This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of cryptids article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
Stephen Harrison (February 13, 2023). "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot". Slate (magazine). Retrieved February 15, 2023. To sum up, it seems to me that the two sides of Wikipedia's Never-Ending Cryptozoological War could both stand to make some concessions. First, if a reputable publisher describes an entity as a "cryptid," then Wikipedia should classify it within its cryptid category. (Sorry, Bloodofox.) This relaxed admission standard does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia's list of cryptids needs to jump to the previous 300 entries—that doesn't really serve readers, either.
The contents of the Cryptid page were merged into List of cryptids on September 23 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2016. The result of the discussion was Snow Keep.
This list has always been a disaster, propped up by nothing that can withstand a close look. It has always attracted editors with no background in folklore studies who desire to present "sightings" of "monsters" as 'real' (or are simply eager to believe in hoaxes). However, now we're seeing a wave insertions of articles that make no mention whatsoever of the words or "cryptid" or "cryptozoology" inserted into the article, a case of pure WP:SYNTH (like this one). As this will always be the case here, it's probably time to discuss whether we should have this pointless article at all again. I note also that articles written in a pro-fringe manner like this one are also popping up again. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is worse than useless, and causes no end of trouble and time-wasting for editors who could better spend their time on resepectable articles. Carlstak (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the list is pretty good and a lot of progress has been made on citing scientific papers or well researched books rather than vice articles like it was before. If there are issues with individual pages or new additions that aren't sourced properly we can just delete them.
If anything I think the focus should be more on some of the individual pages contained in this list. There may be more balanced scientific skeptical analysis of the plausibility of these cryptids we could add, if we want to counter fringe narratives KanyeWestDropout (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list is garbage and consists of a bunch of extremely low-quality sources and now it also contains sources that don't even mention cryptozoology. I get that this is perfectly fine with our fringe-aligned editors but this is a far cry from WP:RS. We need secondary sources from experts, not random news reports using the pseudoscientific word "cryptid". :bloodofox: (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that wanting to delete this page and similar Cryptozoology pages for being fringe or discussing it are really bad reasons. With this logic, pages like Infowars, Alex Jones, PragerU, CitizenGO, LGBT-chemical conspiracy theory, PIzzagate, QAnon, and Dead Internet theory should be removed as well. In my opinion, this list is fine and isn't filled with fictional characters, critically endangered, possibly extinct species, popular extinct species, and folklore and mythological entities, unlike some of the non-English versions of this list. It really seems like bloodofox wants to say "I don't like or agree with it, therefore it should be deleted" without saying it. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive! A small, brave group of editors have successfully defended this article from every attempt to improve, clarify, and focus it to the point that it is now in such bad shape that it needs to be deleted. Bravo! Revert wars, personal attacks, sealioning, gish gallops -- your campaign has been faultless. I quit the project because of your efforts, and am only back to offer my heartfelt congradulations on your endgame. Hats off to the haters freedom fighters: sticking with a pogrom so diligently for so long is hard, especially when the only goal is to remove an entire area of knowledge from an encyclopedia just because you don't like it. Truly masterful and an inspiration to others whose stated goal (check :bloodofox's user page, top, in bold italics) is the elimination of the entirety of Wikipedia by denying it funding unless the parent, Wikimedia, bows to your every whim. Be sure to keep us posted for your next biblioclastic jihad. Cheers! Last1in (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to assume good faith with this one especially since almost every true WP:RS on the topic of cryptozoology is one I've provided. But first, here's a reminder that we have extensive articles about fringe topics when we have solid non-fringe sources (WP:RS) discussing them. In fact, I have personally written extensively about fringe topics for many years here and I am easily the most prolific editor on the site on the topic of cryptozoology and numerous other fringe and related topics. Second, the Wikimedia Foundation is a separate entity from Wikipedia itself, and indeed I do feel that the plug needs to be pulled on it for numerous reasons (example), but that is an entirely different topic than what we're discussing here. In the future, I suggest you spend less time wasting our time on talk pages with ill-informed little rants like these that do little than reveal how ill-informed you are on these matters and instead spend more time becoming more familiar with the topics you want to write about. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over this whole thread and reviewing my own clashes with BloodofFox, it is pretty obvious the amount of hate and disdain they and many others have for this sort of subject. While the topic is fringe, and a lot of how we can build these sorts of articles are frustratingly constrained (me being a completionist who loves information I would love to see the wealth of information of both arguments through the eyes of reliable sources). That being said, this article has come a long way from its messy state, and while it still needs improvement it is slowly getting there. If there are issues with what is in the article, it should be put to a discussion and not the increasingly aggressive arguement it is devolving into. We all must strive to put our own feelings on the subjects on here aside to not reinterperet or push an agenda, this is Wikipiedia and not a debate thread.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will always be high-maintenance, and there will always be disputes about the content, with good-faith but gullible or naive enthusiasts, not to mention the occasional fraudster, taking to the talk page demanding to know why their trivial mention of a locally famous "monster" was reverted. The place to put information about these fantasy creatures is in their respective articles, where they can be discussed in more detail anyway. This article isn't needed. Carlstak (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article is a total waste of all of our times, except for those who want to promote the subculture. In reality, anything notable here is either already handled at cryptozoology or could be added there. Cryptozoologists typically — historically and otherwise — fixate on a handful of purported creatures, full stop. We've allowed fringe subculture adherents to waste enough of our time here. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptozoologists typically — historically and otherwise — fixate on a handful of purported creatures, full stop
It's a common observation made by scholars: Those "cryptids" are the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and, early on, the "abominable snowman" (which itself gave birth to the concept of "big foot" in American pop culture, as well as a handful of others. Young Earth creationist cryptozoologists have their own fixations. You'd know this if you spent more time reading about the subject, such as in Prothero's book. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're not hear to listen to fringe-pushing nonsense and we're not here to listen to editors claiming they've read something they haven't. Your contributions to date, or lack thereof, like your friend below, fall well under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be rude and make baseless personal attacks. I've been working to add academic and quality sources to this page for awhile now and I've complied with the discussed requirements for citations on the page. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is based on personal and biased views. The topic, though controversial, is still within the confines of Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards whether that is liked or not. MYCETEAE has brought this list far from the mess that it used to be, and though its still needing word, it is slowly getting where it needs to be. Academic sources, and those vetted by Wikipedia are the ones that should be used and that is what some recent edits are attempting to do from my observations. No need for name-calling. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. Of course it's biased, every opinion is "biased" in one way or another. Amazing how many people on WP and social media throw the word "biased" around to try to dismiss dissent. Half the time the commentator will cry "that's bias", using the word as an adjective when they mean to say it's "biased", because they actually don't know better. I'm not trying to impose my preference, and I can't anyway. Namecalling? Odd that you seem to assume I'm talking about present company. The reference to "good-faith but gullible or naive enthusiasts not to mention the occasional fraudster" is obviously generic, and accurately characterizes many of the respondents on this page over the years. Carlstak (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlstak Indeed, it does. Opinion is free, though it tends to get in the way of neutral edits on this site. I have seen some users on either side making vandalistic edits on these sorts of topics, and some have gone far as to harass people. As difficult as it may be, this topic is notable and reportable by Wikipiedia's standards so long as it is done by the standards and not bent in any direction. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see you contribute a single useful thing to these articles. When and if you do so, you'll be welcome to discuss it. In the meantime, you're just wasting our time and your own. We're not here to pander to any subculture, pseudoscientific or not. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see an example of "pandering", and the only waste of time I see is the antagonistic nature of your discussions with people on this topic and your treatment of them as well, Fox. If we can put opinions and emotions aside, we might actually have a healthy discussion that could benefit to all projects. There is no wasting anyone's time trying to find the best way of tackling these articles. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me set the stage here for you: Myself and a few others demand that editors in fringe spaces comply with WP:RS. Myself and a few other editors provide every single WP:RS. We're also the ones removing the sources that do not comply with WP:RS. Meanwhile, editors like yourself park themselves on related talk pages and spend their time complaining about who knows what, apparently frustrated that Wikipedia has source quality requirements on fringe topic pages. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? And, yes, you might ask yourself: Exactly what are you contributing? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloodofox I do not appreciate you making accusations about me. Not once have I seen you treating any editors of this topic with anything but contempt and anger, instead of trying to calmly guide even the misguided ones from making poor edits. It has to stop. I did not come here to complain, merely to prevent the discussion from devolving into unnecessary aggression as it so easily does. Making sure sources align with Wikipiedia's standards is one thing, I can understand the frustration of things not being fixed to the standards set here. The methods by which you have done so provoke nothing but conflict and not any sort of resolution. This is the last comment, as I already see this discussion has devolved into something that has no purpose on this site. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that in the past, this cryptozoologist editor has attempted to lobby off-site "help" from other cryptozoologists on cryptozoology websites (one example), which is something we should be keeping an eye out for with this editor in particular and something our fringe articles in general suffer from. Some of the accounts who haunt these talk pages and constantly harass myself and others actually working on these pages likely stem from this editor's efforts. This is not OK: see WP:MEATPUPPET. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, forgot about that, couldn't be more clear-cut. No wonder my reference to "gullible or naive enthusiasts" was taken personally. "The Sad Fate"—good lord, that's comical. Definitely something to watch out for in these articles. Carlstak (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of harassing you is a very untrue statement. We have debated on some occasions, I did reach out to offer assistance with some of your own projects as a proverbial olive branch. I have no disdain for anyone on this site, but I do not tolerate how people of this topic have been treated by you. Placing the blame of you being harassed by other users on me is very close to WP:PA, and I previously stated, I do not hold ill will nor operate like that. Conflict of this nature accomplishes nothing, which was why we need to find a common ground that benefits the site and sticks to the guidelines. Call me a "radical enthusiast" or tin hat, I am merely fascinated by information as the topic is rich with history and potential on this site. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've caused enough problems here and, frankly, you should be outright permanently topic banned: not only have you attempted to lobby your fellow cryptozoologists off site but you've also contributed nothing but wasting our time on talk pages related to these topics. Your presence here fall squarely under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I suggest you show yourself out. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at ANI about off-site lobbying and WP:MEATPUPPETs regarding this article
The opening paragraph was recently edited to contain a lot more information on what the scientific consensus on cryptozoology is. I think that this fits the specific cryptozoology page, but it's too long for the list of cryptids. Instead, would an opening discussing what scientists think about some of the more popular cryptids fit better instead? Perhaps discussing lack of evidence, biological implausibility, etc. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I have not seen an article on Cryptozoology itself, maybe if there is enough reliable information it can have its own article. I have recently seen some fringe article, which are very well crafted, promoted to FA because of how the editor has structured them within the confines of Wikipedia. Then again, I am not quite sure. I do agree, the paragraph is long and needs some trimming. Not sure the best response though. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edited) Looking over some of the citations, plenty of them need to be reformatted or replaced with better ones. I did notice recent citations by bloodoffox, but looking over them I am not sure what kind of format they are adhering to and they do not give the exact work they are citing (maybe have it as a note?). My thoughts are having citations in an sfn format (i tend to use it a lot as it is very simple and direct). Just wanted to see what others think of that kind of format change for citations.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reftag format is in dominant use here, and per WP:REFVAR, the article should stick to that. Refs like "Shermer (2003: 27)" and "Dash (2000)" needs to be properly written to be of any use to anybody. Reftag-refs are easy to re-use when they are named, both in source editor and VE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible that after all these years, this editor who haunts this talk page and has much to say, doesn't know that WP has an article on cryptozoology? He says here above, "Considering I have not seen an article on Cryptozoology itself..." and in an edit summary, "since Cryptozoology does not have its own article, at least that I know of...". The article was created in 2001. Bizarre. Carlstak (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am humble to admit that not all-knowing, and I am not fully involved with the project as I had originally planned to be. This topic requires more extensive and exhaustive research, and the sources deemed acceptable are not as interesting to me as the other information out there. Film and other articles provide more sources for me to use than controversial topics and I had originally planned on expanding Cryptozoology articles with that same method. Perviously mentioned reasons for not doing as much as I wanted to have regulated me to giving advice here and there. I am unsure what the point of your reply was. Can you explain it?Paleface Jack (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus has always been to keep this article, as such the real issue is working on it to fit the standards set by this site (source, writing, and the like). As for me not knowing, that was already explained above. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it bears emphasizing that, incredibly, all this time this user didn't read our cryptozoology article, the main subject of the primary article, because the user thought it did not exist. Yes, throughout all those comments and even while lobbying other users on cryptozoology forums off-site. A new for me on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man. Quote: "I am unsure what the point of your reply was. Can you explain it?" Surely you jest. The article was created on 28 October 2001, over 23 years ago, and you, with a special interest in the subject, who have been editing WP with this account since 2014, have frequently bemoaned the fact that "While most material is sadly not accepted here due to the fringe blanket", or something similar, for years. You've even gone so far as to say, "...cryptozoology is still a topic and one we as editors have a duty to enable within the elaborate and sometimes undue confines."
One would think that you'd also consider it a "duty" to check to see if there was an article on the subject before commenting on it so voluminously on this page, which has cryptozoology linked at the top, twice! How could an editor with your declared point of view be so incurious as to even look for it? Utterly amazing. Carlstak (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why must these conversations always end in personal attacks and slander? The original reply was in agreement that the lead paragraph was long, and I have stated my reasons for the error of not knowing about the Cryptozoology article. That article has a large list of issues with prose, structure, and citations. The main reason for my reply to this discussion was to help move everything forward in crafting a better lead for THIS article, not have it devolve. Yes, we do have a duty to give articles the best treatment they deserve and I have already admitted my error, no one if perfect, constantly bringing that up or other incidents in the past as a "drop mic" moment is unnecceary. Please refrain from making personal attacks and accusations, it is not the topic of this thread and has no place being here.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is your responsibility to inform yourself on a subject before wasting the time of other editors on this talk page. Much of the discussion about this article centers on the fact that we already have an expansive and well-referenced cryptozoology article. Everything you've said here before now has been without knowledge of this fact, rendering it all pointless and, in my opinion, a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first words, Paleface Jack, in reply to the OP of this thread were, "Considering I have not seen an article on Cryptozoology itself, maybe if there is enough reliable information it can have its own article." It's not out of line to point out the incongruity and absurdity of that statement. You've found time for all these years to challenge editors trying to protect the integrity of the article from ceaseless injections of incompetently written content and fringe sources, and only now we find out that you didn't even know the main article existed. It does call into question just what exactly is your purpose here. Carlstak (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you had looked over those conversations, there was never an intent to challenge anyones integrity. I keep saying to move forward and stop bringing up past mistakes or even me not knowing about the article on cryptozoology. I have admitted that mistake, and bringing all these mistakes up like they are proof of malicious intent is unnecessary. My original reply was about the original thread, issues with the lead section. We should focus on that instead of getting off topic. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the lead on this article, my only thought would be to remove Many scientists have criticized the plausibility of cryptids due to lack of physical evidence likely misidentifications and misinterpretation of stories from folklore and just leave the first paragraph at the previous sentence, as to avoid repetition and help with the overall flow. The second paragraph does not seem to have any relevance as the lead is supposed to be an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. Not entirely sure what a good alternative to that would be though. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There would be the question as to whether they have an accurate comprehension of the concept of a cryptid. While the article does use the word cryptid to describe not-deer, I didn't notice any suggestion that not-deer represent an unknown species or population. It strikes me as a combination of urban\\\\\rural legend/tall tale, and sightings of sick deer. While that is the sort of thing that fringe cryptozoologists tend to grab and run with no evidence was presented that any actually have. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source calls something a cryptid we don't get to decide that they aren't actually correct. That's WP:OR. Plus, "cryptozoologists" aren't a real authoritative discipline because cryptozoology is a psuedoscience with no qualifications and anyone can be a cryptozoologist if they call themselves one. The fact that people are referring to something as a cryptid means that it is a cryptid. Many so-called cryptids are folkloric or urban legends. Cryptids aren't all necessarily meant to be an unknown species or population; for example, Mothman is commonly described as a single entity and a supernatural harbinger of destruction. Similarly, there's only one supposed Loch Ness Monster and only one supposed Jersey Devil. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
