogy websites for sources (like this beaut!), skulk away from anonymous internet threats, and stop editing these articles due to off-site rants from crackpots (all three of which I've now personally experienced), I'll continue to insist that we turn to academics who have covered this stuff over the nonsense.

Moving the site's coverage of folklore studies topics forward requires that we address the problems plaguing them. In turn, numerous articles that have long needed have been completely transformed by the efforts of myself and other patient editors, and the site continues to benefits from the spotlight (and the recent creation of resources like WP:Folklore). Now, if you're shy about turning to the experts (or "annoyed"), my next question is: why is that, exactly?:bloodofox: (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I am a zoologist; I know that almost all cryptozoology claims are wishful thinking and sensationalism; you will not find me adding or condoning factual statements that have no reliable sourcing. The problem here is that we don't have a clear definition of what constitutes reliable sourcing in cryptozoology.

I do agree with your handling almost all the way, but not all the way. That remainder being that I think that purely cryptozoological sources should be fine for statements that don't conflict with explicit findings of mainstream science - labeling something a "cryptid" in the first place, offering identity hypotheses, etc. But that doesn't matter, and I won't discuss it here or edit based on it. It does, however, rub me the wrong way if I see someone acting as a universal arbiter of sourcing without similar restraint - without the backing of a recorded consensus. What I would like is to have a WP:NCRYPTO section that clearly spells out what sources are required to make a statement of type X about a cryptozoology topic. I suggest that would also make your chosen job a lot easier, and save you a lot of verbiage :) Hence my suggestion of a dedicated RfC. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

High-finned sperm whale's old article (here) underwent a DELETE discussion, and the deicision was WP:REDIR to the cryptids list. So there is grounds based on that consensus for keeping it on the list. Fyunck(click) should not be unduly faulted for reintroducing it.

Fyunck's source being cryptozoologist Loren Coleman cant be automatically be called unreliable or fringe. Coleman has elsewhere been published in a folklore journal.[7]. And this particular book is published by Jeremy P. Tarcher, a Penguin Group imprint, as Rhododendrites pointed out, so "reputation for fact-checking" criterion should be presumed fulfilled.

Therefore entry in this Coleman and in Eberhart is sufficient to show something is considered a cryptid by cryptozoologists. Bloodofox's demand that in each case we find "handful of sources where academics discuss what cryptozoologists consider to be cryptids" is absurd and beyond "common sense". It is based on his knowledge this is difficult to find (or his fantasy that such sources should always be discoverable), not based on him genuinely doubting its veracity, and it is bad faith conduct.

He may not shut up about this artificial rule unless he is topic banned by an admin, but he should shut up about it regarding the "high-finned sperm whale" because scholar.google does turn up an academic paper that discusses it.[8]. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Grootslang

I removed the Grootslang entry. This seems to be more of a mythical creature than a cryptid. –dlthewave ☎ 16:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

And cryptids can also cover those from what I've seen. There look to be plenty of crypto sources that call it a cryptid. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PROVEIT, please find a reliable source. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks to be all over the place in cryptozoology books, so I don't know what the complaint is. This is a beast studied by cryptozoology. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, WP:PROVEIT is policy. Dig up some reliable sources, or this is going nowhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bloodofox, if it's "all over the place" then it shouldn't be difficult to provide a few examples. I looked and couldn't find any RS coverage supporting its description as a cryptid. –dlthewave ☎ 18:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Addition of numerous unreliable sources and sources that make no mention of either the word "cryptid" or "cryptozoology"

Recently @MatthewHoobin: has inserted several sources into the article. Two of these sources make no mention of either cryptozoology or the word "cryptid" (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_cryptids&type=revision&diff=853932232&oldid=853927966). For example, neither words appear on this article or this article. The other sources are low-quality content farm lists from Mental Floss (http://mentalfloss.com/article/58943/16-cryptids-might-or-might-not-exist), https://www.axs.com/ (https://www.axs.com/monster-of-the-week-the-flatwoods-monster-98688), and theportalist.com (https://theportalist.com/jersey-devil-history), both of which seemed to have used this list or old versions of connected Wikipedia articles as their primary source material (in other words, obvious WP:RS fail). I've now removed this material, only for the user to edit-war for its return, and left a comment on his talk page to no response. Every single one of these references fails WP:FRIND and needs to go. What gives? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The references you mention for the Flatwoods monster were not meant as support for its status as a supposed cryptid, but rather as justification for including "the Green Monster" and "Braxxie" as some of the entity's other names. I've never heard anyone complain about Mental Floss or AXS, but alright. While I don't agree nor disagree with your statement about their "low quality", I would appreciate it if you would demonstrate that claim. For instance, I'm not entirely sure why you say "yikes" in response to AXS. Perhaps that source has some sort of infamous history that I am unaware of. I've already removed both references to The Portalist per your objections.

I'm rather miffed to be accused of edit warring after engaging in a single act of reversion, which I only did because I'm using a mobile device, and as such, I wanted to save my work without losing it. Furthermore (and while the following points wouldn't necessarily exempt someone from being labelled an edit warrior, I would like to note them nonetheless), I explained my reasoning in each edit summary and hardly came close to violating the three-revert rule. I apologise for not responding to your comment on my talk page in the few minutes between that posting and the posting on this talk page. I can appreciate your concern for the quality of the article. –Matthew - (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

These sites are content farms that don't meet WP:FRIND. We're dealing with pseudoscience here (see WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:FRINGE), and a freelancer with no notable background on these topics paid to slap something together for these sites to generate traffic does not a reliable source make. What we need are academics discussing this fringe material, and there's plenty of it out there, as you can see on our cryptozoology article. All of this stuff has to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Lack of sources

@Bloodofox: Given that the vast majority of the cryptids listed in this article do not have sources (reliable or otherwise) to support them, why are they listed? Would it not be preferable to only list cryptids with at least one reliable source to back up their status as such? –Matthew - (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Matthew, you raise an important point. Since this article is about a pseudoscience (and one notorious for deception, at that), everything we do with this article has to meet WP:PROFRINGE, WP:FRIND, and WP:ONEWAY. Outside of this article, we've been making huge strides in getting related articles in order. For example, cryptozoology is now fully referenced to reliable sources and major articles in the orbit of the topic have been receiving rewrites. Additionally, we now have WP:Folklore, something the project lacked until this year.

Here's the thing about this list, though: as has now been pointed out numerous times and as is mentioned in basically every academic overview of the topic, every critter in the folklore record or in the fossil record has been said to be or could be proclaimed to be a cryptid by a random internet cryptozoologist. Cryptozoology has no authorities and no criteria for inclusion, and the opinion of its "founders" is just as valid as a drive-by IP editor's.

That said, notability is a different matter. The reality is that cryptozoologists focus on a handful of fabulous beasts. This wouldn't make for much of a list and is in fact already covered to some extent over at cryptozoology. In my opinion, we'd be a lot better off just redirecting this list to cryptozoology and discussing the critters that cryptozoologists fixate on the most (each of which receive a chapter in Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science. As it stands, this article is a pro-fringe fossil. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I agree. I think that List of cryptids should be merged into Cryptozoology. I feel that the "Definition" section, along with perhaps the "Eberhart's classification" subsection (although this may place undue weight on Eberhart's authority), should be integrated into the Cryptozoology article. Similarly, this list of cryptids can be limited to a section on the Cryptozoology page, under a heading along the lines of "List of notable cryptids" or "Selected list of cryptids". –Matthew - (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

We do not need sources for them being Cryptids here, only on their parent article, and a move or merge discussion is separate from that. So I oppose any suggestion made here that is not about sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

There should absolutely be sources for the creatures listed. Cryptozoology sources are perfectly fine for what is considered a cryptid. But if even Crypto-subject books don't list it as such, the creature has no business being here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You're well aware of WP:FRIND and WP:PROFRINGE at this point. If you've got a problem with WP:FRINGE more generally, I recommend that you strike up a thread there. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Well aware exactly what it says. No problems at all. And you should be aware of it now by now too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

That's curious, as WP:FRINGE rather directly contradicts your claims that we should be using fringe sources to source fringe claims ("Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources", and so forth). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

MOS disagrees with you, and others have told you that like Ghost books are fine for names of Ghosts, Mythology books are fine for Mythological creatures, and Crptozoology books are fine for names of cryptids. This has been pointed out to you before. Those are all pseudosciences so we can't use those books for anything science related, they are fantasy stuff whether it's Hydras or Balrogs or Lake monsters. Things can be non-reliable for science yet reliable for names, just as newspapers are unreliable for tennis player name spelling but not for player wins and losses. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If by "others" you mean you, I suppose. However, as pretty explicitly stated in WP:FRIND, we don't turn to fringe sources for data on fringe theories. They're simply not reliable sources for their claims. Again, you seem to be making this up as you go along or simply have a fundamental disagreement with WP:FRINGE. We turn to experts, which when it comes to ghosts and myth, would be folklorists or other academics in other related fields (usually falling somewhere in the anthropology spectrum). It's not particularly valid to compare this material to, say, articles on tennis matches. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Experts on other fringe topics like ghosts and myths? Funny. It should work both ways or no ways. get rid of all fringe topics like myths, folklore, ghosts, Crptozoology, or keep them all (but keep them all out of anything science related since they are all fantasy stuff to begin with.) You seem to have a problem about this particular pseudoscience. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"We do not need sources for them being Cryptids here, only on their parent article"—where do you get that idea? And if that somehow is the case, most of these entries need to go, as no WP:FRIND sources are out there. The reality is that cryptozoologists have historically focus on several entities from the folklore record that they deem to be "cryptids", and that's what reliable sources discussing the matter reflect. This article as it exists is classic WP:PROFRINGE. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a list, as such we do not need to source entries, only have entries that have articles. It is not pro |Fonge, as it makes no claims to veracity.Slatersteven (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

And so what happens if the source article does not make the claim that the list does? And what happens when there's no WP:FRIND source that makes the claim? Looks to me that that's definitely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on the part of an editor for a fringe claim. How exactly is that not clearly WP:PROFRINGE? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

We remove it if the parent article does not call it a cryptiod (that is what I thought we were doing already, I am sure this has been discussed before). Also we do not haew to go with sources that make a claim, only that repeat it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be nearly every entry on this list, you realize. You're lobbying for inclusion based on sources that simply don't exist. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Lets have the policy quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Relevant manual of style links would be MOS:LEADFORALIST to define a clear inclusion criteria, then WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:LISTVERIFY. So we could select the criteria and make the lead clear, then ensure that the article respects it (if the list article is retained, of course)... —PaleoNeonate – 09:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

AS far as I can tell we do have a clear criteria for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a list, as such we do not need to source entries, only have entries that have articles. This is valid criteria and I agree that current article usage fits this, but I still don't see clearly in the lead that only entries with articles should be included (we could add that as necessary if it's unclear). —PaleoNeonate – 10:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"This is a list of cryptids (from the Greek κρύπτω, krypto, meaning "hide" or "hidden") notable within cryptozoology," I do not see that as unambiguous.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A lit of cryptids... according to who? Again, we lack WP:FRIND sources for these claims because reliable sources on these entries do not exist. This list is a pulled out of air to promote a pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It makes it clear in the lead this is a pseudoscience, there is no promotion Any mopre then a list of characters in lord of the rongs is claiming they are real people..Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles"

WP:FRIND rather explicitly states that "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles". All but a handful of these entries can be backed up with sources from reliable sources, specifically academics discussing the subculture and pseudoscience of cryptozoology. Yet somehow these entities are still on this list. What we're left with is a pile of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that also happens to be WP:PROFRINGE. What gives? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Not again BoF. We've been through this before... (sighs)--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rather than lobbying off-site at cryptozoology forums and making general complaints about this particular pseudoscience receiving scrutiny (increased scrutiny that has now yielded numerous article rewrites), you could also produce sources that meet WP:FRIND. That would do a lot of good here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of Cryptids, not the theory of everything. FRIND is usually about specific "theories". We just have to be careful here so "not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus." We have articles on things like Balrogs... this is simply a list of creatures known to be called cryptids in published works. Some will be in newsprint and some will be in crypto books. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles" is about as clear as it gets. To the point: If you can't produce a reliable source, then we don't have anything to talk about. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That's extrapolating, but I've already said... there should be sources for these beasts. If it doesn't describe them as a crptid, they shouldn't be here at all. On that we can agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have stated this before several times. What we are doing here and on other Cryptozoology/Paranormal articles is reporting information. Aside from blogs/forum posts which should not be included, we are not reporting that the creature or entity in question is real or fake. Rather we are just reporting the info we are given in an encyclopedic tone that fits with Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards. As encyclopedias are usually neutral in tone and don't take sides I find that even the controversial topics should still be written in that neutral tone. If there are more sources coming from believers of whatever it is that's fine, if there are more sources from detractors that's fine too. The main thing is that we should strive to stay neutral and not lean on either side, regardless of ones personal views which seems hard for some people including myself. The misconception here is that if the info is taken from a sources that advocates for controversial topics that automatically makes them blacklisted, ONLY if the source is non-professional should this happen. I've also noticed that there is a misconception on whether or not something should be classified as "cryptid" if the source doesn't stated that. Cryptozoology is the study of mysterious/unidentified animals, thus it doesn't matter as long as the source lists it as mysterious/unidentified.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If a source doesn't meet WP:RS and, in this case, also WP:FRINGE, then it doesn't go on the site. That's not optional. Whether you're willing to accept it or not, cryptozoology is straightforwardly classified as a pseudoscience by the academic world, which our article on the topic reflects. If you'd like to contribute, please abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you can't abide by that, you're going to find your material removed or reverted. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That is where you keep going off track. If it's a published book on cryptozoology and it names a beast as such, it belongs here. Period! Just as books on mythology, ghosts, Tolkien, get used as sources for their creatures. This has been told to you many times. We just have to make sure this is not labeled as science in any way shape or form. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, WP:FRINGE: we don't source fringe claims to fringe authors. As experts on the topic make clear, fringe advocates are simply not reliable, cryptozoologists in particular. I get that you and the rest of the Wikipedia cryptozoology faction find this a little tough to digest, but that's how it works around here. If you can't find a reliable source for a claim, it's gone: WP:PROVEIT and any number of other guidelines make that pretty clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not an article it is a list. And yes we do source to fringe authors we just cannot say what they say is true or give it more weight then non fringe authors. And independent and Fringe do not mean the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. It should be treated as we do other lists like List of esoteric healing articles, List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments, List of Nirvana concerts, List of Joan Baez concerts, List of tennis umpires, List of Middle-earth animals, List of ghosts, List of legendary creatures in Hindu mythology, and on and on and on. This list seems to be singled out for some reason. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Produce the WP:FRIND sources somewhere and then we can talk about the list. At the end of the day, you're both going to have to produce reliable, independent sources, and at this point it's quite obvious that you're well aware that they don't exist. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As this does not describe a fringe theory, it is a list of beliefs (and does not make any claims about their accuracy) fringe does not apply. And again this is not an article, it is a list and different rules apply.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As you know, the majority of articles for the items on this list contain neither references nor mention of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology or the term cryptid. In turn, their inclusion on this list is WP:OR. Cryptozoology is most certainly fringe, and most certainly a pseudoscience, so I don't know what you're getting at there. What's with all this attempting to wiggle around finding reliable sources? :bloodofox: (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What I am getting at is this is a list (not an article) so the same rules do not apply. I also ask you to not comment on users. Now if you have any creatures that are not called crytpids in the parent articles then name them here and we can determine if they are called crytids in any sources (note there is no requirement for us to use only "academic" sources, as long as we do not claim it as a fact but only an opinion).Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the post you just made, we're done here. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)