Loading editor
  • When were you planning on uploading the Tangaroasaurus video Scott Mardis made for you to the CW Channel?

      Loading editor
  • I've noticed a few issues with the J̌irmu  problem's section.

    First, articles are not a place to critique artistic style; that's what comments, blogs, and forums are for. Since legends are inherently exaggerated, critiquing interpretations that do not deviate from sighting descriptions is not rational.  Also, we have discussed that skeptical critique of cryptids cannot be speculative or inaccurate.  Usually pages contain descriptions of the crytids and their sightings (no need for speculation), and speculation only for artistic features not explicitly noted in the sightings.   

    Second, the J̌irmu were depicted as dinosaurs because in their sightings, the J̌irmu were carnivorous; the only carnivorous creatures the size of elephants were dinosaurs (following the sightings' claim that the were carnivorous, although this may very well not be the case). The claim you made that the J̌irmu "could have been anything" is false, as there are very few organisms they could have been carnivorous or herbivorous.

    Third, your remark that there would be lack of large prey is not be the case, as, if you had read the sources, would have known that the British were uncertain if the J̌irmu still lived or lived during "the time of ancestors" for the Great Andamanese.  During this "the time of ancestors", the British recorded numerous legends of megafauna or potential food sources.

    Fourth, the claim that "a lot of these cryptids could be local legends being taken out of context by western colonizers" is completely arbitrary and goes against the policy we discussed that skeptic content need to be accurate and definitely not speculative.  There are a lot of problems within the skeptic community on cryptids; amongst the most problematic issue we see on cryptid wiki is the addition of purely speculative or false remarks that somehow debunk Cryptids.

    For instance, we had a case where a cryptid was debunked as a "whale"; despite this being a vague and inherently meaningless conclusion.  The Wiki removed these claims (as they were inherently meaningless), but then got spammed in the comments with accusations of censorship and that there was "scientific consensus" that it was a whale, indicating that the user was unaware of what scientific consensus is (this meaningless claim was derived from a skeptic movement blog post). 

    Much of the cryptid skeptic community's numerous accusations are very speculative, inherently meaningless, or blatant falsehoods.  Like the crytpozoology subculture, much of the skeptic subculture (by no means all) audience has a little to average scientific background; this ultimately leads to misinformation or weak speculation to be added to pages. 

    Here we would like our content skeptical of cryptids to be concrete, accurate, and factual; in order to achieve this, content (including skeptical content) must be well-sourced and have little to no speculation.

    For instance, claiming that every dinosaur cryptid was "fabricated by creationists" without any evidence (i.e. false information), augments based on sheer speculation, or vague/meaningless claims (i.e. this cryptid was debunked as a whale) is not allowed.

    It is important to remember, a great many members of the skeptic subculture make baseless, vague/meaningless, speculative, or false claims. These methodologies are psuedoscientific, like crytpozoology, although they are potentially harmful to this site as blatant misinformation is far more of a negative than fantastical claims with some basis in truth.  Also, many of these self-proclaimed skeptics are incapable of seeing flaws in their conclusions, because "they're on the side of science" and that gives them an excuse to follow it less than cryptozoologist do.  The moral of this story is just because someone is part of a movement, it does not mean they are inherently more right; they still have to follow the rules they set out themselves too.

    Best regards,

    AmazingAncientWorld (talk) 12:14, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

    P.S.  What do you mean by "Indian Dilophosaurus", is it Sinosaurus?  Also, what is the Andaman Cobra; I know the Great Andamanese spoke of a giant snake, but I assumed it was about a python or viper.

      Loading editor
    • View all 13 replies
    • I updated the J̌irmu image description to make it more 'scientifically accurate'.  As far as I know, plumage cannot be determined by skeletal remains alone; I don't think there is a skeletal indicator for plumage collars (although I could be wrong with this).

      Anyway, here is what it is now: "Artist's rendering of J̌irmu with a green fluorescent collar (similar to that of Wilson's bird-of-paradise) with eyespots similar to that of peafowl."

        Loading editor
    • AmazingAncientWorld wrote:
      @Greyideas  BTW, I'm not against science or anything; I'm just critical of how certain things are currently done. 

      sure, fair enough

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Please do not use homophobic insults on this wiki. This is against our rules.

      Loading editor
  • Hi, I'm an admin for the Cryptid Wiki community. Welcome and thank you for your edit to Mokèlé-mbèmbé!

    If you need help getting started, check out our help pages or contact me or another admin here. For general help, you could also stop by Community Central to explore the forums and blogs.

    Enjoy your time at Cryptid Wiki!

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.