Talk:Sea monk

Untitled

"Sea monk" and "sea bishop" is quite clear Reformation satire on Catholic Church. Cheers.

Not so clear given their history! They were never used as such by any protestant writer I know of.

Please could someone provide a direct translation of "umi bozu"? Also a reference to the oriental material would be good.

I edited fish(?) to marine animal for the time being.Wiz kid

Why the above edit??? Paxton & Holland translated the primary sources that referred to it as a "fish" (I am guessing latin: pisces) so unless you know better (i.e. cite the original documents describing the sea monk) why the change? Tullimonstrum 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are the same person as User:138.251.202.128, who committed a similar reversion on this article. I wish that you would not revert my attempts to improve the readability of this article.

For example: Using a latinate such as "e.g." within parentheses does not lend itself to easy reading by an interested and casual reader. I for one could not at first understand the meaning of the bit in parentheses, which is apparently citing both Steenstrup and Ellis in Harvard reference fashion. Also, referring to researchers by last name only may be de rigeur in scientific papers, but again does not capture the mind of the average reader.

If you feel that something is misrepresented in rewording the same claims in a colloquial tone, please make clear what it is. KWH 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine and I don't want to quibble about style (but "known by some" in an encyclopedia?) but it is the misrepresentation of the sources that I was complaining about (albeit no so much of a problem this time around). Surely you should take a look at them before correcting the text? I think that it is vital that wikipedia articles properly cite source material otherwise given its wiki nature it becomes useless as a resource. For example according to P & H, Steenstrup used *texts* and drawings from a number of sources to reach his conclusions. This generality was covered in the original edit it isn't in the current edit. Similarly they reckoned it dated from 1546 not "around" 1546 but "almost certainly" 1546. The two terms are not synonymous (I appreciate you have not edited it this time around). Another point is that citing the Steenstrup reference in the text as 1855 in Harvard style prevents falling into an error which the colloquial style falls into. Whilst Steenstrup wrote up his stuff in 1855 he presumably might have had the idea earlier (there is evidence he did apparently). Now this subtlety is too much for an encyclopedic article so just citing the 1855 paper covers all the vagueness. Pedantry maybe but words may be phrased in a certain way to convey a specific subtle meaning from the source material. Editing should be done in the light of this. 138.251.202.72 09:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Almost certainly"

"The sea monk (also monk-fish or monkfish) was a sea creature found off the eastern coast of the Danish island of Zealand, almost certainly in 1546." Can we really say the date was "almost certainly" 1546? How certain can we be that this critter was ever actually found? 62.172.108.24 (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Look at the supplied ref for a rationale. Seems quite plausible to me.Tullimonstrum (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Merging with sea bishop

Can do but they are not the same thing.Tullimonstrum (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because one poem mentions both of them, it doesn't mean they should be in one article. They both could be mentioned at Merman, but they need to stay in different articles. The fact that that poem mentions both of them as separate animals and the descriptions are different backs this up.

Unless a good reason for merging the articles is given, the articles should stay separate and the merge templates should be removed. Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of recent edits

On February 27, I made a series of edits in an attempt to improve this article. Specifically, I added section headings (pursuant to the maintenance tag at the top of the article) and I clarified that this was likely an angel shark (as the Paxton and Holland article suggests). However, my edits were reverted earlier today by Dimadick. Per WP:BRD, I am opening this discussion so that we can talk about these recent changes further. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not notice your edits. I noticed that User:Bloodofox went through this article in his recent campaign to delete material without discussing anything. If you want to reinsert your edits, go ahead. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Thanks for the follow up. I'll go ahead and re-insert the edits I made. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy just wikistalked me all over Wikipedia, reverting my edits without any discussion on his part. Classic wikistalking. He apparently hasn't bothered to check any of what he's reverted, so I wouldn't thank him too much. In this case, the focus on cryptozoology is straightforward WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I re-instated various bits and bobs which had been edited out as they were not found in the quoted sources. I also re-instated Heuvelmans' opinions as to a walrus identity. He was the most prominent person to have commentated on the sea monk and it is somewhat unclear to me why his opinions should be discounted just because he was a cryptozoologist.Tullimonstrum (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)→

Yeah, Bloodofox just threw that out again without discussion, and I reinserted it. This waving-about of WP:UNDUE whenever he sees any whiff of the term "cryptozoology" is an over-reaction. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Here you have the opinion of a zoologist beside that of a cryptozoologist, science and a pseudoscience, presented as equals. Specifically: " Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." Now, would you feel the same about a geologist and a Young Earth creationist's opinions side by side? That's exactly what's happening here. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If the claim was reasonable and well-reasoned and the YEC had the required qualifications, then they would be absolutely welcome to proclaim on geological topics. There is nothing unreasonable, unlikely or far-fetched about the walrus hypothesis. Heuvelmans was also a zoologist, and being strongly identified with cryptozoology does not make every one of hist statements discountable. Apart from that, this is one of those cases where I'm of the strong opinion that a cryptozoology source is perfecly acceptable for the statement, because it is not in contradiction to other findings (i.e., walrus have in rare instances straid this far). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m getting the impression that you’re making this up as you go along, going with gut instinct over policy and guideline, and curiously siding with the pseudoscience wherever possible. As you'll quickly discover if you look into it, young earth creationists have no place on Wikipedia's geology articles. This is due to a plethora of policies and guidelines developed to keep pseudoscience proponents from turning the platform into a vehicle for their ideals. In Heuvalmann's case, he's identified here first and foremost here as a cryptozoologist, which is straightforward pseudoscience. However, he was indeed also a zoologist. Now, since you say you have the work in question, is this work explicitly identified by Heuvalmans as a cryptozoology piece or did this see any kind of peer-review in an academic outlet? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be making this up as you go along, siding with the pseudoscience wherever possible. - Oh stuff it. I hardly edit cryptozoology or other pseudoscience articles because they are rank battlegrounds of zealots - I put in ten years as one myself on the JREF boards and am somewhat over the GREATWRONGS aspect by now. The only reason I am engaging in these particular instances is because I agree with the mission of keeping wild cryptozoology speculation out of Wikipedia, and I strongly dislike seeing people go overboard in the course of that mission.

The source is a popular book on cryptozoology. I propose that for this statement that does not matter, because the statement is reasonable, in agreement with mainstream findings, and made by a qualified professional. You state that whatever statement comes from Heuvelmans is directly discountable because he is a convicted cryptozoologist. That's nice and easy, but it's also lazy, and I disagree with applying the approach in spades wherever possible. And this here really is as tame an example as can be found.

Related. Would you be willing to come have a preliminary discussion, e.g. at the Pump, with the aim of developing an RfC that once and for all clears up the notability and sourcing requirements for cryptozoology? Would have to wait a couple weeks because I'm not reliably online these days, but I think it needs doing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

While Heuvelman's cryptozoology stuff is rejected in academia (he founded a pseudoscience, after all), his zoology stuff might be more embraced by academia, which is why I ask. He's not the first academic to be in this position (I can think of several), and not all of his work is to be discounted because some of it is pseudoscience. However, looking into this particular work, it does appear to fall squarely into the category of cryptozoology, and therefore squarely into the category of pseudoscience. It also seems to only receive mention in other cryptozoology texts. Regardless, I insist that WP:UNDUE applies here, and that you reconsider placing zoology next to cryptozoology texts because you personally judge it to be a "tame" example.

As for an RfC, I don't think it's necessary. The policies are all already in place. Cryptozoology is no exception. This is not the first time pseudoscience proponents have fought to keep Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for their cause, and these articles are improving significantly now that they're getting attention from editors such as myself. If you want to help clean up Wikipedia's coverage of these topics, then I invite you to get involved. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I maintain that there is no case of WP:UNDUE here because this is not "mainstream vs minority" - this is three (or four) equally reasonable, disparate, informed guesses by zoologists, one of which happens to have published his example in a cryptozoology book. I would appreciate it if we could at least wait for a bit to see if other input arrives.

Too bad re RfC; I think your feeling of righteousness is getting in the way of clearing out future conflicts. I'll see what I can get up to. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but when an editor takes the time to clear an article of Young Earth creationist claims about dinosaurs and anti-evolution amateur websites and replace them with academic references, I'd hardly describe that as a "feeling of righteousness". No, the cryptozoologists don't like it — they're losing their platform. If you in fact want to see these articles improve, as you claim, I suggest you roll up your editing sleeves and get to it like the rest of us. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's righteousness - Us vs Them. Nothing wrong with that, it's what drives much good effort here, but when it prevents you from working towards codification and clarification and avoiding screens of talk page discussion (as one single clear guideline would), I don't think it's helpful. Whatever, this isn't exactly productive either :/ I'll go do some editing... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Claims should be considered on their individual merits, Bloodofox. Paxton and Holland mention Heuvelmans' opinion in their paper. They disagreed with it but they did not reckon it was unreasonable and unscientific. It is hardly the same as young earth creationism in a geology page. Real scientists don't have your Manichean view of hypotheses and will accept good ideas wherever they come from.Tullimonstrum (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Academics generally ignore pseudosciences and Wikipedia has developed clear guidelines for keeping out attempts at false balance like this (WP:False balance). Notable exceptions occur when the pseudoscience is itself a subject of study. Looking at your edit history, you appear to singularly focus on cryptozoology apologetics and attempting to claim that cryptozoology isn't a pseudoscience. I get it, but you're going to need to acknowledge Wikipedia's approach to pseudoscience or you're just going to keep running into a guideline and policy wall. Now, were this some of Heuvalmans's work in the area of zoology, we could just leave it as it was, but Heuvalmans's pseudoscience work requires someone exterior to the pseudoscience to contextualize it (Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Independent_sources). In this case, Paxton and Holland may suffice. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't ignore sources if they have a reasonable argument, no matter what the origin. Doing the contrary would be bad scholarship. The bizarre thing about your approach to this is that in this case Heuvelmans claim was not cryptozoological, he was not invoking an unknown species, he was giving a prosaic conservative explanation. There is no "balance" issue here. This is why your extreme dualism about authors allegiance makes no sense and is completely contrary to academic practise. I really would try actually reading some academic cryptozoology (I've given dois elsewhere), you might be surprised.Tullimonstrum (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

First, enough with the "blood pressure" remarks. If you need to resort to tactics like that, we don't have anything to discuss.

Second, yes, we do "ignore sources" when they're from pseudoscience corners: we do not provide false balance for pseudoscience. Again, there are plenty of reasons why academia rejects cryptozoology. As for your claims, I'm still waiting for examples of institutional support for the pseudoscience, this so-called "academic cryptozoology" you keep mentioning. Where is it one can get a cryptozoology certificate or degree, exactly? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that BoF is on another warpath again.. Can you please just let it go BoF, regardless of your obvious leanings it's doing nobody any good campaigning to destroy a single subject on subject even though this site ENCOURAGES ENCYCLOPEDIC REPORTING OF INFORMATION!!--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not expect there to be courses in cryptozoology. Firstly because lots of minor specialisms are not represented by courses. Secondly as you observe because much but not all of the source material is not of high quality, thirdly cryptozoological discoveries have a low probability of success so it would be a waste of money for all concerned and finally the methods which are any good would mostly be covered by zoology. But none of this means *all* cryptozoological thought is bunk. Scientific skeptics respect reason and evidence, whatever the source. We don't just label things and then dismiss them. You have thrown the skeptical baby out with the bathwater. Just read the papers I have been recommending (papers by Naish, Paxton et al. ) or read about Marc van Roosmalen's discoveries (a self-styled czologist who actually discovers new species) and then come back and tell me that this is all pseudoscience. Real science is not black and white. Indeed that is why cz for me, as someone with an interest in the philosophy of science (and a skeptic), is interesting. It would be great to capture this subtlety (a fair reflection of this complex topic which is mostly made up of dubious evidence) in Wikipedia articles. Tullimonstrum (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)