Talk:Cryptozoology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cryptozoology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 12 months

	Cryptozoology was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 26, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed

	Other talk page banners
This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Stephen Harrison (2023-02-13). "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot". Slate.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Cryptozoology Top‑importance 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Paranormal Top‑importance 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Mid‑importance 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Horror Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Animals Low‑importance Animals portal Cryptozoology is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Creationism: Young Earth creationism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 8.

New Hatnote: Distinguish?

Could someone please add a hatnote 'Distinguish|Cryptozoa' ? People can easily confuse the names "cryptozoology" and "cryptozoa" (undiscovered microscopic animals). I don't want to have to log in to edit the semi-protected page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:403:ABC0:E50B:CCC2:4A45:5B72 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lider of grope krittozoologia kosmopoisk [1] 176.65.112.181 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

spelling correction?

' a pseudoscientic extension of older belief in monsters and other similar entities from the folkloric record, yet with a "new, more scientific-sounding name: cryptids". '

- seems to read better with 'pseudoscientific' -

i'm not sure on this article how to suggest this possible correction ... Hirbey (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing where the spelling error that needs correcting is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pseudoscientic —> pseudoscientific. Done. Thank you, Hirbey. Bishonen | tålk 18:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Really could not see it. Now I do, sorry. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dendle

Dendle (2006) seems to have been quote mined. In the same "Folklore" article quoted, he also says "The point of this paper is not to disparage the important work of cryptozoologists nor to imply that there is no legitimate place for cryptozoology within contemporary zoology. The International Society of Cryptozo from 1982 to 1998), for instance, published sound research and reflection in its newsletter and in a refereed journal." For balance should we not include this as well? The implication in wiki article that he thinks it is all pseudoscience that clearly is not his position. 193.130.15.245 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quote mining indeed. Folklorist Dendle goes on to say: ...There are, of course, new species that remain to be discovered, and early reports of them will naturally appear folkloric before a specimen is secured and the scientific community can verify it. My intention is rather to unpack certain facets of the social significance of the widespread interest and even belief in such creatures before they are confirmed by science. In keeping with his intention, Dendle is used in our article for his observations re the social significance and belief regarding cryptozoology, not to argue whether it, or anything else, is a pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore mention in lead sentence

Hi @Bloodofox, I see you reverted my update. I understand your reasoning and I don't dispute the examples in the lead or the fact that many/most cryptids are from folklore. My concern is that defining cryptids/the object of cryptozoology as "particularly those [unknown, legendary, or extinct animals] popular in folklore" is over-broad because many animals/creatures from folklore are not generally defined as cryptids. Would you be comfortable with something like "including many of those popular in folklore"? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoologists have historically considered every creature they've encountered from folklore to be a potential "cryptid". There are multi-volume encyclopedias of this sort of thing from cryptozoologists, like Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures. There is no criteria for what makes something a "cryptid" in this pseudoscience because there's no central authority or any kind of criteria, just a general rejection of relevant mainstream fields like biology and especially folklore studies. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the general points. I worry that "particularly" in the opening sentence implies the broadest possible definition. I don't think Babe the Big Blue Ox or centaurs are (widely?) considered cryptids although one might be able to find a PROFRINGE source trying to claim them. Do you object to my proposal including many of those popular in folklore? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't dictate what is and is not considered a "cryptid", we can only describe what scholarship says, and it is clear that there are no paramaters as to what would fall in this category: literally every animal, even some from fiction (such as the case of The Monster of "Partridge Creek"), are potential "cryptids" to the subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Cryptid" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cryptid has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 6 § Cryptid until a consensus is reached. Note: Cryptids is also under discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Cryptozooelogy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cryptozooelogy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 26 § Cryptozooelogy until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Monster hunting" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Monster hunting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 30 § Monster hunting until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the absence of several authors + additional comments

Hello, I’m seeking elaboration regarding the absence of a significant body of mainstream, peer-reviewed literature published in recent years containing relevant critical coverage of cryptozoology (listed and linked at the end of this discussion). I’d love to know what the current standing on many of the subjects I bring up are, especially as relevant discussions in the Talk Page are in some cases over fifteen years old, and many involved are no longer active on Wikipedia. To my understanding, the works of these authors do not clash with WP:FRINGE in any capacity and represent peer-reviewed discussion by qualified zoologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, ecological staticians, and so on. Some of these works were cited at various stages of this page’s life cycle but are now absent, with little commentary as to why available to my knowledge (though I may have missed it in the thousand-word semantics sessions).

The incorporation of these works could significantly expand and improve the quality of the "Terminology, history, and approach" and "Reception and pseudoscience" sections. I'd like to note that combining "Organizations" into the "Terminology, history, and approach" section and expanding the "Museums and exhibitions" section into one on broader economic and cultural significance may be worthwhile, especially as this article leans heavily on the works of authors like Sharon Hill. The "Examples of cryptids" section is polluted by obscure examples without Wikipedia pages, including the "Great South Bay Giant Horseshoe Crab" which on only substantiated by AI-generated imagery and writing. I feel as though this section ought to be streamlined, linking to the most visited ~5 entries within the category not linked elsewhere.

I’d also additionally like to question the logic for including Prothero’s equivalence of cryptozoology to Holocaust denial (those are two very different forms of “baloney”), certainly feels like an inappropriate sentiment and offers nothing of informative significance to the article.

PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS/BOOK CHAPTERS

Foxon, 2024 - Heuvelmans the Heretic and Hidden Animals - https://doi.org/10.1177/03080188241233107

Holmes et al., 2017 - Fantastic Beasts and Why to Conserve Them - https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531700059X

Paxton & Naish, 2019 - Did 19th Century Marine Vertebrate Fossil Discoveries Influence Sea Serpent Reports? - https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6178-38.1.16

Schembri, 2011 - Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience - https://doi.org/10.21083/surg.v5i1.1341

NON PEER-REVIEWED BOOKS CONTAINING CRITICAL COVERAGE

^ exclusion would be understandable, however books of a similar vein (e.g. Abominable Science!, Scientifical Americans, Searching for Sasquatch) are quoted at length

Conway et al., 2013 - Cryptozoologicon - https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cryptozoologicon/IqUnnwEACAAJ?hl=en

Meurger & Gagnon, 1988 - Lake Monster Traditions - archive.org/details/lakemonstertraditions1

Naish, 2016 - Hunting Monsters - https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hunting_Monsters/mN2oCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 LPrattCZ (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]