Talk:Lake Worth Monster

Very credulous

Very credulous in tone, without any mention of skeptical/scientific viewpoint. The lack of any sources reinforces this. Cje 14:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

my_wan Agreed. Particularly egregious characterizations attributed to unknown persons or groups.

Do you really need a skeptics view for a cyptid like this? After all, if it's not real, then it can only be down to three things.

A) Mistake by wittnesses B) Embelishment/hoax by witnesses C) Hoax perpetrated against witnesses

Unless somebody actually finds a rubber mask or a pair of monster feet made out of plaster, or some long lost ape creature, then any skeptical or scientific view will be as speculative as the existance of the creaure itself.

I vote that we treat this as an urban myth. Report the myth as a myth, and the creature as being 'real' within the scope of the myth (but not being a proven animal).

perfectblue 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lake Worth Monster (Goat Man)

Just by chance and curiosity did I log in to check this story out that my DAD has told me all my childhood about what he and a buddy of his did before I was born. Lo.. here it is. He really did cause an uproar didn't he? :) hehehe I do believe that "witness" had an awesome imagination to add to the story, but isn't it human nature? Andrea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.107.186 (talk) 02:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I remember classmates telling about the Goatman in middle school and high school during the '90s. That should tell you how long the myth has endured. However, I believe the stories that were told mentioned Mansfield, south of Arlington, in some place called "Magic Valley", which was largely undeveloped at the time. But, given the date of the reports, I'm pretty sure the stories told at my schools were just localized accounts of the Lake Worth incident.--66.118.230.101 (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move

A move to Lake Worth Monster for conforminty with other articles in the Category:Hominid cryptids was requested at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Request for page move of Lake worth monster to Lake Worth Monster and I have actioned it. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Article is in Dire Need of Expansion

This article is way too short and needs to be expanded in much more detail than what it currently has. There needs to be a section that gives the cryptid's description and there needs to be more information on sightings of the creature. Also since there is a supposed photo of the creature it should be featured in the infobox o the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Reintroduction of WP:FRINGE Material

@Paleface Jack: recently reintroduced a WP:FRINGE category to this article ([1]). The article makes no mention of cryptozoology, as such a mention would constitute undue emphasis on fringe theories. None of the sources use the term cryptid. Readers may be interested in this thread. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts of an unidentifiable humanoid and several sources I personally own state otherwise. Any mysterious or otherwise unidentifiable animal should be refereed to as a cryptid since Cryptozoology is about the identification/research of mysterious, unconfirmed creatures. Things such as Coelocanth, and Komodo Dragon and the like were previously unconfirmed and placed under cryptid (fabled) status (a term not coined until much later). Hence the reasoning for the edit.--Paleface Jack 23:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack:, Wikipedia does not default to the position of a pseudoscience (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). Cryptozoology is well-established pseudoscience, whether or not you agree. Your edits here violate WP:UNDUE. Please revert them. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure DarkKnight and I had this discussion with you earlier. Even if Cryptozoology is a Pseudoscience, that doesn't default it to mythology either regardless of ones personal opinions which you've been placing it under. You keep on saying my edits and accusations are undue but I'm 100% certain that they are not and the categories you've been saying were fringe were not discussed nor any consensus made that was legitimized as far as I can tell. This will be my only reply... Unless the situation calls for another. :(--Paleface Jack 01:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)