Talk:Ropen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This article doesn't conform to NPOV. I'm not whether it would be better to remove a lot of the content backed up with the unreliable sources cited, or expand the article to include a more scientific perspective. -- John.Conway (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty NPOV to me, honestly. Could you be more specific with your objections? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess what I don't like is the fact that it's got a lot of references to essentially the same material, without giving any weight to the (scientific) notion that this is all, well, rubbish. -- John.Conway (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to show the skeptical side of the story, since they don't do any positive research themselves to advance their case. If skeptics do anything at all about this type of thing, it's usually debunking, but as far as I know, no one's even put any effort into going that, let alone going to New Guinea and talking to witnesses and poking around looking for more mundane explanations.

I share your perspective on this subject, but it's just hard to work very much in on a perspective that doesn't have alot written about its side of the story. Inserting "Most scientists don't believe that the Ropen, if it exists, is a surviving pterosaur" may be true, but a single sentence is hardly enough to shift the weight of the article. I don't really see how we could possibly give a thorough treatment of the subject without it at least feeling weighted towards the proponents' side of things. After all, they're the ones doing expeditions and writing books, and so far skeptics have done seemingly nothing. If you can think of anyway to help with balance, please edit. If not, I'm afraid I can't be of any assistance. :(

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There were many sentences in the article which suggested the narrow scope for explanation (creating the feeling of false dichotomy), and other sentences with were too argumentative on the side of Ropen-belief. I've removed a lot of what I considered problematic. -- John.Conway (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)