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.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Since the early 2000s, there have been several claims by individuals in different parts of the UK of having suffered attacks at the hands of supposed big cats, though to date, no substantive evidence proving these were in fact attacks by a non-domestic species of cat". The last section is not supported by the sources being quoted: "though to date, no substantive evidence proving these were in fact attacks by a non-domestic species of cat". Yes, there is no proof that these were big cats but firstly, you need a source to support that sentence in the article. Secondly, the sources that are being quoted actually imply the opposite: In the Monmouth incident it is described as a "leopard-like" animal [1]. In the Sydenham incident both news reports state that a Police officer saw a cat "about the size of a Labrador dog" [2][3]. So while there is not proof of big cats the sources being quoted do not support "though to date, no substantive evidence proving these were in fact attacks by a non-domestic species of cat" and do imply the opposite. Wikipedia is about reflecting what the sources say and this meets the criteria for bold removal as per Wikipedia:Content removal#Unsourced information, so I do not actually need to take this to the talk page. Also, just because this article has been written to consensus does not mean that it has to remain the same and it can be updated and improved. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
No, this is pretty much a WP:BLUESKY situation. Big cats are not native to the British Isles, so saying that “to date no substantive evidence proving they were big cat attacks” doesn’t need a positive source to cite because it is the obvious, common conclusion to state given the complete lack of evidence to demonstrate the exceptional claim that they were big cat attacks.
A random person, regardless of profession, claiming to have seen a cat “as big as a labrador” isn’t substantive evidence to support its existence. In fact the paragraph openly sets out that the issue is while people claim to have seen xyz no one has been able to provide actual physical evidence to support the sighting.
Basically, WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
