Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 30 May 2 >

May 1

Montréal region categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete as empty. No merger necessary as the category additions appear to have been straight additions - that were reverted as they were added before the categories were created and were, thus, redlinks at the time... The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Introduction of geographic names that are neither official nor commonly used. MTLskyline ( talk) 22:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note These 3 categories were nominated separately, with an identical rationale. I merged them into one discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE remaining separate category nomination also merged here -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 05:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. I also see that they're empty, too. Even French Wikipedia has no parent article for, say, Montréal-Nord-Ouest, whatever the heck that is. The West Island? I grew up there and we did used to call the northern part of it the "North Shore." Anyway, even a Google search fails to turn up any indication of what this is: some kind of WP:NEO or WP:OR, perhaps. If Category:Montréal-Centre isn't Category:Downtown Montreal, I don't know what else it would be. I truly have no idea what the category creator is up to with these, and I see s/he's also been quite busy moving pages around to new names, which is a tad worrisome. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per C1. Nerd in Texas ( talk) 15:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- The right solution ought to be merge back to parent, not delete. However, if the items are not clearly defined, we cannot keep them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Comunes of Italy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename WP:C2C. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: to match the format agreed at Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento#Requested_move, where the consensus was to use the English-language translation "communes". Most of the sub-categories already use this format. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Multiple categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete the first two; do not delete Category:Australian people of Silesian descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply


Note: for clarification moved Silesia-related category as this one has been opposed; other two categories recommended for deletion appear to be unopposed. Quis separabit? 11:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the last one, WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to categories that are part of a structure, in this case Category:People of Silesian descent and the other parent. I am less opposed to the others but upmerge to all parents rather than delete; but a discussion on all the grandchild categories of Category:People of Jewish descent should be initiated, for upmerging to their multiple parents, as the small size is not a problem where there is scope for increase and it is part of a structure. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your informed opinion but I must disagree regarding the claim that "there is scope for increase", as this is not the case with these three categories, which were, again, created to accomodate one individual (and by definition any parents or siblings who may be notable enough to have an article; not the case, in any event). I don't provisionally object to upmerges or to your position that Category:Australian people of Silesian descent is different from the others, although its population of 1 is concerning. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Native birds of the Pacific region U.S.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic L ondon 06:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a clearer title that matches West Coast of the United States and better distinguishes it from Category:Native birds of the Northwestern United States. " Pacific region" isn't well defined or commonly used in the US; it's likely to be mistaken for the Pacific Northwest. BDD ( talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)1 reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional women scientists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. As for Category:Fictional female scientists, see also the next CfD section on this page; contrary to the statement by 65.94.171.206 below, Elaqueate was not supporting this; the argument for it strikes me as valid, but clearly does not have consensus support from the community. I believe there is sufficient support here for a split to new Category:Fictional women engineers. – Fayenatic L ondon 06:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. Category:Fictional female scientists and engineers
  2. Category:Fictional women scientists and engineers
  3. Create a separate Category:Fictional female engineers
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with List of fictional scientists and engineers; Majority are both scientists/engineers and/or do not make a clear distinction between the occupations; For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than creating more categories
Comment: Should a separate List of fictional female scientists and engineers be created? (example: List of fictional female detectives) -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: one of these categories is duplicated below. Can you combine these nominations? Nevermind, I removed this one from the nomination below instead. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support not everything fictionally female are women -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 05:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose renaming, oppose expanding "Scientists and engineers" may be the name of a single list article somewhere, but the parent categories here are still separate things. Scientists and engineers have separate categories for both fictional and non-fictional subjects. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • support expanded definition we already combine in the list. Fiction in general won't make such firm distinctions as there are between scientists and engineers, and they are often conflated - e.g. a so-called "mad-scientists" is actually usually a "mad-engineer" - as they are building crazy things, not discovering new properties of the universe. There is no requirement for fictional categories to mirror real ones, and indeed they are sometimes combined or simplified, which we should do here. I'm neutral on women vs female for this one.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support renaming per above arguements -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 03:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Scientist and engineers are distinct groups. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose "... Scientists and engineers" anything shouldn't be grouped together in one category. —   dain omite   05:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional females

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic L ondon 06:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
  1. Category:Fictional women soldiers and warriors to Category:Fictional female soldiers and warriors
Nominator's rationale: The standard seems to be "female" which is more inclusive, especially since some are technically not "women" (i.e. girls, robots, gods, etc.) -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm removing Category:Fictional women scientists from this nomination, as the same category is already being discussed above, probably better to have separate discussions since the issues are slightly different.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • support, esp given these are not all humans.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support not everything fictionally female are women -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 05:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose renaming The rationale isn't correct; there is no "standard" when it comes to Wikipedia's use of Women vs Females. The fact that the articles described are fictional means they are being assigned their "womanhood" fictionally in any case. Robots are not actually sexed or gendered, but we are categorizing a fictional conceit. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Would you create a separate female category for non-women? Such as female aliens? Or sentient female slime molds ? And if they are assigned femaleness fictionally, then robots can be female. If they are fictionally assigned as female but not as women? -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
      • The category is Category:Fictional women scientists not Category:Fictional extraterrestrial women. "Women scientists" is a longstanding category tree, these all seem to be fictional women scientists (almost entirely fictional humans, it must be said). I can say that your first questions are not about gender, they're about whether we let aliens and robots into "people" categories of any type. Should a robot doctor character be put under "Fictional doctors" or "Fictional medical equipment"? The answer is that if editors see them as presenting as "people" we put them in, if we think of them as non-sentient machines, we put them with the tools. The articles we're categorizing are mostly people presenting as human women, with very few articles about characters we think of as non-human. They're included because we think of them as being women or presenting as women, not because we've worked out the details of their alien reproductive systems. Your other theoretical questions about characters "assigned female but not as women" seem to be about fictional characters with no presented gender but with a known biological sex. I doubt there's a lot of articles that would need categorizing there. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose There IS no standard of whether "women" or "female" is used in Wikipedia categories. I think women is preferable. If it is an article on a female alien or female robot, its categorization is primarily "alien" and "robot", not "female". There doesn't need to be a gender category for all fictional entities. It is important for there to be categories for female human beings, fictional or real. I think it can be assumed that most fictional soldiers, warriors, scientists and engineers that would be concluded are human characters, not alien ones. And female human beings are properly called "women". Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
we're not talking necessarily about robots, but we are talking about supernatural humanoid creatures for whom the term female is more apt. Female is more broad, and captures the many girls who are in these categories. Standards are different in fiction trees and female simply works better as an inclusive descriptor.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
This isn't about "supernatural humanoid creatures"; it's a category for fictional warriors and fictional scientists, the vast majority being fictional human women. The "non-human" are rare and would actually fit better across the board under women, than as somehow biologically "female". Wonder Woman may not be technically "human" but that doesn't mean it's somehow less accurate to call her a woman and a warrior because of that. Liz is absolutely correct that there is no standard of whether "women" or "female" is used in Wikipedia categories. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Did you look at the contents of the category? Most of them have supernatural powers, some are from different planets, etc. Female is simply more inclusive.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You say "most of them have supernatural powers"? Well, looking at the category, then no, most don't, and it's a non sequitur in any case. Having supernatural powers has exactly nothing to do with whether a character is called a woman or a man. This is getting into "Wonder Female" or "Supermale"-territory. No need to rename. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Although the robot question is silly, the question about girls isn't so silly. A fictional 12 year old female soldier is too young to qualify as a "fictional woman soldier". "Woman" is not a synonym for "female". Ken Arromdee ( talk) 17:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Support -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Female is not standard, and attempts to make it such have been repeadttedly defeated. There was a long discussion about a year ago about every one of the woman/female categories, that came to no consensus, and that had been done at least twice before. Woman is an acceptable descriptor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Leonardo da Vinci in television

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename WP:C2C. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Leonardo da Vinci in television to Category:Depictions of Leonardo da Vinci on television
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Depictions of people on television. -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pseudoscientists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A three-admin panel composed of User:BD2412, User:ThaddeusB, and User:BOZ has convened to review and determine the consensus of this discussion. The panel has determined that consensus supports the following decision:

Although there is no consensus to entirely eliminate the categorization of "pseudoscientists", there is a clear consensus that the current category can not be maintained as it stands. The consensus of the discussion, and the overriding policies of WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability, favor renaming and restricting the category. We note that the option of renaming the category was not proposed until later in the discussion, but that this option received a good amount of support once it was proposed. Because consensus favors changing the status quo, we find this proposal to be a reasonable compromise, which alleviates the problems identified by many earlier participants in the discussion.

The category will therefore be renamed Category:Advocates of pseudoscience (as of May 23, categories may be renamed through a page move, and this will be implemented once that option becomes available). Furthermore, this category will only serve as a holding category for subcategories (and should be tagged with {{ container category}}). This category therefore should be empty as to articles, and should contain only subcategories such as Category:Alchemists and Category:Phrenologists, on the condition that reliable sources generally classify the subcategorized field itself as a pseudoscience. The rename makes the category more accurate (all astrologers advocate in some sense for a pseudoscience, but not all are pseduoscientists as many employ pure mysticism), while the depopulation largely eliminates the BLP problem (people do not self-identify as pseduoscientists, but do self-identify as crytozoologists). Because of this subcategorization, the "pseudoscientist" category will not appear on the articles of subjects, and therefore will not be detrimental to article subjects who might dispute that categorization. Of course, categorization has no bearing on whether an article can cite reliable sources to describe its subject as a "pseudoscientist" within the text of the article; the purpose of categories is not to substitute for that kind of textual description.

All article subjects currently in Category:Pseudoscientists must be recategorized to remove this category and replace it with a subcategory or subcategories specifying the field or fields of pseudoscience for which reliable sources describe the subject as an advocate or practitioner. If necessary, categories may be subdivided to separate pseudoscientific advocates of a field from nonpseudoscientific investigators of that field. However, since renaming the subcategories was not discussed in the CFD we can not offer any binding decision on that point, only our personal advice.

bd2412 T 17:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ThaddeusB ( talk)
Agreed. BOZ ( talk) 18:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a problematic category for living people. Part of the problem revolves around the definition - the OED defines it as an adherent or practitioner of pseudoscience, OR a person who falsely or mistakenly claims to be or is regarded as a scientist. Now, many of the people in the subcategories (e.g. most of the people in Category:Astrologers) would not claim to be scientists, so do not belong under the second definition. The category could explicitly include people under both definitions, but the discrepancy between definitions make it misleading. With negative categorizations, this should be avoided. St Anselm ( talk) 07:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - The cat is appropriate for some articles and should not be deleted. QuackGuru ( talk) 08:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. The category has become a battleground and a WP:BLP nightmare. I can see possible justification for placing historic figures like Trofim Lysenko in the category, but really all that the category does is express disapproval, generally without any WP:RS supporting the use of the term. More specific categories are more useful, and easier to find reliable sources for. -- 101.117.28.73 ( talk) 08:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The battleground is occupied extensively with the nominator and a series of brand new, single purpose accounts. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - It seems the OED definition provides pretty clear criteria. As per QG it is certainly appropriate for some articles. The definition lays out something that provides clear and appropriate categorization for subjects. Useful for navigation. That something is defined as A OR B does not make it misleading in any way that I see. The argument that some don't belong under one definition that explicitly states OR is not supportable. It is the nature of categories that they have sub categories. A reader would not be misled. The only possible BLP issue is with second part of the definition and articles about subjects who falsely or mistakenly claim to be scientists are clear in their content. The OED definition is clear and succinct a reader can easily understand it. The word OR does not mislead or cause confusion. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Atheist and skeptic here, but what purpose does this category really serve? It's bound to generate edit wars and waste a lot of time with dispute resolutions, arbcom etc. What do we really gain by keeping it? MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Accuracy? Clarity? Adherence to objective standards? Not lying to readers? Not allowing whitewashing campaigns? -- Calton | Talk 01:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Wikipedia is at a real cross-roads here. We must decide now if we are going to let the most opinionated among our editorship continue to rule the roost, and continue to have free reign to besmirch and impugn living people with their own personal pejorative opinions that they think are made out of gold and must be forced down all other editors' and readers throats. This is identical to the same sort of persecutorial foolishness and intolerance that brought down Soviet Science, and it can bring down wikipedia even quicker. 71.246.158.7 ( talk) 11:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Ah, the "Galileo gambit". Complete bollocks, of course. Wikipedia is not going to start promoting the beliefs of lunatic charlatans any time soon. Guy ( Help!) 22:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - no-one is going to say "I'm a pseudoscientist", and it is too prone to being misused by anyone who disagrees with a scientist/scholar's opinion. You might just as well have a category "cranks". Far too subjective. Simon Burchell ( talk) 12:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Wikipedia has categories for murderers, burglars, pedophiles, prostitutes, and sockpuppeteers. The fact that a category may not be flattering to its occupants is not a valid reason to delete it. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 12:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

But we put people in those categories because there is an accepted and agreed upon standard for what that represents. A murderer, for example, is someone who has murdered someone. What is a pseudoscientist? There are many many conflicting claims.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually, we don't use the "murderer" category for people who have murdered someone, we use it for people who have been convicted in court of murdering someone -- that is, we use it when there is an official determination that the category fits. Otherwise we would certainly be staring down the barrel of serious legal action. For "pseudoscientist," as you say, there is no accepted and agreed upon standard. Some of the category members are respected scientists who have an off-the-wall hobby. Some of the Russian members are academics with off-the-wall ideas about history. It seems that the category is simply a vague "Wikipedia disapproves of this person" label. -- 101.117.108.195 ( talk) 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Would you also have us believe that there is serious scientific disagreement about the theory of evolution? Pseudoscientist is not a vague term. A pseudoscientist is a person who makes scientific claims that they can’t prove. To claim that a bullshitter is a scientist is to lie to our readers, and Wikipedia should not be packed full of lies to placate some fringe-pushing reality-denialists. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 23:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You illustrate the problem of a category that's inherently based on WP:OR (since no reliable sources seem to ever explicitly use the "pseudoscientist" label). Parts of modern physics are currently in the category of "making scientific claims that they can’t prove," so that's a bad definition. Conversely, many people promoting astrology, homeopathy, or the like are not "pseudoscientists" because they're not even pretending to be scientists -- so simply being a "bullshitter" is a bad definition too. And omitting the "pseudoscientist" label is a very different thing from endorsing someone as a scientist or "packing Wikipedia full of lies." Nobody is suggesting doing that. The fundamental problem here is that, in the absence of reliable sources using the "pseudoscientist" label, this category invites editors such as yourself to make personal value judgements as to who deserves the label -- which is contentious at best, and a WP:BLP violation for living subjects. -- 101.117.110.209 ( talk) 03:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
There is a difference between “claims that they can’t prove” and presently unproven scientific hypotheses. One is an unsupported assertion and the other is a proposed explanation based on facts. If I were to say “The fact that Tutankhamun’s children were both stillborn may be the result of inbreeding depression” then that would be a proposed explanation based on facts. When a fringe pusher says “The tomb of Osiris contained the mummified remains of an alien but Zahi Hawass covered it up because he’s in cahoots with the Reptilians” then that would be a claim that they can’t prove.
I didn’t say that all bullshitters are pseudoscientists. Margaret Murray was a pseudohistorian, Edgar Cayce was a mystic, and Kim Jong-il was a politician. Pseudoscientists are a specific kind of bullshitter.
I think that AndyTheGrump said it best when he wrote “we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters”. [ [2]] Labeling a pseudoscientist as a pseudoscientist is one way that we can warn the readers that what they are about to read may contain the absurd claims of a person who feels entitled to their own facts. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 07:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
If you want to "warn the readers," categories are a lousy way to do it, since (1) they are, by their nature, unreferenced and (2) they come at the end of the article. And I think it's also obvious that this particular category does not have clear inclusion criteria. -- 101.117.57.43 ( talk) 08:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You think the inclusion criteria 'This category includes biographies of people who explicitly study and advocate areas included under Category:Pseudoscience' is unclear ? In what sense ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Sean, it's a self-reference, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep There are many things people are unlikely to admit to which are nonetheless completely supported by reliable sources. We're an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to reflect the truth, insofar as our sources let us. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

RestrictDelete. Because pseudoscience is a fairly subjective term, and because a person more or less never just says "I work on pseudoscience", but always works one some specific pseudoscience, I would recommend making the effort to create subcategories so that we can separate "X is an astrologer" from "astrology is a pseudoscience". This is at once less insulting and also more manageable, because we can keep the argument over whether a particular belief is pseudoscience separate from the names of individual persons, rather than using them as political footballs. Ideally, provided there are no jam-ups trying to do this, a notice can then be placed on the category to put individuals in subcats rather than listing directly. Wnt ( talk) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: as a trial balloon, I've edited Peter Brock to remove "Pseudoscientist" in favor of a new Category:Orgone technicians, in which I have placed him and Wilhelm Reich. It is a subcat of Category:Orgone energy and Category:Pseudoscientists. I haven't checked every entry under pseudoscientists, but I doubt I'll find many (any?) others. I feel that the stylistic trade-off between having a small subcat and having a direct categorization of a person as a pseudoscientist favors the former approach, but I'm no expert with categories and I welcome your views. Wnt ( talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I sent up the trial balloon because I couldn't decide whether I wanted my opinion to count as keep or delete, and someone has shot it down, [3] saying that I shouldn't "disguise" the category as a subcategory. That kind of thinking - that "pseudoscientist" is a brand of shame that should not be allowed to be hidden, rather than a way of neutrally collecting groups of people into one of many supercategories, is not desirable or in keeping with BLP notions. So count this as a simple delete based on excessive subjectivity like the others. Wnt ( talk) 13:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We have plenty of reliable sources indicating that this is a real word. We have controversial categories such as racist, white nationalist, etc. We simply need to abide by our guidelines and policies. What concerns me is the arrival of single purpose IPs. Sorry, but either someone is recruiting meatpuppets or someone(s) is socking, here and to edit war at articles(which I noticed before I discovered this discussion). I can't think of any other explanation. Dougweller ( talk) 13:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Dynamic IP addresses are not the same as SPAs. -- 101.117.108.195 ( talk) 22:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually, I was thinking that I am seeing a lot of registered accounts participating in this discussion who I rarely see involved at CfD. It's like a mini-reunion of regulars at the Fringe noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Category:Racism is a category but Category:Racists is not. And Category:White nationalists are for people who self-identifying as such.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- fairly ridiculous nomination; the category is entirely sensible, & useful to our readers when judiciously applied. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • rename to Category:Pseudoscience advocates? I see no reason for outright deletion but perhaps a change pof name would provide clarity? Mangoe ( talk) 14:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete This loops together too many unlike things. Use article space to make such points, but don't needlessly tag bios with "pseudoscientist". This term has been applied by reliable sources to scientists who some people didn't agree with, but we should not engage in such tagging. Per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, we don't have an objective standard for inclusion in this category, therefore it should be deleted.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Restrict - there is too much scope for this cat to be used for personal attacks in BLPs, with the resultant difficulties and time-wasting. If its use can be restricted to dead people, prob OK, but if not, then better to delete it.
@ User:Nomoskedasticity - unfortunately, experience seems to make it clear that judicious application is unlikely. Eustachiusz ( talk) 17:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and/or Restrict per above mentioned reasons -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Rename to "Pseudoscience advocates" or thereabouts - I see that the category is defined as including 'biographies of people who explicitly study and advocate areas currently included under Category:Pseudoscience'. That seems reasonable enough "when judiciously applied" as Nomoskedasticity says. Evidently the community thinks it can reliably distinguish between science and pseudoscience using Wikipedia's policies. If that is the case and we are able to categorize people as scientists, we should be able to categorize people as pseudoscientists. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (modified to incorporate proposed renaming option). Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete purely subjective; we have Category:Cryptozoologists (which is a child of Category:Cryptozoology, which in turn is a child of Category:Pseudoscience) and similar; we don't need to lump every form of these together at the practitioner level. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete unnecessary and opinionated attack cat. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 20:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Subjectively worded category, and one which implies that such a judgment has been made by the Wikipedia community and is unanimous. Quis separabit? 03:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete On balance I favor deleting. Wikipedia has already established that some beliefs, for instance, application of creationism to science, are pseudoscience and therefore placing an individual in both a category related to intelligent design and this category would be redundant and unnecessary. Note that Category:Racism explicitly states that "It must not include articles about individuals". While beliefs like white nationalism are almost universally considered a form of racism, since very few people openly self-describe as racists, just calling them white nationalists is more neutral and yet at the same time people still understand that white nationalists are generally racists. If we don't delete it entirely, I favor Wnt's very compelling suggestion on restricting its use. CurtisNaito ( talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Definitions of pseudoscience are complex, and the head article identifies many ways in which pseudoscience can be identified. The problem with any concept such as this is that there so many cases which are open to interpretation, or where changing understandings of the scientific method problematise particular forms of research. This demarcation problem leaves the term wide open to use as a language of attack and denigration, against against both individuals and whole disciplines.
    In supporting the deletion of this category, I do not support removing the word from articles. Wikipedia has a well-established and stable policy on the use of such terminology, at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (with more guidance at WP:LABEL): this sort of description should be attributed. So it's quite fine for an article to say that X described Y as a pseudoscientist (with ref), and for any opposing views to be given due weight. However, a category does not attribute the label, so it should not be used to apply a subjective label without qualification.
    BTW, if anyone wants an example of how this concept can be used in categories as an attack mechanism, see CFD:Pseudoscience petitions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, ridiculous nomination brought about by this discussion and the opposition of the editor who nominated it for deletion of seeing Ham included in that category. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Reply @ Gaba_p. "Ridiculous" is an insult rather than a rationale. The discussion Gaba_p linked to is an excellent example of why this sort of pejorative category is a Bad Idea™. First, it causes a huge dispute between editors who could otherwise be directing their energies to developing the article, rather than arguing about one word which appears at the bottom of it. And secondly, the dispute illustrates the sort of synthesis involved: person X is described by person Y as practising B, and person Z describes B as pseudoscience. Ergo, X is a pseudoscientist. Classic WP:SYN.
      Thanks for taking the time to post a link which illustrates so well the folly of this category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
        • No, "ridiculous" would be an accurate description, and your protest illustrates your misunderstanding: "avoiding disputes" -- or, more accurately in this case,, "avoiding clean-up campaigns by POV pushers" or "avoiding butthurt" -- is pretty much irrelevant compared to Wikipedia's goal of being ACCURATE. -- Calton | Talk 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
          • Per WP:CAT#Overview, the purpose of a category is "to provide navigational links". The absence of a category may or may not inconvenience those interested in a particular form of navigation, but a category is not content, so its presence cannot affect the accuracy of an article. As I noted above, descriptions of someone as a pseudoscientist should be made in the text of the article, and clearly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WTA. That's what we have already done with the word "terrorist": Category:Terrorists was deleted in 2009.
            BTW, the heated nature of your response suggests that you are as much engaged in POV-pushing as anyone who wishes to remove critical content from an article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
              • Your wikilawyering notwithstanding, the goal of providing -- what is that word? Oh, yes ACCURATE -- navigation links among pseudoscientists is not related to non-encyclopedic norms of "not causing offense". As for your "heated nature of your response" attempt at deflection, three things: 1) you need to get a refund on your mind-reading lessons; 2) a read of psychological projection may prove instructive; 3) I become reflexively annoyed by ludricrously obvious nonsense and wiki-lawyering, it's a fault of mine. -- Calton | Talk 17:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
                • "nonsense", "ludicrous", "ridiculous", "ACCURATE". Assertion is not reasoning, and neither your reflexive annoyance nor use of adjectives makes it so. If you overcome your reflexes and want to address the principles set out in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I would be interested to hear what you have to say. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
            • BrownHairedGirl you can see in the discussion I linked that I presented a published book where the person is explicitly referred to as a pseudoscientist, there is no WP:SYNTH at all in that. The fact that there could be synth is no reason to not have this category. Regards. Gaba (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
As noted in that thread by Collect, that book is not a scholarly work; it is a partisan polemic whose blurb on Amazon reads: "JJ Dyken sets out to debunk many of the most common religious assertions from the power of prayer to the seemingly inseparable bond between religion and morality. In so doing, he presents a persuasive case as to why the clash between faith and reason is not just irrational, but potentially deadly for mankind".
By using this sort of source to justify labeling someone in this way, you are demanding that Wikipedia adopt the terminology of one partisan side in a clash between two systems of knowledge. But most categories based on partisan terminology have been deleted: e.g. Heretics, Homophobes, Anti-Semitic people, Stalinists, Dictators, Terrorists. But despite the long history of deleting this type of subjective and partisan category, you want to keep a category for the term used by polemicists you agree with.
Your partisan understanding of NPOV is set out eloquently in the exchange between you and DavidLeighEllis:
Anyone is quite entitled to view religion as fiction, rather than neutral description of "a set of variously organized beliefs" set out in the lede to religion. But per WP:NPOV, we don't categorise religion under fiction; we leave the reader to choose for themselves between the many different ways of understanding what religion is. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BrownHairedGirl if your point is that the source I presented is not reliable, then I disagree. We could move that discussion to WP:RSN if you'd like. There are many many sources that refer to creationism as a pseudoscience so stating that the main visible face in peddling this nonsense is a pseudoscientist is more a statement of a heavily sourced fact rather than WP:SYNTH.
We are sidetracking the discussion, but "a set of variously organized beliefs" is just a purposely convoluted way of saying "a set of unproven and unfalsifiable claims". So yes, I sustain that "unproven and unfalsifiable claims"=fiction and science=fact. You're free to disagree.
The issue here is if we should keep a category that can be useful if backed by reliable sources (in the body of the article of course) or if we should remove it to avoid offending WP:FRINGE nonsense supporters. I stand by the first option. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Gaba_p, I have no interest either way in whether WP:FRINGE supporters are offended. My concern is that wikipedia should not be presenting complex, subjective judgements on any topic as if they were binary choices.
Your case is based on the notion that "unproven and unfalsifiable claims"=fiction and science=fact. That is extremist, partisan POV ignore the widely-documented demarcation problem. It asserts that any human knowledge other than current scientific orthodoxy is fiction, and it is as intolerant of other views as any biblical-literalist creationist. Go place the whole of Category:Philosophy under Category:Fiction, and let us know how that goes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BrownHairedGirl if by a binary choice you mean either adding the cat or not then all categories should be removed based on that argument. If you don't mean that then I don't know what you mean, sorry. I don't ignore the demarcation problem, I just don't see it as an issue in this particular case since the fact that creationism is non-science is painfully obvious to pretty much everybody except for creationists. Again, we are sidetracking the issue here, but any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. It might be interesting fiction, but it's not science and it's not fact. There is no intolerance in recognizing this, political correctness does not trump over common sense and scientific facts (as much as religious people would like for that to happen). The last part of you cmmt is a straw-man and therefore I won't be commenting on it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Gaba_p, that was no straw man. On the contrary, it is central to your approach to this discussion. Philosophical assertions are very rarely verifiable or falsifiable by scientific methods, so if you believe that "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction ... then you also believe that philosophy is fiction.
I'll ask of you the same question that I ask of others who adopt such an extreme form of scientism: do you love anyone, or have you ever loved any other living being? Be very careful before you answer, because unless your love for your parent, spouse, partner, sibling, child (or whoever) is "empirically falsifiable", then by your own standards it it's just fiction. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BrownHairedGirl I'm sorry but that's the definition of a straw man argument, pretty much like your last cmmt on "love". Philosophical assertions are not scientific facts unless they can be empirically falsifiable, that's just how it is. If a statement, any statement, by its own definition can not be proven to be false then it is a fictional construction (see Russell's teapot). The discussion about "love" being falsifiable is not only a straw man, it is also quite removed from the issue at hand (also, there's no point in going on about what the word "love" describes which is basically chemical reactions) Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Love cannot be proven scientifically, so by your fundamentalist scientism, it is simply fiction. You allow is nothing inbetween, no other way of understanding knowledge; it's either science or fiction.
I am stressing this point, because it's important to illustrate that some of the support for these categories is based on a determined POV-pushing by adherents of scientism and logical positivism. They are quite entitled to their POV, but should not be trying to use the category system to promote it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
According to Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus there is stuff which gives meaning to one's life but which isn't scientific fact, i.e. which constitutes a subjective choice to believe something rather than something else. Faith is subjective, science is objective, meaning that according to WP:ABIAS, present-day science and/or scholarship provide us with the best approximation of what constitutes an objective fact, i.e. something contrasted to a subjective belief. According to WP:BALL, we cannot predict what will be considered objective knowledge fifty or hundred years later, so we have to do with present-day science and scholarship. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BrownHairedGirl: "Love cannot be proven scientifically", that's not quite true (see Biological basis of love) There is no POV-pushing in clearly stating there is a difference between objective and provable science and unfalsifiable fictional constructions such as most claims made by most religions. Furthermore, the possible misuse of a tool by some WP editors is not enough reason to remove it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
It is of course fine to explain different, referenced views of the difference. The problem comes when one side tries to enshrine its own pejorative terminology in the navigation system, which is what is happening here.
The pejorative nature of this category makes it a handy tool for abuse, which is grounds for caution, but that is not the main issue here. The broader problem is that the terminology is both subjective and partisan, so its use cannot be resolved objectively and neutrally. --12:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl ( talk • contribs)
The fact that a term could be considered "pejorative" should not be a deterrent for it use, otherwise we should abstain from using a great deal of other terms (murderer, thief, and who knows what else some people could consider "pejorative") The terminology is neither subjective (pseudosciences can be pretty well defined) nor is it partisan (what party are you talking about?) and its use can of course be resolved objectively and neutrally: we use WP:RS to assign it just like with everything else around here. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Terms such as "murderer" are also pejorative, and highly problematic, because many cases involve grey areas of evidence and of definition and perspective. That's why we have a Category:People convicted of murder to clarify that are noting the fact of conviction, rather than applying a value judgement. That's why other subjective and pejorative categories have been deleted, such as Category:Homophobes and Category:Terrorists.
As with terrorism and homophobia, pseudoscience can be well-defined. That doesn't mean either that the definitions are stable or neutral, or that they allow objective categorisation on a binary model. A simple example of this is alchemy, which is described and categorised in that an article as a protoscience, rather than as a pseudoscience; but the POV-warriors want to label all alchemists as pseudoscientists, despite scholarship such as this which demonstrates that it's not that simple.
The partisanship I refer to is that editors such as yourself who insist that everything can be neatly divided into either science or fiction. That's POV-pushing of a particularly extreme form of scientism. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
As you put it, some terms may involve grey areas and this one is not an exception. That is not reason enough not to have it though, that's why we have Category:Murderers and Category:Rapists_by_nationality; sometimes there is no grey area and that's where WP:RS come into play. I do not insist in that everything can be "neatly divided into either science or fiction", I adhere to the concept of falsifiability to separate the most obvious cases and creationism definitely falls into the obvious category. The broader discussion of what is science and what is not is something we can discuss elsewhere. I would appreciate very much if you could stop referring to my position (and that of all the editors who disagree with your view) as "scientism POV-pushing", it makes it very hard to have a reasonable discussion when the other person keeps making comments on your supposed intentions. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Gaba, please make up your mind. You deny above that everything can be "neatly divided into either science or fiction", but earlier you wrote any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. You are quite entitled to retreat a little from that fundamentalist scientism, but please don't deny a point which you yourself have advanced with such vigour.
I'm sorry that it is uncomfortable for you, but I will continue to describe your stance as "scientism POV-pushing", because you have repeatedly denounced non-scientific forms of knowledge as fiction, and insist on the use of a pejoratively-named category for fields of study which don't fit the ideological criteria of scientism. That's just as much POV-pushing as a religious editor seeking to categorise people as infidels, or a Marxist editor insisting on categorising capitalist countries as bourgeois democracies (another well-defined concept with a solid theoretical base, but subjective in application, partisan in tone, and pejorative to other ideologies). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I have not retreated at all, I still maintain what I said above: any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. This is not the same as saying that everything can be "neatly divided into either science or fiction" as you claim since "science" is not easy to define (which is why I stated many times that that's a larger discussion we should have elsewhere, but you keep bringing it up). This is not uncomfortable to me as I can stand by everything I say, do you still stand by "Love cannot be proven scientifically"? I'm sorry that you'd feel referring to the intentions of editors who disagree with you as "scientism POV-pushing" is an appropriate way to carry on a discussion. I take it you wouldn't like it if I called you "anti-science POV-pusher" over and over again. What do you call "non-scientific forms of knowledge" BHG? Please do tell me and feel free to give examples.
There is no difference between categorizing people as Category:Murderers or Category:Rapists_by_nationality or Category:Martyrs (or many others) and categorizing them as Category:Pseudoscientists: for each one of those you base your edits on reliable sources. The difference you claim is that one of those is subjective and "pejorative" and can offend certain ideologies, which is a subjective statement in itself. There is no reason we should treat this any different that how we treat other categories: if WP:RS are in place, we use the cat, if not we don't. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The existence of RS is a necessary but insufficient criterion for categorisation. As noted above, plenty of other categories (homopobes, terrorists, etc) have been deleted because they are subjective, pejorative and partisan.
I have may have been slightly to narrow in describing as scientism your view that "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. It would probably be better described as logical positivism, a mid-20th-century philosophical movement. There is nothing at all wrong with holding to that view; the problem is the POV-pushing demand that adherents of this philosophy negatively categorise other topics according to the logic of their own philosophy. It's just as much POV-pushing in this case as when it is done by a Marxist or an anarchist or a Buddhist. Pointing that out does not make me anti-science any more than it makes me anti-Buddhist or anti-Marxist; I am merely pointing out that there are many different philosophical approaches to human knowledge.
If you want examples of "non-scientific forms of knowledge", consider history or philosophy or theology, disciplines which have been firmly anchored in academia for two millennia; but according to you, these ancient intellectual traditions are all fiction. As to love, start by reading Love#Comparison_of_scientific_models. If you still hold to the view that it can be scientifically proven I look fwd to the refs supporting that view.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Since when are WP:RSs insufficient to back an edit in WP? You insist on equating this cat with deleted ones and I keep mentioning other that have not been deleted, are just as contentious and are still up (ie: Category:Murderers, Category:Rapists_by_nationality, Category:Martyrs) So where does that leave us? I have no problem with you describing my views in any way you see fit (though I lean more towards Critical rationalism), I do have a problem with you constantly accusing me of "scientism POV-pushing" when I could apply the same criteria to you and accuse you of "anti-science POV-pushing" (which you deny but then, you would, wouldn't you? :). What do you say we both simply WP:FOC and stop assigning hidden agendas to other editors? The section you point me to about "love" describes pretty much what I said: it's a chemical process in its core. Which part of that do you believe "cannot be proven scientifically"? As for refs, there are many articles that deal with the issue in one way or another in the scientific literature, here's a few [4] [5] [6]. Feel free to look around the site for more.
As to "there are many different philosophical approaches to human knowledge", this is I'd say an even broader discussion (see Epistemology) than the one about the meaning of science and just like with that one I disagree that either plays a significant role in this dispute. Your point about philosophy or theology being knowledge is an interesting one and I admit I might have been too broad with my original statement (although I recognize neither as a science in a strict sense) and separating "knowledge" from "fiction" is not exactly accurate since fictional constructions (like many present in philosophy or theology) can indeed be considered "knowledge". Falsifiability and what constitutes knowledge are both fields of study which are too big to merge together in a simple statement. In any case, this whole side-tracked discussion started with you saying that "per WP:NPOV, we don't categorise religion under fiction" which is something I never did nor would do. So back on track my original point remains a very simple one: if there are WP:RS in place then we can use the category, if not we don't. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Add: after reading some of the proposals below I could also go for a renaming of the cat to Advocates of pseudoscience which is just as accurate and possibly a lot less controversial. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
random break
  • Keep - There is some opinion on Wikipedia by editors that the term Pseudoscience is an insult and that it becomes a BLP issue to claim a person is a Pseudoscientist. That is actually the very opposite, as we do not want to lump people who study UFOs with people who study space etc. In other words we should be careful who we add to the category, but it does serve a true and reasonable encyclopedic purpose in seperating atrue sceience from that of the Pseudoscientific community/world.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This category has tremendous potential for BLP violations and also misuse by POV editors.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is there any objective measure which we could use to definitely classify someone as a pseudoscientist? If not, it's meaningless to keep such an arbitrarily imposed category. - A1candidate ( talk) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

This discussion has been listed at the Fringe theories Noticeboard with the edit summary "This requires urgent attention". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)

  • Whitewashing POV attempts frequently require urgent attention from interested parties, yes -- or are you suggesting that editors interested in pseudoscience should remain ignorant lest they offer their opinions? 00:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton ( talk • contribs)
  • Sigh. Per WP:CANVASS, notifications can be appropriate, but must (inter alia) be neutrally-worded. "This requires urgent attention" doesn't look particularly neutral to me. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Neither word games nor avoidance of upsetting the delicate are good reasons for the deletion of objective, accurate categories. -- Calton | Talk 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; use with care. Cardamon ( talk) 01:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not because of the issue of whether it's appropriate to call someone a pseudoscientist, but because of the nominator's statement. This term can have two separate meanings, and we have articles on people that fit into both. It's thoroughly unhelpful to put phrenologist Franz Joseph Gall into the same category as Piltdown Man creator Charles Dawson, but both would fit in Category:Pseudoscientists, because one's a pseudoscient-ist and the other's a pseudo-scientist. I wouldn't object to the creation of separate categories: one for the pseudoscient-ists and another for the pseudo-scientists. Nyttend ( talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. One difficulty with this category is that some people in it are respected academics in their area of expertise, but they also engage in pseudoscience outside that field. Tagging them as "pseudoscientists" devalues their mainstream work and becomes a WP:BLP issue (in the extreme case, we could, for example, list every scientist who looks at a horoscope). I don't think it's possible to use this category with care, because it does not, in fact, have an objective definition; categorisation is based on subjective criteria or WP:SYNTH. However, the effect of this category could easily be achieved by listing people in appropriate subcategories of category:pseudoscience. -- 101.117.108.170 ( talk) 01:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as no one self identifies, and there isn't an objective standard possible for inclusion. BLP nightmare. Our goal isn't "Truth", it is "verifiable facts", and this strays from that goal. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 01:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I disagree that this isn't verifiable. We can identify pseudoscience, and it's not difficult to find reliable sources which identify the members as advocates for pseudoscientific ideas. That's why I suggested the "advocates of" rename: really, it's indisputable whether or not some one is pushing such ideas. Mangoe ( talk) 02:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Which is synthesis, not a reliable source. And any reliable source would be giving an opinion as there is no universal definition. Go ahead and disagree, but I assure you I've thought this out and I'm beyond persuasion on this BLP nightmare. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 02:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This sort of labelling is a bad idea. One problem that especially concerns me is the difficulty with people who are reputable conventional scientists in one field,and have also done psuedoscience. Neither inclusion nor exclusion is really a NPOV statement in such cases--it amounts to a judgement about which part of their career is primary. There are also all the practical difficulties to WP editing specified by -BrownHairedGirl. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Potential for misuse is not an argument for deletion; it can be used against any category. An editor could put Mike Tyson under Category:Otolaryngologists or anybody under Category:Monsters and it would be equally disruptive yet not an argument to delete Category:Otolaryngologists or Category:Monsters. Reliable sources (of higher quality and academically sound) identify some people as pseudoscientists whether they self-identify or not. It is entirely possible to verify if some subjects meet the criteria amongst better reliable sources, and not for trivial reasons. We don't have a standard definition for who is a writer, or even who is a certain kind of fraud, or any number of "subjective" categorizations that we currently use, positive or negative, we look to better academic sources to tell us. We should describe (without undue euphemism) subjects named by better sources as being involved in pseudoscience in a defining way. We should remove entries where the description is undue, but that still leaves articles to categorize this way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The term is no more subjective than the term "scientist". That's the very nature of the demarcation problem. If we have inclusion criteria for the term "scientist" clear enough such that we can use it for categorization, then we also have inclusion criteria for the term "pseudoscientist" clear enough such that we can use it for categorization. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
More: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious pseudoscience WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience says: "15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." And: "16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." That renders moot any debates about the "subjectivity" of determining what is and isn't pseudoscience. We've already determined that we can adequately determine what is and isn't pseudoscience for the purposes of categorization. A pseudoscientist is any one who advocates anything properly categorized as pseudoscience. That's as plain as any other category.
Concerning statements that those trying to label things as pseudoscience are the active, POV editors here: such statements are wrong. Wikipedia has always been a magnet for POV editors of the exact opposite stripe: People who favour views which are commonly described as pseudoscientific. They may believe in the Genesis creation myth, resurrection, etc. Such people cannot find their views supported in standard academic works so they come to the encyclopedia which any one can edit in order to push them here. Those who hold the mainstream academic view have nothing to gain in terms of respectability by bringing a crowd-sourced encyclopedia to alignment with their perspective. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 19:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If someone espouses a particular pseudoscientific belief, then categorize by belief ("creationist", "flat-earth advocate", "anti-vaccination campaigner", etc.). With the more specific category we have a much better chance of the person self-identifying. With the overbroad "pseudoscientists", there's no self-identification and the label is applied only by those who disagree with what the person believes. The gain to be had isn't worth the arguments this is going to cause. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 04:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. For those who think the category definition is "clear," which of these people belong in the category?
  • Linus Pauling -- legendary Chemist and winner of the Nobel, but also promoted pseudoscience about megavitamin treatment of disease
  • Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev -- Russian astronomer with a good early career, but became out-of-date during imprisonment in a Soviet gulag, so that his later work had limited value
  • John Hartnett (physicist) -- respected minor physicist, but has also written some Creationist papers
  • Elizabeth Rauscher -- American physicist with a good early career, but now focussed entirely on psychic healing, faith healing, and the paranormal

-- 101.117.89.99 ( talk) 07:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete While there are people, who most would agree are pseudoscientists, this category has no sharp boundaries. Philosophers of science have never formulated an adequate demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Why do we think we can? I am One of Many ( talk) 08:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know whether this is delete, rename or what, but to call someone a pseudoscientist when they advocate pseudoscience is a categorical fallacy. Linus Pauling was an advocate of pseudoscience, but to call him a pseudoscientist is perverse given that he is a Nobel laureate. Same for Brian Josephson. So if we keep the category it needs to be renamed to something like "pseudoscience advocates" (which eliminates a lot of the BLP issues) or if we don't then the prominent advocates of pseudoscience, such as Chopra, Pauling, Josephson, Sheldrake and all, can go into the category Pseudoscience. I suspect that pseudoscience advocates is better, and I also suspect that in some cases it is redundant: any young Earth creationist is, by definition, an advocate of pseudoscience, as is any homeopathy, alternative medicine practitioner, nutritionist and so on. Where someone is primarily known for activity in a field which is itself identified as pseudoscience (as opposed to fringe or pathological science) then any pseudoscience categorisation of that person probably amounts to OVERCAT.
Examples:
Deepak Chopra, Rupert Sheldrake, Linus Pauling, Brian Josephson etc. should IMO be in Category:Pseudoscience advocates
Dana Ullman, George Vithoulkas and others should be in Category:Homeopathy advocates, which should be included in Category:Pseudoscience advocates.
Ken Ham, Kent Hovind et. al should be in Category:Young Earth creationists, which should be included in Category:Pseudoscience advocates
So I guess my !vote is probably: rename' and partially depopulate on the basis that it is perfectly possible for a respectable scientist still to be an advocate for pseudoscience, especially outside of their own field of expertise. Guy ( Help!) 09:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Isn't the notion that it's a categorical fallacy based on the premise that the categories form disjoint sets i.e. that a person can't be categorized as both a scientist (or a related category) and a pseudoscientist (to cover different periods of the life or work for example) ? I find some of the delete arguments in this discussion quite persuasive, but the community has apparently decided that it can distinguish between science and pseudoscience. It seems reasonable that certain things follow from that including giving readers the ability to navigate categories that contain articles about people who reliable sources identify as explicitly studying and advocating pseudoscience. Deletion seems a step too far for me but perhaps pseudoscience advocates would be better. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
A look at these topics shows that there are huge differences between them. For example, alchemy is one the precursors of modern science; many of its techniques and findings informed chemistry, and our article on the topic doesn't even use the term "pseudoscience". Yet Category:Alchemists is a sub-cat of Category:Pseudoscientists. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • 'Scientist' is a value judgement too. It's based on a judgement about what constitutes science at the moment. Some people regard the term scientist as a pejorative. I'm thinking clever, cooler than me, sophisticated, artsy types who hurt my feelings when I was a student and apparently left me embittered enough to mention it years later here. Simply categorising people by the type of work they do is probably fine, as long as the local branches of the category tree associated with it are also fine and somehow preserve the notion of pseudoscience where appropriate. I can support that approach but my primary concern is practical and making sure things actually make sense, at least to me e.g. that they incorporate the implications of the community deciding that it knows the difference between science and pseudoscience, scientists and pseudoscientists/advocates of pseudoscience based on policy. If a reader would like to navigate a category of people who advocate pseudoscience (in general, they may not know exactly what they want), will they be able to do that without having to go too far down the rabbit hole that is Wikipedia's category system ? These kind of discussions often seem to me to be a bit too influenced by concerns about misuse of what ever it is that is being discussed. People are very creative in Wikipedia and will find ways to misuse anything and everything. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • rename to advocates of pseudoscience per Guy. being able to find people who push various forms of quackery is legit navigation aid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. BLP, self-identification... Also, problems of mixtures: the person holds a mixture of scientific and pseudoscientific views. Is she a pseudoscientist? Howunusual ( talk) 15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . "Pseudoscientist" is not a label of self-identification. It is a pejorative term used to label those individuals who some people view as quacks. I doubt that anyone who is placed in this category sees themselves as a pseudoscientist and there are more defining categories that would be more appropriate than some catchall category that includes a wide variety of individuals with very different beliefs, education, backgrounds and occupations. There is no set criteria for belonging in this category, it is a subjective view of individual Wikipedia editors who to include and that is not a good basis for categorization. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 1. The term is generally regarded as a pejorative, which means that sources using the term as a matter of opinion fail WP:BLP. Pejoratives require specific factual sourcing, and some of the sources presented seem to fail that simple test. 2. Can use of the category cause harm to people? To that, the answer appears to be "yes" again making it fall under the strictures of WP:BLP. 3. Are some of the sources provided apparently so based on personal opinion that they fail to be usable as statements of fact? Yes -- as BHG notes I so determined one "source" to be simply an anti-religion screed. 4. Does Wikipedia make specific rules about how religions are treated? Yes - vide the New Religious Movements decision, etc. 5. Would assigning pejoratives to religions and religious movements benefit the encyclopedia? No. In fact, embroiling Wikipedia in religious controversy is likely one of the worst possible courses of action. This covers a few of the caveats which are policy based regarding this category. Collect ( talk) 21:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename I like the idea of changing it to advocates of pseudoscience. Seems like the that is what the category already is by definition and makes it easier instead of distinguishing practice, advocacy and what not as there is not really science going into it anyways. XFEM Skier ( talk) 06:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or rename The fact that something is "hard", is or might be a battleground is no reason not to have it. We simply make sure it is not used as a battleground, or not for long. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 12:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete per DGG and BrownHairedGirl. I have myself added this category to several articles; that was I think perfectly legitimate given the way the category is presently defined, however, I agree the best option is to delete the category altogether. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Guy. Someone who advocates young Earth creationism as fact by means of alleged "scientific discoveries" that are discredited and rejected in the vast majority of reliable sources is, objectively, engaged in pseudoscience. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it just seems too polemical, especially on BLP articles. Articles usually say "John Doe is an advocate of intelligent design which is generally considered pseudoscience" not "John Doe is a pseudoscientist." I did a search and there are absolutely zero articles that use the word "pseudoscientist". While NPOV dictates that scientific content on Wikipedia should reflect mainstream scientific consensus, whether the topic is mainstream or some fringe theory, that does not mean that it's appropriate for Wikipedia to be used for advocacy against pseudoscience or its alleged practitioners. It's as inappropriate as any other form of advocacy on Wikipedia. A fine distinction, perhaps, but we need to make it. 71.58.95.36 ( talk) 14:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Identifying someone as a pseudoscientist is not advocacy against pseudoscientists. What some are forgetting here is that categories are for navigation -- for finding other members associated with the same topic. In those terms there's no question this is a useful category for our readers. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Guy. Advocacy can be easily sourced and is not controversial. 86.20.65.8 ( talk) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
This comment is this IP's only edit. Liz Read! Talk! 14:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • (I saw this discussion at ANI) Keep or rename as Guy suggested. Note that astrology is regarded as pseudoscience by the modern scientific community for several reasons; that makes category:astrologers is an accurate subcategory of pseudoscientists / pseudoscience advocates. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • How much sense does this make as applied to historical astrologers, for instance? Right now, this means that Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei are classified as pseudoscientists (or worse, pseudoscience advocates). Drill down through the sub cats, you can find tons of people who don't really belong in the parent category. As a container category for all the practitioners of Category:Pseudosciences I guess it's less susceptible to BLP abuse, given that it doesn't appear directly on the articles in question, but it's still a problematic designation. 2601:1:2080:1AF:4400:67B0:68B0:7327 ( talk) 21:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Good point. On a broad reading of the current definition, Linus Pauling, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei all belong in the category -- but doing so would make a mockery of Wikipedia. We really can't tag someone as "pseudoscientist" unless that's a defining characteristic of their activity. And for that, we'd need reliable sources that justify using the label. -- 101.117.90.123 ( talk) 00:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, a century ago medicine was all about applying leeches, but there is no separate category for Category:Modern physicians. All medics are grouped under the same category Category:Physicians, and they are only divided by time periods and by nationality. I suppose that this sort of incoherence is to be expected when a field evolves over time? We could divide "Astrologers" between "ancient" and "modern", and only the "modern" ones would be a subcategory of "pseudoscientists". But I am not sure if this has been done anywhere else..... -- Enric Naval ( talk) 02:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The most basic rationale: "pseudoscientist" is presupposed by "pseudoscience." As a logical extension of the same word, it doesn't make sense to delete this one without first (or simultaneously) deleting the other. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    Longer comment: Mediawiki jargon aside, I [ahem] categorically disagree that categories are not "content" or not "part of the article." Categories are on the page, part of the encyclopedia, and have great rhetorical power. To anyone who says categories are "just navigational aids," just look at Diderot's weaponization of cross-referencing/categorizing in the Encyclopedie or Foucault on ordering things as an act of power. Categories take the whole of a subject and place it into small, discrete boxes. It should be careful business. But so long as we have a category for "pseudoscience," it's business that should be for article talk pages and dispute resolution venues. "Is x a pseudoscience per consensus among reliable sources?" If yes, "does person y practice pseudoscience x per consensus among reliable sources?" If no consensus can be come to, then no consensus can be come to. Again, it's a content dispute. Don't remove tools just because some people abuse them or because they're hard to use. But, again, if we decide that a pseudoscience category is not something any subject can be reduced to, this could be revisited. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Categories should not be used to hang a badge of dishonor on people based on the collective judgement of Wikipedia editors. This is especially unacceptable for living persons, where strong sourcing is required for contentious claims. Unlike criminal behavior, where conviction in a court provides an objective standard, there is no official or impartial body that assigns the pseudoscientist label to people. We can report on what people have said, based on reliable sources, and let our readers make up their own minds.-- agr ( talk) 23:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Any subjective attribute will include a number of examples where the sources give an overwhelming answer. However, those subjective attributes also involve many cases which are not so clearcut,. So long as we have the category, editors are forced to make a binary choice about applying the pejorative label in marginal cases, which is a blatant violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; the existence of the category forces editors to apply 100% of the weight to one side or the other.
    That's exactly why Category:Terrorists was deleted, despite strong sourcing in many individual cases.
    If we don't have the category, the label can still be used in the article per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, by identifying who has applied the label and balancing opposing views. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
random break 2
  • Keep You could say that the category "Quack" is a badge of dishonor on people based on the collective judgment of Wikipedia editors (or on the consensus among reliable sources), but as long as there are quacks out there doing real harm to people, the category of quacks is justified. Same applies to the category of pseudoscientists. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    There is no Category:Quack or Category:Quacks. And the job of an encyclopedia isn't to prevent harm to people. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 01:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep With regard to BLP issues, the potential for abuse, and the need for strong sourcing, this silly little category is tame and non-controversial when compared to List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming . Flying Jazz ( talk) 13:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That list is problematic, but it is not a category, and has several strengths over a category. Every entry in that list is sourced, whereas categ entries cannot be sourced. That list is broken down by the nature of the claimed opposition, but the category allows for no such nuance. Note that the category equivalent to that list was deleted at CFD 2009 Nov 7. The broader Category:Global warming skeptics was deleted at CFD 2008 August 7 and again at CFD 2009 Dec 7. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I think I may be tempted to change my opinion as I begin to understand the implications of your reply. Wikipedia may no longer have the necessary human resources of editors and admins needed for anything remotely controversial to exist here because admins have apparently become more intrusive and engage in more wikilawyering themselves than the last time I was active here. By doing that, they encourage the behavior in others who are then banned or leave the project. So only crazy folks and admins remain to wikilawyer and cite policy to each other instead of spending time on strong sourcing to remove potential BLP issues. In fact at this very moment, I'm tempted to find or try to create some "OTHER-STUFF-DOESN'T-EXIST" policy to counter your reasons about why this category should be deleted because those others were. Fortunately, I don't cite policy that way. But it was a close call. Flying Jazz ( talk) 19:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This one has an objective definition, and, technically, classical astrologers (Kepler, etc.) would not be pseudoscientists, although they were astrologers. Astrology was not pseudoscience then, but it is now. (And I came here from WP:ANI not from the fringe noticeboard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • So why is Category:Astrologers categorised under Category:Pseudoscientists? That groups all astrologers as pseuds. Same with Category:Alchemists, even tho the head article describes alchemy as a protoscience, not pseudoscience? --20:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The astrologer category is problematic of itself in its co-mingling of historic figures with moderns who don't have an excuse for not knowing that it has been proven to be bunk. I don't know how badly the same problem affects alchemy but it probably has fewer people on the quackery side of the line. So I would take both of these subcats out, and there are probably others. I don't see this as a subjective determination, though. Mangoe ( talk) 12:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • overall comment There's a lot of talk here presupposing that the bias in these determinations is towards tagging these people illegitimately. That's not my experience. People who are incorrectly tagged get fixed, in general, with a minimum of fuss; the big fights are inevitably powered by the supporters of people who should be tagged. Just read the archives of Talk:Rupert Sheldrake, and the AN/I archives, and the Arb Enforcement archives, not to mention the several rounds on FT/I. Mangoe ( talk) 12:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I would prefer to have this as a container only category, with all articles on individuals moved into more specific categories. Calling someone a pseudo-scientist is derogatory and potentially defamatory, and thus unacceptable for BLP articles. However, the more specifiuc category for his or her particular discipline is likely to be true. It is categorising that a a branch of pseudoscience that is potentially derogatrory. The issue may also be slighgtly defused by a headnote indicating that the majority view is that the disciplines categorised are regarded as pseudoscience, but in some cases that view may be controversial. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BLP does not object to "defamatory" information per se, it objects to improperly sourced defamation (like rumors). Sometimes there is a consensus in reliable sources that someone is a quack or a pseudoscientist. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Really? Reliable sources very seldom (if ever) use the words "quack" or "pseudoscientist" -- partly because they are defamatory (and, in many countries, actionable). Reliable sources tend to use factual language, such as "has been condemned by the scientific community" or "has not been found to be effective in multiple human trials." -- 101.117.88.135 ( talk) 04:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
[7] [8] We're not arguing over your hypothetical " Category:Quacks". Someone who practices pseudoscience is a pseudoscientist. 182.249.241.1 ( talk) 06:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, that source says that you can't call someone a "pseudoscientist" unless they have certain (bad) motives. In other words, it's evidence against the idea that "someone who practices pseudoscience is a pseudoscientist." -- 101.117.57.116 ( talk) 08:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I have no doubt that anyone could easily produce dozens of reliable sources which call Lysenko a pseudoscientist (e.g., [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]) Are all of these well-established and reputable academic publishers—Oxford University Press, Springer, Routledge, ABC-CLIO, etc.—and the dozens of tenured professors and other credentialed writers calling Lysenko a pseudoscientist all taking part in defamation and risking legal action? I doubt that. The cause of this whole brouhaha is that Wikipedia attracts some people who reject things like modern genetics, and so Lysenkoism etc. do not seem like pseudosciences to them, and they are upset when Wikipedia disagrees with their point of view. It's unfortunate that they do not find the moral support that they desire. However, their theories are rejected by virtually all reliable sources as pseudoscience, which means that by WP:NPOV we should not fail to describe them as pseudoscience and people like Lysenko as pseudoscientists. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 09:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Indeed; this is the one thing that people tend to forget (or ignore) regarding NPOV: that if the majority of the sources have an overwhelmingly negative (or positive, for that matter!) portrayal of a subject, it is non-neutral for it not to be described in such a fashion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2014
@ The Bushranger: That is a serious misrepresentation of a core policy. WP:WEIGHT states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". What the Bushranger proposes is that if one view meets a bare majority test, then it must be stated as a fact. This would be a radical revision of NPOV.
The problem with the category is that it is a binary switch, with none of the weighting required by WP:WEIGHT, because it excludes the view of significant minorities. By Bushranger's logic, if 50.01% of sources say that a topic is "X", we are required to place it in "Category:X", and if only 49.99% of sources describe it that, we don't.
That binary switch works fine for a criterion such as whether something is in France, or whether a person has been convicted of something, because it is very rare for those attributes to be ambiguous. A larger degree of fuzziness is also acceptable if the label is not pejorative; but the more pejorative the label becomes, the more we need to be wary of forcing a binary choice.
Despite the claims of some editors large swathes of this topic are not binary; the demarcation problem is an unresolved issue in the philosophy of science. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
In order for this argument to justify deletion, doesn't 'large swathes' need to be 'in all cases' i.e. for every instance it is not possible to decide whether an article is a member of the set 'pseudoscientists' (or a renamed set advocates of pseudoscience or thereabouts) ? Or at least the inability to decide based on policy will render the set too small to justify the existence of a category. In other words, the argument is essentially that it is never (or so rarely) possible for a person to be added to the category pseudoscientists that the category can't be populated and can therefore be deleted. Even if every single source found described the person as a pseudoscientist or as an advocate of what is regarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience (and a member of the binary pseudoscience category), an article about a person could not be added because a) people who edit Wikipedia say it's pejorative b) there may be sources that dispute the description that haven't been found and c) the subjects obviously won't regard themselves as pseudoscientists nor will the non-RS sources that support them and advocate what Wikipedia categorizes as pseudoscience. In a nutshell, the argument seems to be, it's often difficult to decide whether someone can be categorized as a pseudoscientist or an advocate of what is regarded by the scientific community (and Wikipedia via its category system) as pseudoscience, so let's not do it in all cases and delete the category. Is it really the case that there are no biographies could be placed in this category ? If so, why is it the case that the subjects these same people study/advocate can be placed in the pseudoscience category ? What are the consequences of arguments like this that categorizing people is difficult when people who edit Wikipedia say something is pejorative? What other useful categories could be deleted using these kind of arguments; Conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, communist vs anti-communist depending on what people who edit Wikipedia regard as pejorative etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The difference is, it is possible to say that topic X is relevant to the broader topic of Homophobia and thus belongs in the topic category of homophobia. However, saying person X IS a homophobe, which Category:Homophobes means as a category, is a different proposition. Additionally, there is a level of indirection here, in saying that Astrology is relevant to the topic of pseudo-science vs saying an Astrologer is a pseudo-scientist.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't think indirection changes things and I don't think it is really a different proposition. Astrologer Joan Quigley a member of the set Pseudoscience just like People from Park County, Wyoming and members of the set American people and therefore Americans. What's odd about the approach used is that even if the proposition is verifiable and undisputed according to what Wikipedia regards as RS, many editors don't like categories like these unless they employ indirection, which results in somewhat bizarre cases like Eustace Mullins, whose picture could appear next to the dictionary entry for antisemite, not being categorized as an antisemite. I can understand the concerns with these categories but the reality is that people are making the same decision as they would if they didn't use indirection, that Joan Quigley is relevant to the broader topic of pseudoscience and that what they do is, according to Wikipedia, pseudoscience, but they are obscuring that decision procedure with layers of indirection. It's still there though embedded in the category structure. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, consensus has been clearly established, repeatedly so, that we are not to use categories to label people as anti-semitic, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or pretty much anything else pejorative and subjective. Being a murderer is not subjective - we have whole justice systems which are set up to make a societal determination on whether someone is or isn't a murderer. However, how much "pseudoscience" must you do to merit this category? The boundary is subjective, which is always bad for a category, especially so for a pejorative one, which is why they are generally not allowed. If there were people who were proudly claiming to be pseudoscientists it would be different deal (and this is why Category:Astrologers is perfectly reasonable, since they themselves claim to be astrologers). Also I wouldn't read too much into the category structure nesting - once you get 2 or 3 levels deep, it starts to fail, this is just part of the challenge of categorizing and it will never be fixed.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
(ec) @ Sean.hoyland: it's mischievious to imply that the view of "pseudoscientist" as a pejorative label is some sort of invention of Wikipedia editors. (The term "pejorative" has been in the head article since at least 2006, and is currently referenced to a Stanford University publication). Merriam-Webster defines "pseudo" as " not real or genuine", and by any measure that is a pejorative way of labelling something.
But I think you get to the kernel of the issue when you refer to what is regarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience. You don't acknowledge the demarcation problem, or the common view of medieval alchemy as a protoscience, and imply that the scientific community has a consistent and coherent view of what constitutes pseudoscience; and you also confirm the point that I made repeatedly above, that this is a pejorative term used by practitioners of science to denigrate those with whom it has a demarcation problem. It is a term used with much greater caution by uninvolved parties such as philosophers of science, and the head article acknowledges that: "The boundary lines between science and pseudoscience are disputed and difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in varied fields, and despite some basic agreements on the fundaments of scientific methodology. [14] [15]". Yet despite that century of unresolved philosophical debate, some wikipedia editors are arguing here that they can weigh reliable sources so effectively that they can make an NPOV binary choice to apply or reject the label (which is all a category allows) to biographies of real people. Where philosophers fear to tread, it seems that Wikipedia editors are determined go boldly :(
This remains a case of one system of knowledge applying a derogatory label to those at its boundaries; it serves a similar function to other pejorative terms such as heretic (note that Category:Heretics was deleted in 2007).
Comparisons with terms like "communist" are misplaced, because while that label is used pejoratively, it is also widely used as a term of self-identification. We would be hard-pressed to find any self-identified pseudoscientists. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Philosophers don't agree on what existence, time, numbers, colours, holes, causation, language, minds, and many other things which are regularly treated in this encyclopedia are. When we describe pi as being an "irrational" number, we're not failing to acknowledge the problems of number, nor are we going boldly where philosophers fear to tread. The same is true when we call Trofim Lysenko a "pseudoscientist". It's just that there are dozens of reliable sources which call Lysenko a pseudoscientist and not a single one which disagrees. We do well by plainly reflecting this unanimous judgement of our reliable sources. The opposite view—that Lysenko is not a pseudoscientist—has zero support among reliable sources, and so should be given no weight. When philosophers debate about the nature of number, they are not debating whether pi is irrational (they already recognize that, or they defer to mathematicians). When philosophers debate about the nature of science, they are not debating whether Lysenko was a pseudoscientist (they already recognize this, or they defer to biologists). -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 21:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, it's true, scholars have problematized all SORTS of things. The real challenge with this category is because it is a label that is considered pejorative, and the use of such pejorative labels as categories for people has been broadly rejected by consensus again and again. There is a difference between saying in the article text "Lysenko is broadly considered to have pursued pseudo-scientific theories of evolution and reproduction" and just tagging him as a pseudo-scientist - and indeed it's rather bizarre because he is also tagged as a scientist, and a biologist, and he actually did make useful contributions to crop yields [16], although he also of course caused a great deal of harm to same. So can someone be a pseudoscientist and a scientist at the same time? If you check your reliable sources, you will also find dozens of sources that call him a "Russian biologist" - so was he a biologist, or not?-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 21:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
It doesn't really matter if I think he is a pseudoscientist, a scientist, a biologist or anything. It just matters what the reliable sources say. Creating this encyclopedia should be a relatively mechanical procedure where reliable sources are collated and accurately reflected by summarizing their views with due weight. It should be irrelevant what the personal views of editors are. I may think that Lyshenko was the greatest scientist ever and that everyone calling him a pseudoscientist is just using pejoratives because they are biased towards Western imperialism and capitalism, but in article space I should just describe him as a pseudoscientist, a biologist, or whatever the reliable sources agree that he is. Couching unanimous views in the way you suggest ("Lysenko is broadly considered to have pursued pseudo-scientific theories of evolution and reproduction") is exactly what we shouldn't do. Using attribution like that insulates the claims. This is what WP:YESPOV is supposed to prevent. We don't say, "Humans are broadly considered to have evolved by natural selection". We just say, "Humans evolved by natural selection." Using the insulating, in-text attribution creates an air of doubt when there is no significant doubt among the reliable sources. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 22:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
@ BrownHairedGirl: Um...no, that's not what I meant at all. I meant that if there was a SIGNIFICANT majority (like, at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, sources describing Hitler) that a person or thing is Bad, in THAT case being "neutral" in the article is itself violating NPOV. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
@ The Bushranger: Thanks for clarifying that; your previous comment appeared to be referring to categories, and I'm sorry that I misunderstood it. Yes, of course, in the article we should continue to describe people in accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, without WP:SYN. The apparent fear amongst some editors that the content or balance of the articles would be altered by not having the category is misplaced. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have an account and have been editing Wikipedia longer than most of the people here. The OP's reasoning is flawed, as the OED clearly states "either ... or ...". This category is useful. For BLPs the category can be discussed using reliable third-party sources. For BLPs who have not been discussed as "pseudoscientists" in reliable literature, but who unquestionably are pseudoscientists, then the article should be deleted per WP:GNG. 182.249.241.12 ( talk) 02:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (as an attack category) per Mosfetfaser, DGG, Collect and Wnt. petrarchan47 t c 08:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep' and Rename -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 03:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no objective definition of pseudoscientist, so the fact that someone has been called a pseudoscientist should be presented with attribution in the article rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice, as is the case with a category. This category claims a black/white absolute truth, but the classification as pseudoscientist is always a gray area in between. Trying to tag a biography with this gray-area category is a BLP nightmare if the subject is living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 May 2014
Procedural note

I have proposed at the Administrators' noticeboard that this discussion should be closed by a 3-admin panel, as been done with some other highly-contested discussions. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Panel_to_close_CFD_on_Category:Pseudoscientists, which is where I suggested that the procedural issue be discussed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Temporary closing rationale Since we're going to have a three-admin panel reviewing this CFD, I've closed it procedurally (after agreement from other people at the admin noticeboard) to make things slightly simpler. It's already an extraordinarily complex discussion, and if the admins spend a good deal of time reviewing the discussion, only to discover that more people participated while they were reviewing, it's going to make it even more complicated. Once the panel's reviewed the discussion, they'll remove this temporary close and replace it with an actual close that resolves the situation. Nyttend ( talk) 05:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Now closed with decision. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lifeguards

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep and purge. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:COP#N. People like Clint Eastwood and Ronald Reagan are not notable as lifeguards. No objection to this category being kept/recreated if we ever find sufficient aricles about people who are notable as a lifeguard. DexDor ( talk) 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Newman is actually made notable by his appearances in Baywatch. In sampling the members I have yet to find someone whose lead even mention lifeguarding which doesn't also mention some other occupation which is the actual source of notability. Mangoe ( talk) 19:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, I think he's also notable for being a lifeguard. The point is, this is a valid occupation. I agree with a purge, but lifeguard doesn't have to be the sole reason for notability - it just has to be defining of the person. If it says "X is a lifeguard" in the lede, there's a good chance this is defining.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You might think so, but having actually looked at all the American examples and a good number of the Aussies, it doesn't appear to be the case. His article doesn't begin, " Ronald Reagan was a lifeguard and President of the United States," but there are some which use the same phraseology: see for example Clint Robinson, which gets around to mentioning that he's an Olympic medalist in the second sentence. Mangoe ( talk) 13:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Clint Robinson seems like a. Excellent example of someone for whom this is defining. Being a lifeguard/surf lifesaver is sort of his life. It's mentioned like 5 times in the lead paragraphs. Ronald Reagan is a red herring not sure why you bring it up - just purge him.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The Australian subcat is perhaps a little more justifiable. I get the impression that there are people there who are full-time lifeguards for some years, and that there is some sort of competition between them. If it ends being essentially the whole category, though, an upmerge would be in order, with possibly a rename to indicate that this isn't for the summer job set. Mangoe ( talk) 15:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Its possible once we purge, we won't need nationality subcats. We may also rename to surf lifesaver. We should treat this the same as Category:Restaurant staff - purge of people who just once worked as a waiter, but for a (small) subset of people this is indeed defining, eg for surf livesavers there are competitions, training regimes, schools, etc. It's not just sitting at a pool watching kids.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete As all Americans know, lifeguarding is a common summer job for American kids; my back-of-the-envelope calculation is that there are probably a hundred thousand every year, maybe ten times that. It has more cachet than dipping ice cream or selling T-shirts on the boardwalk, but it conveys no more notability. I've gone through the main list, and there is maybe one person whose fame derives from being a life guard, and her notability is really quite dubious. The rest are actors, athletes, writers, models, politicians—really just about anything. The Babewatch guy gets a slight notch up, but he's no Audie Murphy; he was hired as an actor, not as a lifeguard. The situation is perhaps slightly better with the Aussies, but again I'm seeing a lot of "John Doe is a surf lifesaver and a job-he's-actually-notable-for" leads. If we purged this, there would be nothing left except for a couple of articles. Mangoe ( talk) 12:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
well we have Category:Restaurant staff which is valid. It's a valid job and there are a few people notable for it. No call to delete accordingly.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 01:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
To be precise, there are two people who are notable in it; the other biographical entries suffer from the same issue as this category. It is more justifiable because of the "fictional" subcat and because it contains articles on particular restaurant positions. Mangoe ( talk) 02:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You're right about Category:Restaurant staff -- I had no idea such a ridiculous (I really want to say moronic, but maybe I shouldn't) category existed. I should AFD it. I am not looking down on any legal employment or hardworking people and their jobs -- but not every occupation or vocation or job can or should be categorized, or listified, for that matter! Quis separabit? 03:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Rms125a@hotmail.com: I agree, not all jobs should be listified or categorized, but if we have enough people who are notable for that, then why not? Restaurant staff does not include actors who once worked as a waiter - most of the contents are people who are literally known for being waiters, the most famous example being Edsel Ford Fung who my father used to tell me stories about when I was a kid.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I did hear about Edsel Ford Fung and saw a television news story about him many years ago. I wouldn't dispute his notability, but there are few professional waiters who stayed in the same restaurant for many decades, and became famous for that alone and of those I couldn't name them because they did not garner more than at best one-off publicity. So Fung is somewhat sui generis, wouldn't you say? Yours, Quis separabit?
There aren't many others - true - but there are still enough to make a category. Heather_Crowe is another good example. It's interesting that we have few real people who are notable for being servers in restaurants, while we have thousands of characters in tv,film, novels who do this as their job. Writers love to write stories about people who are waiters/bartenders/etc for some reason.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, we do have Category:McDonald's people... -- BDD ( talk) 16:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Most of those are executives or people involved in its founding or significant developments. Probably some of these could be pruned but it would still be a sufficiently large category. Mangoe ( talk) 12:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Purge but keep Categories don't magically create a wikipedia article for every person who was ever a lifeguard or restaurant staff; they organize articles we already have, of which a limited number would even mention it. The categories should be added where the characteristic has some significance to the subject, of course, but kept if those articles exist. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Purge but keep although it is not clear to me what the difference is between a lifeguard and a "surf lifesaver". I'm not sure these subcategories are necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a clutter magnet like category:beekeepers has become - where we have celebrities and mountain climbers along with real apiologists. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Purge and keep - The solution for clutter magnets is periodic degaussing. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This attracts too many people for whom it is in no way defining to ever work as a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Purge & Keep per above. —   dain omite   05:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fortification in Central America

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Fortifications in Central America. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: All of the subcategories are appropriately categorised under Category:Fortifications by country and :Category:Buildings and structures in Foo. We don't categorise fortifications by continent; Category:Fortification in Africa is a special case. The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Because the "Africa" category covers historical fortifications that were in ancient countries and now cover multiple countries, while this is a container category for national cats. However, it might well be possible to simply re-categorise the African ones in the relevant country categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Please see my previous comment - Central America also covers former countries, and unified countries. Simon Burchell ( talk) 10:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • OK, I see where your coming from - I think the category should continue in existance, but not be in Category:Fortifications by country (I just checked and it isn't anyway). It currently sits under "buildings and structures in Central America" and directly under "Fortification(s)". Perhaps a new subcat under Fortification(s) is necessary. Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, because categories should be plural — it needs to be "Fortifications". However, the idea should be kept, as it's indeed a former country, but make sure not to include Panamanian ones because they were part of Colombia at the time. Nyttend ( talk) 12:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename for MOS consistency; i.e. pluralize to "Fortifications". Quis separabit? 00:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • REname to plural. Otherwise this sub-continental categoisation is acceptable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and disperse where appropriate. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Nominator's comment: I'm fine with renaming, as there's a clear consensus that this category is appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_1&oldid=1142605931"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 30 May 2 >

May 1

Montréal region categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete as empty. No merger necessary as the category additions appear to have been straight additions - that were reverted as they were added before the categories were created and were, thus, redlinks at the time... The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Introduction of geographic names that are neither official nor commonly used. MTLskyline ( talk) 22:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note These 3 categories were nominated separately, with an identical rationale. I merged them into one discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE remaining separate category nomination also merged here -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 05:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. I also see that they're empty, too. Even French Wikipedia has no parent article for, say, Montréal-Nord-Ouest, whatever the heck that is. The West Island? I grew up there and we did used to call the northern part of it the "North Shore." Anyway, even a Google search fails to turn up any indication of what this is: some kind of WP:NEO or WP:OR, perhaps. If Category:Montréal-Centre isn't Category:Downtown Montreal, I don't know what else it would be. I truly have no idea what the category creator is up to with these, and I see s/he's also been quite busy moving pages around to new names, which is a tad worrisome. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per C1. Nerd in Texas ( talk) 15:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- The right solution ought to be merge back to parent, not delete. However, if the items are not clearly defined, we cannot keep them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Comunes of Italy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename WP:C2C. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: to match the format agreed at Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento#Requested_move, where the consensus was to use the English-language translation "communes". Most of the sub-categories already use this format. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Multiple categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete the first two; do not delete Category:Australian people of Silesian descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC) reply


Note: for clarification moved Silesia-related category as this one has been opposed; other two categories recommended for deletion appear to be unopposed. Quis separabit? 11:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose the last one, WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to categories that are part of a structure, in this case Category:People of Silesian descent and the other parent. I am less opposed to the others but upmerge to all parents rather than delete; but a discussion on all the grandchild categories of Category:People of Jewish descent should be initiated, for upmerging to their multiple parents, as the small size is not a problem where there is scope for increase and it is part of a structure. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your informed opinion but I must disagree regarding the claim that "there is scope for increase", as this is not the case with these three categories, which were, again, created to accomodate one individual (and by definition any parents or siblings who may be notable enough to have an article; not the case, in any event). I don't provisionally object to upmerges or to your position that Category:Australian people of Silesian descent is different from the others, although its population of 1 is concerning. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Native birds of the Pacific region U.S.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic L ondon 06:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a clearer title that matches West Coast of the United States and better distinguishes it from Category:Native birds of the Northwestern United States. " Pacific region" isn't well defined or commonly used in the US; it's likely to be mistaken for the Pacific Northwest. BDD ( talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)1 reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional women scientists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. As for Category:Fictional female scientists, see also the next CfD section on this page; contrary to the statement by 65.94.171.206 below, Elaqueate was not supporting this; the argument for it strikes me as valid, but clearly does not have consensus support from the community. I believe there is sufficient support here for a split to new Category:Fictional women engineers. – Fayenatic L ondon 06:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. Category:Fictional female scientists and engineers
  2. Category:Fictional women scientists and engineers
  3. Create a separate Category:Fictional female engineers
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with List of fictional scientists and engineers; Majority are both scientists/engineers and/or do not make a clear distinction between the occupations; For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than creating more categories
Comment: Should a separate List of fictional female scientists and engineers be created? (example: List of fictional female detectives) -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: one of these categories is duplicated below. Can you combine these nominations? Nevermind, I removed this one from the nomination below instead. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support not everything fictionally female are women -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 05:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose renaming, oppose expanding "Scientists and engineers" may be the name of a single list article somewhere, but the parent categories here are still separate things. Scientists and engineers have separate categories for both fictional and non-fictional subjects. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • support expanded definition we already combine in the list. Fiction in general won't make such firm distinctions as there are between scientists and engineers, and they are often conflated - e.g. a so-called "mad-scientists" is actually usually a "mad-engineer" - as they are building crazy things, not discovering new properties of the universe. There is no requirement for fictional categories to mirror real ones, and indeed they are sometimes combined or simplified, which we should do here. I'm neutral on women vs female for this one.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support renaming per above arguements -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 03:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Scientist and engineers are distinct groups. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose "... Scientists and engineers" anything shouldn't be grouped together in one category. —   dain omite   05:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional females

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic L ondon 06:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
  1. Category:Fictional women soldiers and warriors to Category:Fictional female soldiers and warriors
Nominator's rationale: The standard seems to be "female" which is more inclusive, especially since some are technically not "women" (i.e. girls, robots, gods, etc.) -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm removing Category:Fictional women scientists from this nomination, as the same category is already being discussed above, probably better to have separate discussions since the issues are slightly different.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • support, esp given these are not all humans.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support not everything fictionally female are women -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 05:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose renaming The rationale isn't correct; there is no "standard" when it comes to Wikipedia's use of Women vs Females. The fact that the articles described are fictional means they are being assigned their "womanhood" fictionally in any case. Robots are not actually sexed or gendered, but we are categorizing a fictional conceit. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Would you create a separate female category for non-women? Such as female aliens? Or sentient female slime molds ? And if they are assigned femaleness fictionally, then robots can be female. If they are fictionally assigned as female but not as women? -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
      • The category is Category:Fictional women scientists not Category:Fictional extraterrestrial women. "Women scientists" is a longstanding category tree, these all seem to be fictional women scientists (almost entirely fictional humans, it must be said). I can say that your first questions are not about gender, they're about whether we let aliens and robots into "people" categories of any type. Should a robot doctor character be put under "Fictional doctors" or "Fictional medical equipment"? The answer is that if editors see them as presenting as "people" we put them in, if we think of them as non-sentient machines, we put them with the tools. The articles we're categorizing are mostly people presenting as human women, with very few articles about characters we think of as non-human. They're included because we think of them as being women or presenting as women, not because we've worked out the details of their alien reproductive systems. Your other theoretical questions about characters "assigned female but not as women" seem to be about fictional characters with no presented gender but with a known biological sex. I doubt there's a lot of articles that would need categorizing there. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose There IS no standard of whether "women" or "female" is used in Wikipedia categories. I think women is preferable. If it is an article on a female alien or female robot, its categorization is primarily "alien" and "robot", not "female". There doesn't need to be a gender category for all fictional entities. It is important for there to be categories for female human beings, fictional or real. I think it can be assumed that most fictional soldiers, warriors, scientists and engineers that would be concluded are human characters, not alien ones. And female human beings are properly called "women". Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
we're not talking necessarily about robots, but we are talking about supernatural humanoid creatures for whom the term female is more apt. Female is more broad, and captures the many girls who are in these categories. Standards are different in fiction trees and female simply works better as an inclusive descriptor.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
This isn't about "supernatural humanoid creatures"; it's a category for fictional warriors and fictional scientists, the vast majority being fictional human women. The "non-human" are rare and would actually fit better across the board under women, than as somehow biologically "female". Wonder Woman may not be technically "human" but that doesn't mean it's somehow less accurate to call her a woman and a warrior because of that. Liz is absolutely correct that there is no standard of whether "women" or "female" is used in Wikipedia categories. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Did you look at the contents of the category? Most of them have supernatural powers, some are from different planets, etc. Female is simply more inclusive.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You say "most of them have supernatural powers"? Well, looking at the category, then no, most don't, and it's a non sequitur in any case. Having supernatural powers has exactly nothing to do with whether a character is called a woman or a man. This is getting into "Wonder Female" or "Supermale"-territory. No need to rename. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Although the robot question is silly, the question about girls isn't so silly. A fictional 12 year old female soldier is too young to qualify as a "fictional woman soldier". "Woman" is not a synonym for "female". Ken Arromdee ( talk) 17:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Support -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Female is not standard, and attempts to make it such have been repeadttedly defeated. There was a long discussion about a year ago about every one of the woman/female categories, that came to no consensus, and that had been done at least twice before. Woman is an acceptable descriptor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Leonardo da Vinci in television

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename WP:C2C. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Leonardo da Vinci in television to Category:Depictions of Leonardo da Vinci on television
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Depictions of people on television. -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pseudoscientists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A three-admin panel composed of User:BD2412, User:ThaddeusB, and User:BOZ has convened to review and determine the consensus of this discussion. The panel has determined that consensus supports the following decision:

Although there is no consensus to entirely eliminate the categorization of "pseudoscientists", there is a clear consensus that the current category can not be maintained as it stands. The consensus of the discussion, and the overriding policies of WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability, favor renaming and restricting the category. We note that the option of renaming the category was not proposed until later in the discussion, but that this option received a good amount of support once it was proposed. Because consensus favors changing the status quo, we find this proposal to be a reasonable compromise, which alleviates the problems identified by many earlier participants in the discussion.

The category will therefore be renamed Category:Advocates of pseudoscience (as of May 23, categories may be renamed through a page move, and this will be implemented once that option becomes available). Furthermore, this category will only serve as a holding category for subcategories (and should be tagged with {{ container category}}). This category therefore should be empty as to articles, and should contain only subcategories such as Category:Alchemists and Category:Phrenologists, on the condition that reliable sources generally classify the subcategorized field itself as a pseudoscience. The rename makes the category more accurate (all astrologers advocate in some sense for a pseudoscience, but not all are pseduoscientists as many employ pure mysticism), while the depopulation largely eliminates the BLP problem (people do not self-identify as pseduoscientists, but do self-identify as crytozoologists). Because of this subcategorization, the "pseudoscientist" category will not appear on the articles of subjects, and therefore will not be detrimental to article subjects who might dispute that categorization. Of course, categorization has no bearing on whether an article can cite reliable sources to describe its subject as a "pseudoscientist" within the text of the article; the purpose of categories is not to substitute for that kind of textual description.

All article subjects currently in Category:Pseudoscientists must be recategorized to remove this category and replace it with a subcategory or subcategories specifying the field or fields of pseudoscience for which reliable sources describe the subject as an advocate or practitioner. If necessary, categories may be subdivided to separate pseudoscientific advocates of a field from nonpseudoscientific investigators of that field. However, since renaming the subcategories was not discussed in the CFD we can not offer any binding decision on that point, only our personal advice.

bd2412 T 17:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ThaddeusB ( talk)
Agreed. BOZ ( talk) 18:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a problematic category for living people. Part of the problem revolves around the definition - the OED defines it as an adherent or practitioner of pseudoscience, OR a person who falsely or mistakenly claims to be or is regarded as a scientist. Now, many of the people in the subcategories (e.g. most of the people in Category:Astrologers) would not claim to be scientists, so do not belong under the second definition. The category could explicitly include people under both definitions, but the discrepancy between definitions make it misleading. With negative categorizations, this should be avoided. St Anselm ( talk) 07:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - The cat is appropriate for some articles and should not be deleted. QuackGuru ( talk) 08:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. The category has become a battleground and a WP:BLP nightmare. I can see possible justification for placing historic figures like Trofim Lysenko in the category, but really all that the category does is express disapproval, generally without any WP:RS supporting the use of the term. More specific categories are more useful, and easier to find reliable sources for. -- 101.117.28.73 ( talk) 08:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The battleground is occupied extensively with the nominator and a series of brand new, single purpose accounts. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep - It seems the OED definition provides pretty clear criteria. As per QG it is certainly appropriate for some articles. The definition lays out something that provides clear and appropriate categorization for subjects. Useful for navigation. That something is defined as A OR B does not make it misleading in any way that I see. The argument that some don't belong under one definition that explicitly states OR is not supportable. It is the nature of categories that they have sub categories. A reader would not be misled. The only possible BLP issue is with second part of the definition and articles about subjects who falsely or mistakenly claim to be scientists are clear in their content. The OED definition is clear and succinct a reader can easily understand it. The word OR does not mislead or cause confusion. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Atheist and skeptic here, but what purpose does this category really serve? It's bound to generate edit wars and waste a lot of time with dispute resolutions, arbcom etc. What do we really gain by keeping it? MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Accuracy? Clarity? Adherence to objective standards? Not lying to readers? Not allowing whitewashing campaigns? -- Calton | Talk 01:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete. Wikipedia is at a real cross-roads here. We must decide now if we are going to let the most opinionated among our editorship continue to rule the roost, and continue to have free reign to besmirch and impugn living people with their own personal pejorative opinions that they think are made out of gold and must be forced down all other editors' and readers throats. This is identical to the same sort of persecutorial foolishness and intolerance that brought down Soviet Science, and it can bring down wikipedia even quicker. 71.246.158.7 ( talk) 11:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Ah, the "Galileo gambit". Complete bollocks, of course. Wikipedia is not going to start promoting the beliefs of lunatic charlatans any time soon. Guy ( Help!) 22:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete - no-one is going to say "I'm a pseudoscientist", and it is too prone to being misused by anyone who disagrees with a scientist/scholar's opinion. You might just as well have a category "cranks". Far too subjective. Simon Burchell ( talk) 12:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Wikipedia has categories for murderers, burglars, pedophiles, prostitutes, and sockpuppeteers. The fact that a category may not be flattering to its occupants is not a valid reason to delete it. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 12:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

But we put people in those categories because there is an accepted and agreed upon standard for what that represents. A murderer, for example, is someone who has murdered someone. What is a pseudoscientist? There are many many conflicting claims.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually, we don't use the "murderer" category for people who have murdered someone, we use it for people who have been convicted in court of murdering someone -- that is, we use it when there is an official determination that the category fits. Otherwise we would certainly be staring down the barrel of serious legal action. For "pseudoscientist," as you say, there is no accepted and agreed upon standard. Some of the category members are respected scientists who have an off-the-wall hobby. Some of the Russian members are academics with off-the-wall ideas about history. It seems that the category is simply a vague "Wikipedia disapproves of this person" label. -- 101.117.108.195 ( talk) 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Would you also have us believe that there is serious scientific disagreement about the theory of evolution? Pseudoscientist is not a vague term. A pseudoscientist is a person who makes scientific claims that they can’t prove. To claim that a bullshitter is a scientist is to lie to our readers, and Wikipedia should not be packed full of lies to placate some fringe-pushing reality-denialists. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 23:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You illustrate the problem of a category that's inherently based on WP:OR (since no reliable sources seem to ever explicitly use the "pseudoscientist" label). Parts of modern physics are currently in the category of "making scientific claims that they can’t prove," so that's a bad definition. Conversely, many people promoting astrology, homeopathy, or the like are not "pseudoscientists" because they're not even pretending to be scientists -- so simply being a "bullshitter" is a bad definition too. And omitting the "pseudoscientist" label is a very different thing from endorsing someone as a scientist or "packing Wikipedia full of lies." Nobody is suggesting doing that. The fundamental problem here is that, in the absence of reliable sources using the "pseudoscientist" label, this category invites editors such as yourself to make personal value judgements as to who deserves the label -- which is contentious at best, and a WP:BLP violation for living subjects. -- 101.117.110.209 ( talk) 03:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
There is a difference between “claims that they can’t prove” and presently unproven scientific hypotheses. One is an unsupported assertion and the other is a proposed explanation based on facts. If I were to say “The fact that Tutankhamun’s children were both stillborn may be the result of inbreeding depression” then that would be a proposed explanation based on facts. When a fringe pusher says “The tomb of Osiris contained the mummified remains of an alien but Zahi Hawass covered it up because he’s in cahoots with the Reptilians” then that would be a claim that they can’t prove.
I didn’t say that all bullshitters are pseudoscientists. Margaret Murray was a pseudohistorian, Edgar Cayce was a mystic, and Kim Jong-il was a politician. Pseudoscientists are a specific kind of bullshitter.
I think that AndyTheGrump said it best when he wrote “we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters”. [ [2]] Labeling a pseudoscientist as a pseudoscientist is one way that we can warn the readers that what they are about to read may contain the absurd claims of a person who feels entitled to their own facts. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 07:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
If you want to "warn the readers," categories are a lousy way to do it, since (1) they are, by their nature, unreferenced and (2) they come at the end of the article. And I think it's also obvious that this particular category does not have clear inclusion criteria. -- 101.117.57.43 ( talk) 08:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You think the inclusion criteria 'This category includes biographies of people who explicitly study and advocate areas included under Category:Pseudoscience' is unclear ? In what sense ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Sean, it's a self-reference, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep There are many things people are unlikely to admit to which are nonetheless completely supported by reliable sources. We're an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to reflect the truth, insofar as our sources let us. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 13:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

RestrictDelete. Because pseudoscience is a fairly subjective term, and because a person more or less never just says "I work on pseudoscience", but always works one some specific pseudoscience, I would recommend making the effort to create subcategories so that we can separate "X is an astrologer" from "astrology is a pseudoscience". This is at once less insulting and also more manageable, because we can keep the argument over whether a particular belief is pseudoscience separate from the names of individual persons, rather than using them as political footballs. Ideally, provided there are no jam-ups trying to do this, a notice can then be placed on the category to put individuals in subcats rather than listing directly. Wnt ( talk) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: as a trial balloon, I've edited Peter Brock to remove "Pseudoscientist" in favor of a new Category:Orgone technicians, in which I have placed him and Wilhelm Reich. It is a subcat of Category:Orgone energy and Category:Pseudoscientists. I haven't checked every entry under pseudoscientists, but I doubt I'll find many (any?) others. I feel that the stylistic trade-off between having a small subcat and having a direct categorization of a person as a pseudoscientist favors the former approach, but I'm no expert with categories and I welcome your views. Wnt ( talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I sent up the trial balloon because I couldn't decide whether I wanted my opinion to count as keep or delete, and someone has shot it down, [3] saying that I shouldn't "disguise" the category as a subcategory. That kind of thinking - that "pseudoscientist" is a brand of shame that should not be allowed to be hidden, rather than a way of neutrally collecting groups of people into one of many supercategories, is not desirable or in keeping with BLP notions. So count this as a simple delete based on excessive subjectivity like the others. Wnt ( talk) 13:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We have plenty of reliable sources indicating that this is a real word. We have controversial categories such as racist, white nationalist, etc. We simply need to abide by our guidelines and policies. What concerns me is the arrival of single purpose IPs. Sorry, but either someone is recruiting meatpuppets or someone(s) is socking, here and to edit war at articles(which I noticed before I discovered this discussion). I can't think of any other explanation. Dougweller ( talk) 13:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Dynamic IP addresses are not the same as SPAs. -- 101.117.108.195 ( talk) 22:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually, I was thinking that I am seeing a lot of registered accounts participating in this discussion who I rarely see involved at CfD. It's like a mini-reunion of regulars at the Fringe noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Category:Racism is a category but Category:Racists is not. And Category:White nationalists are for people who self-identifying as such.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- fairly ridiculous nomination; the category is entirely sensible, & useful to our readers when judiciously applied. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • rename to Category:Pseudoscience advocates? I see no reason for outright deletion but perhaps a change pof name would provide clarity? Mangoe ( talk) 14:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete This loops together too many unlike things. Use article space to make such points, but don't needlessly tag bios with "pseudoscientist". This term has been applied by reliable sources to scientists who some people didn't agree with, but we should not engage in such tagging. Per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, we don't have an objective standard for inclusion in this category, therefore it should be deleted.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Restrict - there is too much scope for this cat to be used for personal attacks in BLPs, with the resultant difficulties and time-wasting. If its use can be restricted to dead people, prob OK, but if not, then better to delete it.
@ User:Nomoskedasticity - unfortunately, experience seems to make it clear that judicious application is unlikely. Eustachiusz ( talk) 17:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and/or Restrict per above mentioned reasons -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Rename to "Pseudoscience advocates" or thereabouts - I see that the category is defined as including 'biographies of people who explicitly study and advocate areas currently included under Category:Pseudoscience'. That seems reasonable enough "when judiciously applied" as Nomoskedasticity says. Evidently the community thinks it can reliably distinguish between science and pseudoscience using Wikipedia's policies. If that is the case and we are able to categorize people as scientists, we should be able to categorize people as pseudoscientists. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (modified to incorporate proposed renaming option). Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete purely subjective; we have Category:Cryptozoologists (which is a child of Category:Cryptozoology, which in turn is a child of Category:Pseudoscience) and similar; we don't need to lump every form of these together at the practitioner level. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete unnecessary and opinionated attack cat. Mosfetfaser ( talk) 20:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Subjectively worded category, and one which implies that such a judgment has been made by the Wikipedia community and is unanimous. Quis separabit? 03:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete On balance I favor deleting. Wikipedia has already established that some beliefs, for instance, application of creationism to science, are pseudoscience and therefore placing an individual in both a category related to intelligent design and this category would be redundant and unnecessary. Note that Category:Racism explicitly states that "It must not include articles about individuals". While beliefs like white nationalism are almost universally considered a form of racism, since very few people openly self-describe as racists, just calling them white nationalists is more neutral and yet at the same time people still understand that white nationalists are generally racists. If we don't delete it entirely, I favor Wnt's very compelling suggestion on restricting its use. CurtisNaito ( talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Definitions of pseudoscience are complex, and the head article identifies many ways in which pseudoscience can be identified. The problem with any concept such as this is that there so many cases which are open to interpretation, or where changing understandings of the scientific method problematise particular forms of research. This demarcation problem leaves the term wide open to use as a language of attack and denigration, against against both individuals and whole disciplines.
    In supporting the deletion of this category, I do not support removing the word from articles. Wikipedia has a well-established and stable policy on the use of such terminology, at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (with more guidance at WP:LABEL): this sort of description should be attributed. So it's quite fine for an article to say that X described Y as a pseudoscientist (with ref), and for any opposing views to be given due weight. However, a category does not attribute the label, so it should not be used to apply a subjective label without qualification.
    BTW, if anyone wants an example of how this concept can be used in categories as an attack mechanism, see CFD:Pseudoscience petitions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, ridiculous nomination brought about by this discussion and the opposition of the editor who nominated it for deletion of seeing Ham included in that category. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Reply @ Gaba_p. "Ridiculous" is an insult rather than a rationale. The discussion Gaba_p linked to is an excellent example of why this sort of pejorative category is a Bad Idea™. First, it causes a huge dispute between editors who could otherwise be directing their energies to developing the article, rather than arguing about one word which appears at the bottom of it. And secondly, the dispute illustrates the sort of synthesis involved: person X is described by person Y as practising B, and person Z describes B as pseudoscience. Ergo, X is a pseudoscientist. Classic WP:SYN.
      Thanks for taking the time to post a link which illustrates so well the folly of this category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
        • No, "ridiculous" would be an accurate description, and your protest illustrates your misunderstanding: "avoiding disputes" -- or, more accurately in this case,, "avoiding clean-up campaigns by POV pushers" or "avoiding butthurt" -- is pretty much irrelevant compared to Wikipedia's goal of being ACCURATE. -- Calton | Talk 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
          • Per WP:CAT#Overview, the purpose of a category is "to provide navigational links". The absence of a category may or may not inconvenience those interested in a particular form of navigation, but a category is not content, so its presence cannot affect the accuracy of an article. As I noted above, descriptions of someone as a pseudoscientist should be made in the text of the article, and clearly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WTA. That's what we have already done with the word "terrorist": Category:Terrorists was deleted in 2009.
            BTW, the heated nature of your response suggests that you are as much engaged in POV-pushing as anyone who wishes to remove critical content from an article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
              • Your wikilawyering notwithstanding, the goal of providing -- what is that word? Oh, yes ACCURATE -- navigation links among pseudoscientists is not related to non-encyclopedic norms of "not causing offense". As for your "heated nature of your response" attempt at deflection, three things: 1) you need to get a refund on your mind-reading lessons; 2) a read of psychological projection may prove instructive; 3) I become reflexively annoyed by ludricrously obvious nonsense and wiki-lawyering, it's a fault of mine. -- Calton | Talk 17:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
                • "nonsense", "ludicrous", "ridiculous", "ACCURATE". Assertion is not reasoning, and neither your reflexive annoyance nor use of adjectives makes it so. If you overcome your reflexes and want to address the principles set out in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I would be interested to hear what you have to say. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
            • BrownHairedGirl you can see in the discussion I linked that I presented a published book where the person is explicitly referred to as a pseudoscientist, there is no WP:SYNTH at all in that. The fact that there could be synth is no reason to not have this category. Regards. Gaba (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
As noted in that thread by Collect, that book is not a scholarly work; it is a partisan polemic whose blurb on Amazon reads: "JJ Dyken sets out to debunk many of the most common religious assertions from the power of prayer to the seemingly inseparable bond between religion and morality. In so doing, he presents a persuasive case as to why the clash between faith and reason is not just irrational, but potentially deadly for mankind".
By using this sort of source to justify labeling someone in this way, you are demanding that Wikipedia adopt the terminology of one partisan side in a clash between two systems of knowledge. But most categories based on partisan terminology have been deleted: e.g. Heretics, Homophobes, Anti-Semitic people, Stalinists, Dictators, Terrorists. But despite the long history of deleting this type of subjective and partisan category, you want to keep a category for the term used by polemicists you agree with.
Your partisan understanding of NPOV is set out eloquently in the exchange between you and DavidLeighEllis:
Anyone is quite entitled to view religion as fiction, rather than neutral description of "a set of variously organized beliefs" set out in the lede to religion. But per WP:NPOV, we don't categorise religion under fiction; we leave the reader to choose for themselves between the many different ways of understanding what religion is. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BrownHairedGirl if your point is that the source I presented is not reliable, then I disagree. We could move that discussion to WP:RSN if you'd like. There are many many sources that refer to creationism as a pseudoscience so stating that the main visible face in peddling this nonsense is a pseudoscientist is more a statement of a heavily sourced fact rather than WP:SYNTH.
We are sidetracking the discussion, but "a set of variously organized beliefs" is just a purposely convoluted way of saying "a set of unproven and unfalsifiable claims". So yes, I sustain that "unproven and unfalsifiable claims"=fiction and science=fact. You're free to disagree.
The issue here is if we should keep a category that can be useful if backed by reliable sources (in the body of the article of course) or if we should remove it to avoid offending WP:FRINGE nonsense supporters. I stand by the first option. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Gaba_p, I have no interest either way in whether WP:FRINGE supporters are offended. My concern is that wikipedia should not be presenting complex, subjective judgements on any topic as if they were binary choices.
Your case is based on the notion that "unproven and unfalsifiable claims"=fiction and science=fact. That is extremist, partisan POV ignore the widely-documented demarcation problem. It asserts that any human knowledge other than current scientific orthodoxy is fiction, and it is as intolerant of other views as any biblical-literalist creationist. Go place the whole of Category:Philosophy under Category:Fiction, and let us know how that goes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BrownHairedGirl if by a binary choice you mean either adding the cat or not then all categories should be removed based on that argument. If you don't mean that then I don't know what you mean, sorry. I don't ignore the demarcation problem, I just don't see it as an issue in this particular case since the fact that creationism is non-science is painfully obvious to pretty much everybody except for creationists. Again, we are sidetracking the issue here, but any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. It might be interesting fiction, but it's not science and it's not fact. There is no intolerance in recognizing this, political correctness does not trump over common sense and scientific facts (as much as religious people would like for that to happen). The last part of you cmmt is a straw-man and therefore I won't be commenting on it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Gaba_p, that was no straw man. On the contrary, it is central to your approach to this discussion. Philosophical assertions are very rarely verifiable or falsifiable by scientific methods, so if you believe that "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction ... then you also believe that philosophy is fiction.
I'll ask of you the same question that I ask of others who adopt such an extreme form of scientism: do you love anyone, or have you ever loved any other living being? Be very careful before you answer, because unless your love for your parent, spouse, partner, sibling, child (or whoever) is "empirically falsifiable", then by your own standards it it's just fiction. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BrownHairedGirl I'm sorry but that's the definition of a straw man argument, pretty much like your last cmmt on "love". Philosophical assertions are not scientific facts unless they can be empirically falsifiable, that's just how it is. If a statement, any statement, by its own definition can not be proven to be false then it is a fictional construction (see Russell's teapot). The discussion about "love" being falsifiable is not only a straw man, it is also quite removed from the issue at hand (also, there's no point in going on about what the word "love" describes which is basically chemical reactions) Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Love cannot be proven scientifically, so by your fundamentalist scientism, it is simply fiction. You allow is nothing inbetween, no other way of understanding knowledge; it's either science or fiction.
I am stressing this point, because it's important to illustrate that some of the support for these categories is based on a determined POV-pushing by adherents of scientism and logical positivism. They are quite entitled to their POV, but should not be trying to use the category system to promote it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
According to Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus there is stuff which gives meaning to one's life but which isn't scientific fact, i.e. which constitutes a subjective choice to believe something rather than something else. Faith is subjective, science is objective, meaning that according to WP:ABIAS, present-day science and/or scholarship provide us with the best approximation of what constitutes an objective fact, i.e. something contrasted to a subjective belief. According to WP:BALL, we cannot predict what will be considered objective knowledge fifty or hundred years later, so we have to do with present-day science and scholarship. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BrownHairedGirl: "Love cannot be proven scientifically", that's not quite true (see Biological basis of love) There is no POV-pushing in clearly stating there is a difference between objective and provable science and unfalsifiable fictional constructions such as most claims made by most religions. Furthermore, the possible misuse of a tool by some WP editors is not enough reason to remove it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
It is of course fine to explain different, referenced views of the difference. The problem comes when one side tries to enshrine its own pejorative terminology in the navigation system, which is what is happening here.
The pejorative nature of this category makes it a handy tool for abuse, which is grounds for caution, but that is not the main issue here. The broader problem is that the terminology is both subjective and partisan, so its use cannot be resolved objectively and neutrally. --12:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl ( talk • contribs)
The fact that a term could be considered "pejorative" should not be a deterrent for it use, otherwise we should abstain from using a great deal of other terms (murderer, thief, and who knows what else some people could consider "pejorative") The terminology is neither subjective (pseudosciences can be pretty well defined) nor is it partisan (what party are you talking about?) and its use can of course be resolved objectively and neutrally: we use WP:RS to assign it just like with everything else around here. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Terms such as "murderer" are also pejorative, and highly problematic, because many cases involve grey areas of evidence and of definition and perspective. That's why we have a Category:People convicted of murder to clarify that are noting the fact of conviction, rather than applying a value judgement. That's why other subjective and pejorative categories have been deleted, such as Category:Homophobes and Category:Terrorists.
As with terrorism and homophobia, pseudoscience can be well-defined. That doesn't mean either that the definitions are stable or neutral, or that they allow objective categorisation on a binary model. A simple example of this is alchemy, which is described and categorised in that an article as a protoscience, rather than as a pseudoscience; but the POV-warriors want to label all alchemists as pseudoscientists, despite scholarship such as this which demonstrates that it's not that simple.
The partisanship I refer to is that editors such as yourself who insist that everything can be neatly divided into either science or fiction. That's POV-pushing of a particularly extreme form of scientism. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
As you put it, some terms may involve grey areas and this one is not an exception. That is not reason enough not to have it though, that's why we have Category:Murderers and Category:Rapists_by_nationality; sometimes there is no grey area and that's where WP:RS come into play. I do not insist in that everything can be "neatly divided into either science or fiction", I adhere to the concept of falsifiability to separate the most obvious cases and creationism definitely falls into the obvious category. The broader discussion of what is science and what is not is something we can discuss elsewhere. I would appreciate very much if you could stop referring to my position (and that of all the editors who disagree with your view) as "scientism POV-pushing", it makes it very hard to have a reasonable discussion when the other person keeps making comments on your supposed intentions. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Gaba, please make up your mind. You deny above that everything can be "neatly divided into either science or fiction", but earlier you wrote any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. You are quite entitled to retreat a little from that fundamentalist scientism, but please don't deny a point which you yourself have advanced with such vigour.
I'm sorry that it is uncomfortable for you, but I will continue to describe your stance as "scientism POV-pushing", because you have repeatedly denounced non-scientific forms of knowledge as fiction, and insist on the use of a pejoratively-named category for fields of study which don't fit the ideological criteria of scientism. That's just as much POV-pushing as a religious editor seeking to categorise people as infidels, or a Marxist editor insisting on categorising capitalist countries as bourgeois democracies (another well-defined concept with a solid theoretical base, but subjective in application, partisan in tone, and pejorative to other ideologies). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I have not retreated at all, I still maintain what I said above: any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. This is not the same as saying that everything can be "neatly divided into either science or fiction" as you claim since "science" is not easy to define (which is why I stated many times that that's a larger discussion we should have elsewhere, but you keep bringing it up). This is not uncomfortable to me as I can stand by everything I say, do you still stand by "Love cannot be proven scientifically"? I'm sorry that you'd feel referring to the intentions of editors who disagree with you as "scientism POV-pushing" is an appropriate way to carry on a discussion. I take it you wouldn't like it if I called you "anti-science POV-pusher" over and over again. What do you call "non-scientific forms of knowledge" BHG? Please do tell me and feel free to give examples.
There is no difference between categorizing people as Category:Murderers or Category:Rapists_by_nationality or Category:Martyrs (or many others) and categorizing them as Category:Pseudoscientists: for each one of those you base your edits on reliable sources. The difference you claim is that one of those is subjective and "pejorative" and can offend certain ideologies, which is a subjective statement in itself. There is no reason we should treat this any different that how we treat other categories: if WP:RS are in place, we use the cat, if not we don't. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The existence of RS is a necessary but insufficient criterion for categorisation. As noted above, plenty of other categories (homopobes, terrorists, etc) have been deleted because they are subjective, pejorative and partisan.
I have may have been slightly to narrow in describing as scientism your view that "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. It would probably be better described as logical positivism, a mid-20th-century philosophical movement. There is nothing at all wrong with holding to that view; the problem is the POV-pushing demand that adherents of this philosophy negatively categorise other topics according to the logic of their own philosophy. It's just as much POV-pushing in this case as when it is done by a Marxist or an anarchist or a Buddhist. Pointing that out does not make me anti-science any more than it makes me anti-Buddhist or anti-Marxist; I am merely pointing out that there are many different philosophical approaches to human knowledge.
If you want examples of "non-scientific forms of knowledge", consider history or philosophy or theology, disciplines which have been firmly anchored in academia for two millennia; but according to you, these ancient intellectual traditions are all fiction. As to love, start by reading Love#Comparison_of_scientific_models. If you still hold to the view that it can be scientifically proven I look fwd to the refs supporting that view.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Since when are WP:RSs insufficient to back an edit in WP? You insist on equating this cat with deleted ones and I keep mentioning other that have not been deleted, are just as contentious and are still up (ie: Category:Murderers, Category:Rapists_by_nationality, Category:Martyrs) So where does that leave us? I have no problem with you describing my views in any way you see fit (though I lean more towards Critical rationalism), I do have a problem with you constantly accusing me of "scientism POV-pushing" when I could apply the same criteria to you and accuse you of "anti-science POV-pushing" (which you deny but then, you would, wouldn't you? :). What do you say we both simply WP:FOC and stop assigning hidden agendas to other editors? The section you point me to about "love" describes pretty much what I said: it's a chemical process in its core. Which part of that do you believe "cannot be proven scientifically"? As for refs, there are many articles that deal with the issue in one way or another in the scientific literature, here's a few [4] [5] [6]. Feel free to look around the site for more.
As to "there are many different philosophical approaches to human knowledge", this is I'd say an even broader discussion (see Epistemology) than the one about the meaning of science and just like with that one I disagree that either plays a significant role in this dispute. Your point about philosophy or theology being knowledge is an interesting one and I admit I might have been too broad with my original statement (although I recognize neither as a science in a strict sense) and separating "knowledge" from "fiction" is not exactly accurate since fictional constructions (like many present in philosophy or theology) can indeed be considered "knowledge". Falsifiability and what constitutes knowledge are both fields of study which are too big to merge together in a simple statement. In any case, this whole side-tracked discussion started with you saying that "per WP:NPOV, we don't categorise religion under fiction" which is something I never did nor would do. So back on track my original point remains a very simple one: if there are WP:RS in place then we can use the category, if not we don't. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Add: after reading some of the proposals below I could also go for a renaming of the cat to Advocates of pseudoscience which is just as accurate and possibly a lot less controversial. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
random break
  • Keep - There is some opinion on Wikipedia by editors that the term Pseudoscience is an insult and that it becomes a BLP issue to claim a person is a Pseudoscientist. That is actually the very opposite, as we do not want to lump people who study UFOs with people who study space etc. In other words we should be careful who we add to the category, but it does serve a true and reasonable encyclopedic purpose in seperating atrue sceience from that of the Pseudoscientific community/world.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This category has tremendous potential for BLP violations and also misuse by POV editors.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is there any objective measure which we could use to definitely classify someone as a pseudoscientist? If not, it's meaningless to keep such an arbitrarily imposed category. - A1candidate ( talk) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

This discussion has been listed at the Fringe theories Noticeboard with the edit summary "This requires urgent attention". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)

  • Whitewashing POV attempts frequently require urgent attention from interested parties, yes -- or are you suggesting that editors interested in pseudoscience should remain ignorant lest they offer their opinions? 00:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton ( talk • contribs)
  • Sigh. Per WP:CANVASS, notifications can be appropriate, but must (inter alia) be neutrally-worded. "This requires urgent attention" doesn't look particularly neutral to me. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Neither word games nor avoidance of upsetting the delicate are good reasons for the deletion of objective, accurate categories. -- Calton | Talk 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; use with care. Cardamon ( talk) 01:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not because of the issue of whether it's appropriate to call someone a pseudoscientist, but because of the nominator's statement. This term can have two separate meanings, and we have articles on people that fit into both. It's thoroughly unhelpful to put phrenologist Franz Joseph Gall into the same category as Piltdown Man creator Charles Dawson, but both would fit in Category:Pseudoscientists, because one's a pseudoscient-ist and the other's a pseudo-scientist. I wouldn't object to the creation of separate categories: one for the pseudoscient-ists and another for the pseudo-scientists. Nyttend ( talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. One difficulty with this category is that some people in it are respected academics in their area of expertise, but they also engage in pseudoscience outside that field. Tagging them as "pseudoscientists" devalues their mainstream work and becomes a WP:BLP issue (in the extreme case, we could, for example, list every scientist who looks at a horoscope). I don't think it's possible to use this category with care, because it does not, in fact, have an objective definition; categorisation is based on subjective criteria or WP:SYNTH. However, the effect of this category could easily be achieved by listing people in appropriate subcategories of category:pseudoscience. -- 101.117.108.170 ( talk) 01:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as no one self identifies, and there isn't an objective standard possible for inclusion. BLP nightmare. Our goal isn't "Truth", it is "verifiable facts", and this strays from that goal. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 01:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I disagree that this isn't verifiable. We can identify pseudoscience, and it's not difficult to find reliable sources which identify the members as advocates for pseudoscientific ideas. That's why I suggested the "advocates of" rename: really, it's indisputable whether or not some one is pushing such ideas. Mangoe ( talk) 02:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Which is synthesis, not a reliable source. And any reliable source would be giving an opinion as there is no universal definition. Go ahead and disagree, but I assure you I've thought this out and I'm beyond persuasion on this BLP nightmare. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 02:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This sort of labelling is a bad idea. One problem that especially concerns me is the difficulty with people who are reputable conventional scientists in one field,and have also done psuedoscience. Neither inclusion nor exclusion is really a NPOV statement in such cases--it amounts to a judgement about which part of their career is primary. There are also all the practical difficulties to WP editing specified by -BrownHairedGirl. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Potential for misuse is not an argument for deletion; it can be used against any category. An editor could put Mike Tyson under Category:Otolaryngologists or anybody under Category:Monsters and it would be equally disruptive yet not an argument to delete Category:Otolaryngologists or Category:Monsters. Reliable sources (of higher quality and academically sound) identify some people as pseudoscientists whether they self-identify or not. It is entirely possible to verify if some subjects meet the criteria amongst better reliable sources, and not for trivial reasons. We don't have a standard definition for who is a writer, or even who is a certain kind of fraud, or any number of "subjective" categorizations that we currently use, positive or negative, we look to better academic sources to tell us. We should describe (without undue euphemism) subjects named by better sources as being involved in pseudoscience in a defining way. We should remove entries where the description is undue, but that still leaves articles to categorize this way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The term is no more subjective than the term "scientist". That's the very nature of the demarcation problem. If we have inclusion criteria for the term "scientist" clear enough such that we can use it for categorization, then we also have inclusion criteria for the term "pseudoscientist" clear enough such that we can use it for categorization. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
More: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious pseudoscience WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience says: "15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." And: "16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." That renders moot any debates about the "subjectivity" of determining what is and isn't pseudoscience. We've already determined that we can adequately determine what is and isn't pseudoscience for the purposes of categorization. A pseudoscientist is any one who advocates anything properly categorized as pseudoscience. That's as plain as any other category.
Concerning statements that those trying to label things as pseudoscience are the active, POV editors here: such statements are wrong. Wikipedia has always been a magnet for POV editors of the exact opposite stripe: People who favour views which are commonly described as pseudoscientific. They may believe in the Genesis creation myth, resurrection, etc. Such people cannot find their views supported in standard academic works so they come to the encyclopedia which any one can edit in order to push them here. Those who hold the mainstream academic view have nothing to gain in terms of respectability by bringing a crowd-sourced encyclopedia to alignment with their perspective. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 19:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If someone espouses a particular pseudoscientific belief, then categorize by belief ("creationist", "flat-earth advocate", "anti-vaccination campaigner", etc.). With the more specific category we have a much better chance of the person self-identifying. With the overbroad "pseudoscientists", there's no self-identification and the label is applied only by those who disagree with what the person believes. The gain to be had isn't worth the arguments this is going to cause. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 04:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. For those who think the category definition is "clear," which of these people belong in the category?
  • Linus Pauling -- legendary Chemist and winner of the Nobel, but also promoted pseudoscience about megavitamin treatment of disease
  • Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev -- Russian astronomer with a good early career, but became out-of-date during imprisonment in a Soviet gulag, so that his later work had limited value
  • John Hartnett (physicist) -- respected minor physicist, but has also written some Creationist papers
  • Elizabeth Rauscher -- American physicist with a good early career, but now focussed entirely on psychic healing, faith healing, and the paranormal

-- 101.117.89.99 ( talk) 07:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete While there are people, who most would agree are pseudoscientists, this category has no sharp boundaries. Philosophers of science have never formulated an adequate demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Why do we think we can? I am One of Many ( talk) 08:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know whether this is delete, rename or what, but to call someone a pseudoscientist when they advocate pseudoscience is a categorical fallacy. Linus Pauling was an advocate of pseudoscience, but to call him a pseudoscientist is perverse given that he is a Nobel laureate. Same for Brian Josephson. So if we keep the category it needs to be renamed to something like "pseudoscience advocates" (which eliminates a lot of the BLP issues) or if we don't then the prominent advocates of pseudoscience, such as Chopra, Pauling, Josephson, Sheldrake and all, can go into the category Pseudoscience. I suspect that pseudoscience advocates is better, and I also suspect that in some cases it is redundant: any young Earth creationist is, by definition, an advocate of pseudoscience, as is any homeopathy, alternative medicine practitioner, nutritionist and so on. Where someone is primarily known for activity in a field which is itself identified as pseudoscience (as opposed to fringe or pathological science) then any pseudoscience categorisation of that person probably amounts to OVERCAT.
Examples:
Deepak Chopra, Rupert Sheldrake, Linus Pauling, Brian Josephson etc. should IMO be in Category:Pseudoscience advocates
Dana Ullman, George Vithoulkas and others should be in Category:Homeopathy advocates, which should be included in Category:Pseudoscience advocates.
Ken Ham, Kent Hovind et. al should be in Category:Young Earth creationists, which should be included in Category:Pseudoscience advocates
So I guess my !vote is probably: rename' and partially depopulate on the basis that it is perfectly possible for a respectable scientist still to be an advocate for pseudoscience, especially outside of their own field of expertise. Guy ( Help!) 09:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Isn't the notion that it's a categorical fallacy based on the premise that the categories form disjoint sets i.e. that a person can't be categorized as both a scientist (or a related category) and a pseudoscientist (to cover different periods of the life or work for example) ? I find some of the delete arguments in this discussion quite persuasive, but the community has apparently decided that it can distinguish between science and pseudoscience. It seems reasonable that certain things follow from that including giving readers the ability to navigate categories that contain articles about people who reliable sources identify as explicitly studying and advocating pseudoscience. Deletion seems a step too far for me but perhaps pseudoscience advocates would be better. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
A look at these topics shows that there are huge differences between them. For example, alchemy is one the precursors of modern science; many of its techniques and findings informed chemistry, and our article on the topic doesn't even use the term "pseudoscience". Yet Category:Alchemists is a sub-cat of Category:Pseudoscientists. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • 'Scientist' is a value judgement too. It's based on a judgement about what constitutes science at the moment. Some people regard the term scientist as a pejorative. I'm thinking clever, cooler than me, sophisticated, artsy types who hurt my feelings when I was a student and apparently left me embittered enough to mention it years later here. Simply categorising people by the type of work they do is probably fine, as long as the local branches of the category tree associated with it are also fine and somehow preserve the notion of pseudoscience where appropriate. I can support that approach but my primary concern is practical and making sure things actually make sense, at least to me e.g. that they incorporate the implications of the community deciding that it knows the difference between science and pseudoscience, scientists and pseudoscientists/advocates of pseudoscience based on policy. If a reader would like to navigate a category of people who advocate pseudoscience (in general, they may not know exactly what they want), will they be able to do that without having to go too far down the rabbit hole that is Wikipedia's category system ? These kind of discussions often seem to me to be a bit too influenced by concerns about misuse of what ever it is that is being discussed. People are very creative in Wikipedia and will find ways to misuse anything and everything. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • rename to advocates of pseudoscience per Guy. being able to find people who push various forms of quackery is legit navigation aid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. BLP, self-identification... Also, problems of mixtures: the person holds a mixture of scientific and pseudoscientific views. Is she a pseudoscientist? Howunusual ( talk) 15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . "Pseudoscientist" is not a label of self-identification. It is a pejorative term used to label those individuals who some people view as quacks. I doubt that anyone who is placed in this category sees themselves as a pseudoscientist and there are more defining categories that would be more appropriate than some catchall category that includes a wide variety of individuals with very different beliefs, education, backgrounds and occupations. There is no set criteria for belonging in this category, it is a subjective view of individual Wikipedia editors who to include and that is not a good basis for categorization. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 1. The term is generally regarded as a pejorative, which means that sources using the term as a matter of opinion fail WP:BLP. Pejoratives require specific factual sourcing, and some of the sources presented seem to fail that simple test. 2. Can use of the category cause harm to people? To that, the answer appears to be "yes" again making it fall under the strictures of WP:BLP. 3. Are some of the sources provided apparently so based on personal opinion that they fail to be usable as statements of fact? Yes -- as BHG notes I so determined one "source" to be simply an anti-religion screed. 4. Does Wikipedia make specific rules about how religions are treated? Yes - vide the New Religious Movements decision, etc. 5. Would assigning pejoratives to religions and religious movements benefit the encyclopedia? No. In fact, embroiling Wikipedia in religious controversy is likely one of the worst possible courses of action. This covers a few of the caveats which are policy based regarding this category. Collect ( talk) 21:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename I like the idea of changing it to advocates of pseudoscience. Seems like the that is what the category already is by definition and makes it easier instead of distinguishing practice, advocacy and what not as there is not really science going into it anyways. XFEM Skier ( talk) 06:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or rename The fact that something is "hard", is or might be a battleground is no reason not to have it. We simply make sure it is not used as a battleground, or not for long. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 12:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete per DGG and BrownHairedGirl. I have myself added this category to several articles; that was I think perfectly legitimate given the way the category is presently defined, however, I agree the best option is to delete the category altogether. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Guy. Someone who advocates young Earth creationism as fact by means of alleged "scientific discoveries" that are discredited and rejected in the vast majority of reliable sources is, objectively, engaged in pseudoscience. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it just seems too polemical, especially on BLP articles. Articles usually say "John Doe is an advocate of intelligent design which is generally considered pseudoscience" not "John Doe is a pseudoscientist." I did a search and there are absolutely zero articles that use the word "pseudoscientist". While NPOV dictates that scientific content on Wikipedia should reflect mainstream scientific consensus, whether the topic is mainstream or some fringe theory, that does not mean that it's appropriate for Wikipedia to be used for advocacy against pseudoscience or its alleged practitioners. It's as inappropriate as any other form of advocacy on Wikipedia. A fine distinction, perhaps, but we need to make it. 71.58.95.36 ( talk) 14:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Identifying someone as a pseudoscientist is not advocacy against pseudoscientists. What some are forgetting here is that categories are for navigation -- for finding other members associated with the same topic. In those terms there's no question this is a useful category for our readers. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per Guy. Advocacy can be easily sourced and is not controversial. 86.20.65.8 ( talk) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
This comment is this IP's only edit. Liz Read! Talk! 14:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • (I saw this discussion at ANI) Keep or rename as Guy suggested. Note that astrology is regarded as pseudoscience by the modern scientific community for several reasons; that makes category:astrologers is an accurate subcategory of pseudoscientists / pseudoscience advocates. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • How much sense does this make as applied to historical astrologers, for instance? Right now, this means that Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei are classified as pseudoscientists (or worse, pseudoscience advocates). Drill down through the sub cats, you can find tons of people who don't really belong in the parent category. As a container category for all the practitioners of Category:Pseudosciences I guess it's less susceptible to BLP abuse, given that it doesn't appear directly on the articles in question, but it's still a problematic designation. 2601:1:2080:1AF:4400:67B0:68B0:7327 ( talk) 21:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Good point. On a broad reading of the current definition, Linus Pauling, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei all belong in the category -- but doing so would make a mockery of Wikipedia. We really can't tag someone as "pseudoscientist" unless that's a defining characteristic of their activity. And for that, we'd need reliable sources that justify using the label. -- 101.117.90.123 ( talk) 00:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, a century ago medicine was all about applying leeches, but there is no separate category for Category:Modern physicians. All medics are grouped under the same category Category:Physicians, and they are only divided by time periods and by nationality. I suppose that this sort of incoherence is to be expected when a field evolves over time? We could divide "Astrologers" between "ancient" and "modern", and only the "modern" ones would be a subcategory of "pseudoscientists". But I am not sure if this has been done anywhere else..... -- Enric Naval ( talk) 02:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The most basic rationale: "pseudoscientist" is presupposed by "pseudoscience." As a logical extension of the same word, it doesn't make sense to delete this one without first (or simultaneously) deleting the other. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    Longer comment: Mediawiki jargon aside, I [ahem] categorically disagree that categories are not "content" or not "part of the article." Categories are on the page, part of the encyclopedia, and have great rhetorical power. To anyone who says categories are "just navigational aids," just look at Diderot's weaponization of cross-referencing/categorizing in the Encyclopedie or Foucault on ordering things as an act of power. Categories take the whole of a subject and place it into small, discrete boxes. It should be careful business. But so long as we have a category for "pseudoscience," it's business that should be for article talk pages and dispute resolution venues. "Is x a pseudoscience per consensus among reliable sources?" If yes, "does person y practice pseudoscience x per consensus among reliable sources?" If no consensus can be come to, then no consensus can be come to. Again, it's a content dispute. Don't remove tools just because some people abuse them or because they're hard to use. But, again, if we decide that a pseudoscience category is not something any subject can be reduced to, this could be revisited. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Categories should not be used to hang a badge of dishonor on people based on the collective judgement of Wikipedia editors. This is especially unacceptable for living persons, where strong sourcing is required for contentious claims. Unlike criminal behavior, where conviction in a court provides an objective standard, there is no official or impartial body that assigns the pseudoscientist label to people. We can report on what people have said, based on reliable sources, and let our readers make up their own minds.-- agr ( talk) 23:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Any subjective attribute will include a number of examples where the sources give an overwhelming answer. However, those subjective attributes also involve many cases which are not so clearcut,. So long as we have the category, editors are forced to make a binary choice about applying the pejorative label in marginal cases, which is a blatant violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; the existence of the category forces editors to apply 100% of the weight to one side or the other.
    That's exactly why Category:Terrorists was deleted, despite strong sourcing in many individual cases.
    If we don't have the category, the label can still be used in the article per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, by identifying who has applied the label and balancing opposing views. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
random break 2
  • Keep You could say that the category "Quack" is a badge of dishonor on people based on the collective judgment of Wikipedia editors (or on the consensus among reliable sources), but as long as there are quacks out there doing real harm to people, the category of quacks is justified. Same applies to the category of pseudoscientists. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    There is no Category:Quack or Category:Quacks. And the job of an encyclopedia isn't to prevent harm to people. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 01:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep With regard to BLP issues, the potential for abuse, and the need for strong sourcing, this silly little category is tame and non-controversial when compared to List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming . Flying Jazz ( talk) 13:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That list is problematic, but it is not a category, and has several strengths over a category. Every entry in that list is sourced, whereas categ entries cannot be sourced. That list is broken down by the nature of the claimed opposition, but the category allows for no such nuance. Note that the category equivalent to that list was deleted at CFD 2009 Nov 7. The broader Category:Global warming skeptics was deleted at CFD 2008 August 7 and again at CFD 2009 Dec 7. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I think I may be tempted to change my opinion as I begin to understand the implications of your reply. Wikipedia may no longer have the necessary human resources of editors and admins needed for anything remotely controversial to exist here because admins have apparently become more intrusive and engage in more wikilawyering themselves than the last time I was active here. By doing that, they encourage the behavior in others who are then banned or leave the project. So only crazy folks and admins remain to wikilawyer and cite policy to each other instead of spending time on strong sourcing to remove potential BLP issues. In fact at this very moment, I'm tempted to find or try to create some "OTHER-STUFF-DOESN'T-EXIST" policy to counter your reasons about why this category should be deleted because those others were. Fortunately, I don't cite policy that way. But it was a close call. Flying Jazz ( talk) 19:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This one has an objective definition, and, technically, classical astrologers (Kepler, etc.) would not be pseudoscientists, although they were astrologers. Astrology was not pseudoscience then, but it is now. (And I came here from WP:ANI not from the fringe noticeboard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
    • So why is Category:Astrologers categorised under Category:Pseudoscientists? That groups all astrologers as pseuds. Same with Category:Alchemists, even tho the head article describes alchemy as a protoscience, not pseudoscience? --20:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The astrologer category is problematic of itself in its co-mingling of historic figures with moderns who don't have an excuse for not knowing that it has been proven to be bunk. I don't know how badly the same problem affects alchemy but it probably has fewer people on the quackery side of the line. So I would take both of these subcats out, and there are probably others. I don't see this as a subjective determination, though. Mangoe ( talk) 12:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • overall comment There's a lot of talk here presupposing that the bias in these determinations is towards tagging these people illegitimately. That's not my experience. People who are incorrectly tagged get fixed, in general, with a minimum of fuss; the big fights are inevitably powered by the supporters of people who should be tagged. Just read the archives of Talk:Rupert Sheldrake, and the AN/I archives, and the Arb Enforcement archives, not to mention the several rounds on FT/I. Mangoe ( talk) 12:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I would prefer to have this as a container only category, with all articles on individuals moved into more specific categories. Calling someone a pseudo-scientist is derogatory and potentially defamatory, and thus unacceptable for BLP articles. However, the more specifiuc category for his or her particular discipline is likely to be true. It is categorising that a a branch of pseudoscience that is potentially derogatrory. The issue may also be slighgtly defused by a headnote indicating that the majority view is that the disciplines categorised are regarded as pseudoscience, but in some cases that view may be controversial. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
BLP does not object to "defamatory" information per se, it objects to improperly sourced defamation (like rumors). Sometimes there is a consensus in reliable sources that someone is a quack or a pseudoscientist. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Really? Reliable sources very seldom (if ever) use the words "quack" or "pseudoscientist" -- partly because they are defamatory (and, in many countries, actionable). Reliable sources tend to use factual language, such as "has been condemned by the scientific community" or "has not been found to be effective in multiple human trials." -- 101.117.88.135 ( talk) 04:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
[7] [8] We're not arguing over your hypothetical " Category:Quacks". Someone who practices pseudoscience is a pseudoscientist. 182.249.241.1 ( talk) 06:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, that source says that you can't call someone a "pseudoscientist" unless they have certain (bad) motives. In other words, it's evidence against the idea that "someone who practices pseudoscience is a pseudoscientist." -- 101.117.57.116 ( talk) 08:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I have no doubt that anyone could easily produce dozens of reliable sources which call Lysenko a pseudoscientist (e.g., [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]) Are all of these well-established and reputable academic publishers—Oxford University Press, Springer, Routledge, ABC-CLIO, etc.—and the dozens of tenured professors and other credentialed writers calling Lysenko a pseudoscientist all taking part in defamation and risking legal action? I doubt that. The cause of this whole brouhaha is that Wikipedia attracts some people who reject things like modern genetics, and so Lysenkoism etc. do not seem like pseudosciences to them, and they are upset when Wikipedia disagrees with their point of view. It's unfortunate that they do not find the moral support that they desire. However, their theories are rejected by virtually all reliable sources as pseudoscience, which means that by WP:NPOV we should not fail to describe them as pseudoscience and people like Lysenko as pseudoscientists. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 09:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Indeed; this is the one thing that people tend to forget (or ignore) regarding NPOV: that if the majority of the sources have an overwhelmingly negative (or positive, for that matter!) portrayal of a subject, it is non-neutral for it not to be described in such a fashion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2014
@ The Bushranger: That is a serious misrepresentation of a core policy. WP:WEIGHT states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". What the Bushranger proposes is that if one view meets a bare majority test, then it must be stated as a fact. This would be a radical revision of NPOV.
The problem with the category is that it is a binary switch, with none of the weighting required by WP:WEIGHT, because it excludes the view of significant minorities. By Bushranger's logic, if 50.01% of sources say that a topic is "X", we are required to place it in "Category:X", and if only 49.99% of sources describe it that, we don't.
That binary switch works fine for a criterion such as whether something is in France, or whether a person has been convicted of something, because it is very rare for those attributes to be ambiguous. A larger degree of fuzziness is also acceptable if the label is not pejorative; but the more pejorative the label becomes, the more we need to be wary of forcing a binary choice.
Despite the claims of some editors large swathes of this topic are not binary; the demarcation problem is an unresolved issue in the philosophy of science. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
In order for this argument to justify deletion, doesn't 'large swathes' need to be 'in all cases' i.e. for every instance it is not possible to decide whether an article is a member of the set 'pseudoscientists' (or a renamed set advocates of pseudoscience or thereabouts) ? Or at least the inability to decide based on policy will render the set too small to justify the existence of a category. In other words, the argument is essentially that it is never (or so rarely) possible for a person to be added to the category pseudoscientists that the category can't be populated and can therefore be deleted. Even if every single source found described the person as a pseudoscientist or as an advocate of what is regarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience (and a member of the binary pseudoscience category), an article about a person could not be added because a) people who edit Wikipedia say it's pejorative b) there may be sources that dispute the description that haven't been found and c) the subjects obviously won't regard themselves as pseudoscientists nor will the non-RS sources that support them and advocate what Wikipedia categorizes as pseudoscience. In a nutshell, the argument seems to be, it's often difficult to decide whether someone can be categorized as a pseudoscientist or an advocate of what is regarded by the scientific community (and Wikipedia via its category system) as pseudoscience, so let's not do it in all cases and delete the category. Is it really the case that there are no biographies could be placed in this category ? If so, why is it the case that the subjects these same people study/advocate can be placed in the pseudoscience category ? What are the consequences of arguments like this that categorizing people is difficult when people who edit Wikipedia say something is pejorative? What other useful categories could be deleted using these kind of arguments; Conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, communist vs anti-communist depending on what people who edit Wikipedia regard as pejorative etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The difference is, it is possible to say that topic X is relevant to the broader topic of Homophobia and thus belongs in the topic category of homophobia. However, saying person X IS a homophobe, which Category:Homophobes means as a category, is a different proposition. Additionally, there is a level of indirection here, in saying that Astrology is relevant to the topic of pseudo-science vs saying an Astrologer is a pseudo-scientist.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't think indirection changes things and I don't think it is really a different proposition. Astrologer Joan Quigley a member of the set Pseudoscience just like People from Park County, Wyoming and members of the set American people and therefore Americans. What's odd about the approach used is that even if the proposition is verifiable and undisputed according to what Wikipedia regards as RS, many editors don't like categories like these unless they employ indirection, which results in somewhat bizarre cases like Eustace Mullins, whose picture could appear next to the dictionary entry for antisemite, not being categorized as an antisemite. I can understand the concerns with these categories but the reality is that people are making the same decision as they would if they didn't use indirection, that Joan Quigley is relevant to the broader topic of pseudoscience and that what they do is, according to Wikipedia, pseudoscience, but they are obscuring that decision procedure with layers of indirection. It's still there though embedded in the category structure. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, consensus has been clearly established, repeatedly so, that we are not to use categories to label people as anti-semitic, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or pretty much anything else pejorative and subjective. Being a murderer is not subjective - we have whole justice systems which are set up to make a societal determination on whether someone is or isn't a murderer. However, how much "pseudoscience" must you do to merit this category? The boundary is subjective, which is always bad for a category, especially so for a pejorative one, which is why they are generally not allowed. If there were people who were proudly claiming to be pseudoscientists it would be different deal (and this is why Category:Astrologers is perfectly reasonable, since they themselves claim to be astrologers). Also I wouldn't read too much into the category structure nesting - once you get 2 or 3 levels deep, it starts to fail, this is just part of the challenge of categorizing and it will never be fixed.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
(ec) @ Sean.hoyland: it's mischievious to imply that the view of "pseudoscientist" as a pejorative label is some sort of invention of Wikipedia editors. (The term "pejorative" has been in the head article since at least 2006, and is currently referenced to a Stanford University publication). Merriam-Webster defines "pseudo" as " not real or genuine", and by any measure that is a pejorative way of labelling something.
But I think you get to the kernel of the issue when you refer to what is regarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience. You don't acknowledge the demarcation problem, or the common view of medieval alchemy as a protoscience, and imply that the scientific community has a consistent and coherent view of what constitutes pseudoscience; and you also confirm the point that I made repeatedly above, that this is a pejorative term used by practitioners of science to denigrate those with whom it has a demarcation problem. It is a term used with much greater caution by uninvolved parties such as philosophers of science, and the head article acknowledges that: "The boundary lines between science and pseudoscience are disputed and difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in varied fields, and despite some basic agreements on the fundaments of scientific methodology. [14] [15]". Yet despite that century of unresolved philosophical debate, some wikipedia editors are arguing here that they can weigh reliable sources so effectively that they can make an NPOV binary choice to apply or reject the label (which is all a category allows) to biographies of real people. Where philosophers fear to tread, it seems that Wikipedia editors are determined go boldly :(
This remains a case of one system of knowledge applying a derogatory label to those at its boundaries; it serves a similar function to other pejorative terms such as heretic (note that Category:Heretics was deleted in 2007).
Comparisons with terms like "communist" are misplaced, because while that label is used pejoratively, it is also widely used as a term of self-identification. We would be hard-pressed to find any self-identified pseudoscientists. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Philosophers don't agree on what existence, time, numbers, colours, holes, causation, language, minds, and many other things which are regularly treated in this encyclopedia are. When we describe pi as being an "irrational" number, we're not failing to acknowledge the problems of number, nor are we going boldly where philosophers fear to tread. The same is true when we call Trofim Lysenko a "pseudoscientist". It's just that there are dozens of reliable sources which call Lysenko a pseudoscientist and not a single one which disagrees. We do well by plainly reflecting this unanimous judgement of our reliable sources. The opposite view—that Lysenko is not a pseudoscientist—has zero support among reliable sources, and so should be given no weight. When philosophers debate about the nature of number, they are not debating whether pi is irrational (they already recognize that, or they defer to mathematicians). When philosophers debate about the nature of science, they are not debating whether Lysenko was a pseudoscientist (they already recognize this, or they defer to biologists). -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 21:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, it's true, scholars have problematized all SORTS of things. The real challenge with this category is because it is a label that is considered pejorative, and the use of such pejorative labels as categories for people has been broadly rejected by consensus again and again. There is a difference between saying in the article text "Lysenko is broadly considered to have pursued pseudo-scientific theories of evolution and reproduction" and just tagging him as a pseudo-scientist - and indeed it's rather bizarre because he is also tagged as a scientist, and a biologist, and he actually did make useful contributions to crop yields [16], although he also of course caused a great deal of harm to same. So can someone be a pseudoscientist and a scientist at the same time? If you check your reliable sources, you will also find dozens of sources that call him a "Russian biologist" - so was he a biologist, or not?-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 21:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
It doesn't really matter if I think he is a pseudoscientist, a scientist, a biologist or anything. It just matters what the reliable sources say. Creating this encyclopedia should be a relatively mechanical procedure where reliable sources are collated and accurately reflected by summarizing their views with due weight. It should be irrelevant what the personal views of editors are. I may think that Lyshenko was the greatest scientist ever and that everyone calling him a pseudoscientist is just using pejoratives because they are biased towards Western imperialism and capitalism, but in article space I should just describe him as a pseudoscientist, a biologist, or whatever the reliable sources agree that he is. Couching unanimous views in the way you suggest ("Lysenko is broadly considered to have pursued pseudo-scientific theories of evolution and reproduction") is exactly what we shouldn't do. Using attribution like that insulates the claims. This is what WP:YESPOV is supposed to prevent. We don't say, "Humans are broadly considered to have evolved by natural selection". We just say, "Humans evolved by natural selection." Using the insulating, in-text attribution creates an air of doubt when there is no significant doubt among the reliable sources. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion,  Contributions) 22:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
@ BrownHairedGirl: Um...no, that's not what I meant at all. I meant that if there was a SIGNIFICANT majority (like, at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, sources describing Hitler) that a person or thing is Bad, in THAT case being "neutral" in the article is itself violating NPOV. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
@ The Bushranger: Thanks for clarifying that; your previous comment appeared to be referring to categories, and I'm sorry that I misunderstood it. Yes, of course, in the article we should continue to describe people in accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, without WP:SYN. The apparent fear amongst some editors that the content or balance of the articles would be altered by not having the category is misplaced. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have an account and have been editing Wikipedia longer than most of the people here. The OP's reasoning is flawed, as the OED clearly states "either ... or ...". This category is useful. For BLPs the category can be discussed using reliable third-party sources. For BLPs who have not been discussed as "pseudoscientists" in reliable literature, but who unquestionably are pseudoscientists, then the article should be deleted per WP:GNG. 182.249.241.12 ( talk) 02:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (as an attack category) per Mosfetfaser, DGG, Collect and Wnt. petrarchan47 t c 08:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep' and Rename -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 03:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no objective definition of pseudoscientist, so the fact that someone has been called a pseudoscientist should be presented with attribution in the article rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice, as is the case with a category. This category claims a black/white absolute truth, but the classification as pseudoscientist is always a gray area in between. Trying to tag a biography with this gray-area category is a BLP nightmare if the subject is living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 May 2014
Procedural note

I have proposed at the Administrators' noticeboard that this discussion should be closed by a 3-admin panel, as been done with some other highly-contested discussions. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Panel_to_close_CFD_on_Category:Pseudoscientists, which is where I suggested that the procedural issue be discussed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Temporary closing rationale Since we're going to have a three-admin panel reviewing this CFD, I've closed it procedurally (after agreement from other people at the admin noticeboard) to make things slightly simpler. It's already an extraordinarily complex discussion, and if the admins spend a good deal of time reviewing the discussion, only to discover that more people participated while they were reviewing, it's going to make it even more complicated. Once the panel's reviewed the discussion, they'll remove this temporary close and replace it with an actual close that resolves the situation. Nyttend ( talk) 05:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Now closed with decision. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lifeguards

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep and purge. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:COP#N. People like Clint Eastwood and Ronald Reagan are not notable as lifeguards. No objection to this category being kept/recreated if we ever find sufficient aricles about people who are notable as a lifeguard. DexDor ( talk) 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Newman is actually made notable by his appearances in Baywatch. In sampling the members I have yet to find someone whose lead even mention lifeguarding which doesn't also mention some other occupation which is the actual source of notability. Mangoe ( talk) 19:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, I think he's also notable for being a lifeguard. The point is, this is a valid occupation. I agree with a purge, but lifeguard doesn't have to be the sole reason for notability - it just has to be defining of the person. If it says "X is a lifeguard" in the lede, there's a good chance this is defining.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You might think so, but having actually looked at all the American examples and a good number of the Aussies, it doesn't appear to be the case. His article doesn't begin, " Ronald Reagan was a lifeguard and President of the United States," but there are some which use the same phraseology: see for example Clint Robinson, which gets around to mentioning that he's an Olympic medalist in the second sentence. Mangoe ( talk) 13:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Clint Robinson seems like a. Excellent example of someone for whom this is defining. Being a lifeguard/surf lifesaver is sort of his life. It's mentioned like 5 times in the lead paragraphs. Ronald Reagan is a red herring not sure why you bring it up - just purge him.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The Australian subcat is perhaps a little more justifiable. I get the impression that there are people there who are full-time lifeguards for some years, and that there is some sort of competition between them. If it ends being essentially the whole category, though, an upmerge would be in order, with possibly a rename to indicate that this isn't for the summer job set. Mangoe ( talk) 15:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Its possible once we purge, we won't need nationality subcats. We may also rename to surf lifesaver. We should treat this the same as Category:Restaurant staff - purge of people who just once worked as a waiter, but for a (small) subset of people this is indeed defining, eg for surf livesavers there are competitions, training regimes, schools, etc. It's not just sitting at a pool watching kids.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete As all Americans know, lifeguarding is a common summer job for American kids; my back-of-the-envelope calculation is that there are probably a hundred thousand every year, maybe ten times that. It has more cachet than dipping ice cream or selling T-shirts on the boardwalk, but it conveys no more notability. I've gone through the main list, and there is maybe one person whose fame derives from being a life guard, and her notability is really quite dubious. The rest are actors, athletes, writers, models, politicians—really just about anything. The Babewatch guy gets a slight notch up, but he's no Audie Murphy; he was hired as an actor, not as a lifeguard. The situation is perhaps slightly better with the Aussies, but again I'm seeing a lot of "John Doe is a surf lifesaver and a job-he's-actually-notable-for" leads. If we purged this, there would be nothing left except for a couple of articles. Mangoe ( talk) 12:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC) reply
well we have Category:Restaurant staff which is valid. It's a valid job and there are a few people notable for it. No call to delete accordingly.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 01:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
To be precise, there are two people who are notable in it; the other biographical entries suffer from the same issue as this category. It is more justifiable because of the "fictional" subcat and because it contains articles on particular restaurant positions. Mangoe ( talk) 02:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
You're right about Category:Restaurant staff -- I had no idea such a ridiculous (I really want to say moronic, but maybe I shouldn't) category existed. I should AFD it. I am not looking down on any legal employment or hardworking people and their jobs -- but not every occupation or vocation or job can or should be categorized, or listified, for that matter! Quis separabit? 03:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Rms125a@hotmail.com: I agree, not all jobs should be listified or categorized, but if we have enough people who are notable for that, then why not? Restaurant staff does not include actors who once worked as a waiter - most of the contents are people who are literally known for being waiters, the most famous example being Edsel Ford Fung who my father used to tell me stories about when I was a kid.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I did hear about Edsel Ford Fung and saw a television news story about him many years ago. I wouldn't dispute his notability, but there are few professional waiters who stayed in the same restaurant for many decades, and became famous for that alone and of those I couldn't name them because they did not garner more than at best one-off publicity. So Fung is somewhat sui generis, wouldn't you say? Yours, Quis separabit?
There aren't many others - true - but there are still enough to make a category. Heather_Crowe is another good example. It's interesting that we have few real people who are notable for being servers in restaurants, while we have thousands of characters in tv,film, novels who do this as their job. Writers love to write stories about people who are waiters/bartenders/etc for some reason.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, we do have Category:McDonald's people... -- BDD ( talk) 16:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Most of those are executives or people involved in its founding or significant developments. Probably some of these could be pruned but it would still be a sufficiently large category. Mangoe ( talk) 12:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Purge but keep Categories don't magically create a wikipedia article for every person who was ever a lifeguard or restaurant staff; they organize articles we already have, of which a limited number would even mention it. The categories should be added where the characteristic has some significance to the subject, of course, but kept if those articles exist. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Purge but keep although it is not clear to me what the difference is between a lifeguard and a "surf lifesaver". I'm not sure these subcategories are necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a clutter magnet like category:beekeepers has become - where we have celebrities and mountain climbers along with real apiologists. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Purge and keep - The solution for clutter magnets is periodic degaussing. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This attracts too many people for whom it is in no way defining to ever work as a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Purge & Keep per above. —   dain omite   05:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fortification in Central America

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Fortifications in Central America. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: All of the subcategories are appropriately categorised under Category:Fortifications by country and :Category:Buildings and structures in Foo. We don't categorise fortifications by continent; Category:Fortification in Africa is a special case. The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Because the "Africa" category covers historical fortifications that were in ancient countries and now cover multiple countries, while this is a container category for national cats. However, it might well be possible to simply re-categorise the African ones in the relevant country categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Please see my previous comment - Central America also covers former countries, and unified countries. Simon Burchell ( talk) 10:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • OK, I see where your coming from - I think the category should continue in existance, but not be in Category:Fortifications by country (I just checked and it isn't anyway). It currently sits under "buildings and structures in Central America" and directly under "Fortification(s)". Perhaps a new subcat under Fortification(s) is necessary. Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, because categories should be plural — it needs to be "Fortifications". However, the idea should be kept, as it's indeed a former country, but make sure not to include Panamanian ones because they were part of Colombia at the time. Nyttend ( talk) 12:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename for MOS consistency; i.e. pluralize to "Fortifications". Quis separabit? 00:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • REname to plural. Otherwise this sub-continental categoisation is acceptable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and disperse where appropriate. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Nominator's comment: I'm fine with renaming, as there's a clear consensus that this category is appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_1&oldid=1142605931"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE