Talk:Crypsis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as high-importance on the assessment scale |
[edit] Hiding
There are a couple of issues that I've just become aware of. Firstly, the page hiding is a disambiguation. There seems nowhere else to link, so should hiding be covered here instead? Secondly, there is no mention of organisms hiding their property - e.g. squirrels and birds hiding seeds, or dogs burying bones. Is this a form of crypsis? Richard001 07:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why
"For animals whose existence is in doubt"
1. That description is not very good wording
2. That is clearly a skeptical POV, which should not be here because it basically says that cryptids aren't real, which isn't neutral. People keep editing out my changes which makes it so the description is "for animals reported to exist but have not yet been proven" and I'd like to know why. Elasmosaurus (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's only one person who has reverted your edits, so you can ask him directly if you want. To me your version seems to somewhat suggest that their existence probably will be proven in the future. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, especially about things that are highly unlikely like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- Your user page makes it clear that you've come here to force your POV on articles, and your statement "I'm sick of doubt of the existence of what could be exciting new animals" reeks of wishful thinking (wouldn't it be great if these mythological animals were true? Well then, they must be true!) or some other form of reasoning off the rails. Skeptics keep an open mind as well, they just try not to let their brain fall out. Richard001 (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course the flying speghetti monseter isn't real. I was only referring to creatures that could actually exist / have likely characteristics (e. g. Champ or Bigfoot) and not urban legend creatures like Mothman, Owlman, Springheel Jack, etc. Because "Animals whose existence is in doubt" must mean that all cryptid's existence is in doubt, which is heavily untrue. (Even the most hardened skeptics admit tht at least A FEW cryptids are real) In fact I'm happy with the way the article is now ("animals whose existence has not been demonstrated".
And this is not only my POV; but it is the POV of the cryptozoologists. Elasmosaurus (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
