Category talk:Advocates of pseudoscience/Move discussion notes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Per my conscription volunteering at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Panel to close CFD on Category:Pseudoscientists, following are my notes on the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists. These are only rough notes, and are not intended to reflect my thinking on the correct closure of the discussion.

Rationales:

There are two primary rationales put forth for the deletion of the category. One is that "pseudoscientists" is a problematic term, encompassing two distinct groups: people who advocate pseudoscientific theories, and charlatans who falsely present themselves as scientists. The second is that this is a BLP nightmare, with category members not self-describing as "pseudo-scientists", but being spottily categorized as such by opponents of their positions, or being categorized as such by proxy due to their inclusion in other categories such as "astrologers".

Another problem arises with subjects like Galileo and Isaac Newton, for whom some of their work would not have been considered pseudoscientific at the time, but would be today.

Numbers of editors on either side of the issue are not the sole determiner of the outcome, but numbers can not be discounted as an important measure either (I do tend to discount IP !votes, but not well thought out rationales presented by IPs). However, there are two ways of looking at the numbers in this case. One is that the number of editors who favor keeping the category (in some form) is about even with (or just slightly more than) the number of editors who would delete. Another is that there is a clear and substantial majority of more than two thirds of participating editors (i.e., including many who favor keeping the category) who see something wrong here, and of those many who think that it can be solved to some degree by renaming and/or restricting.

My initial thinking is that the there is a place for a category containing people who are identified in reliable sources as advocates of pseudoscience, or of specific branches of pseudoscientific activity, and a category for people who are identified in reliable sources as, basically scientific charlatans (i.e. people who have deliberately created scientific hoaxes). Any such such categories must be clearly named and clearly restricted to avoid any inclusion of people who either would not have been engaging in pseudoscience at the time of their activities (e.g., Isaac Newton delving into alchemy), or people who investigate pseudoscientific claims in order to debunk them (e.g. James Randi).

Editors favoring deletion[edit]

  1. User:StAnselm (nom)
  2. User:MaxBrowne
  3. User:Simon Burchell
  4. User:Wnt
  5. User:Obiwankenobi
  6. User:Carlossuarez46
  7. User:Mosfetfaser
  8. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com
  9. User:CurtisNaito ("If we don't delete it entirely, I favor Wnt's very compelling suggestion on restricting its use")
  10. User:BrownHairedGirl
  11. User:BoboMeowCat
  12. User:A1candidate
  13. User:Nyttend (wouldn't object to separate categories for the pseudoscient-ists and pseudo-scientists)
  14. User:Dennis Brown
  15. User:DGG
  16. User:Lesser Cartographies
  17. User:I am One of Many
  18. User:Howunusual
  19. User:Liz
  20. User:Collect
  21. User:FreeKnowledgeCreator
  22. User:ArnoldReinhold
  23. User:Binksternet
  24. Special:Contributions/101.117.28.73
  25. Special:Contributions/71.246.158.7
  26. Special:Contributions/71.58.95.36

Editors favoring keeping[edit]

  1. User:QuackGuru
  2. User:MrBill3
  3. User:Adam Cuerden
  4. User:Dougweller
  5. User:Nomoskedasticity
  6. User:Gaba_p
  7. User:Mark Miller
  8. User:Calton
  9. User:Cardamon
  10. User:Elaqueate
  11. User:Atethnekos
  12. User:Rhododendrites
  13. User:Tgeorgescu
  14. User:Flying Jazz
  15. User talk:Arthur Rubin
  16. User:Nomoskedasticity (but restrict)
  17. Special:Contributions/76.107.171.90
  18. Special:Contributions/182.249.241.12
    • Editors favoring keeping and/or renaming
  19. K or R User:Sean.hoyland
  20. K or R User:Rich Farmbrough
  21. K or R User:Enric Naval
  22. K + R Special:Contributions/173.51.221.24
    • Editors favoring keeping but only if renamed
  23. User:Mangoe (To Category:Pseudoscience advocates)
  24. User Talk:JzG (and partially depopulate)
  25. User:TheRedPenOfDoom (to advocates of pseudoscience)
  26. User:XFEM Skier (to advocates of pseudoscience)
  27. User:NorthBySouthBaranof
  28. Special:Contributions/172.251.77.75 (and/or restrict)
  29. Special:Contributions/86.20.65.8

A consideration[edit]

I'm not sure if you will find this an intrusion, BD2412, I hope not. I'd just like to point out that of the editors who regularly participate in CFD discussions, who focus much of their work on working with categories and are aware of category policies (like WP:EGRS), none of those editors supported keeping this category. This may or may not matter. By the way, I think you sum up the arguments for deletion accurately. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate your input. I am certainly familiar with the experience of having a large number of editors who are unfamiliar with an area of policy participating in discussions that trench deeply on that policy. Of course, the community has the right to be wrong about stylistic matters, but not about BLP matters. In this case, however, I think there is a clear majority that favors a significant change in the status quo, and the remaining question (pending the agreement of the other panel members) is how substantial and how tightly drawn the parameters of this change should be. bd2412 T 02:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accepting the comment in the spirit it was intended. Whatever you decide, this is definitely a category where consensus (to keep or to delete) could change over time. I think, if it is in your power, it would be good to place a 6 month moratorium on either a) recreating the category or b) renominating it for deletion after the case is closed. It's fine for any article, page or category to come up for review but not so soon after a contentious proposal was closed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that we can do either of those things, or that we have been asked to make a decision like that. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The decision is very articulate and well-stated. I think removing the category Pseudoscientist from BLP articles will alleviate most of the concern. Making the Advocates for Pseudoscience category a container category, for child categories only and not articles, is an elegant solution for those who argue that the category should exist. Well done! Liz Read! Talk! 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts[edit]

My initial impression that there is a strong consensus that change is needed. Three basic options were offered:

  • outright deletion
  • partial or complete depopulation (i.e. keep as holding category for subcat only)
  • rename (and likely partially depopulate)

I think our job is to weigh the policy arguments for each option. If we can take the "do nothing" option off the table, that will make the weighing easier IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the consensus of the community here is to reject the status quo as an option. BLP and verifiability are paramount concerns here, as is the conflation of two very different meanings of "pseudoscientist" - the well-meaning proponent of ideas that sound scientific but are not, and the charlatan. I don't think there is any practical difference between deletion of the category and renaming combined with depopulation, since either way there would be no Category:Pseudoscientists left at the end of it, but I think that those who wished to keep the category will (by and large) be satisfied with a categorization scheme by which pseudoscientists can be identified. I really like the idea of keeping this as a "holding category" for subcategories. I think the solution lies in renaming the category to Category:Advocates of pseudoscience and restricting it to a holding category for a set of subcategories such as Category:Advocates of cryptozoology (which would separate out the advocates of that field from those who engage in it to debunk paranormal claims and the like). Since one can not see up the category tree without searching for it, this will prevent the label of "pseudoscientist" from appearing on any article. Obviously, if a subject has been described in reliable sources as a pseudoscience, that characterization can appear in the article without also being in a category visible on the page. bd2412 T 02:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this :"advocate of pseudoscience" supposed to be a synonym for "pseudoscientist"? So for example, when all the relevant reliable sources say that Trofim Lysenko was a "pseudoscientist" this is supposed to be sufficient sourcing for describing him as an "advocate of pseudoscience" even if no reliable sources describe him as such? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is for discussion by the members of the closing panel. Other comments may be erased or ignored. To answer your question in brief, there is very little practical difference between the terms "pseudoscientist" and "advocate of pseudoscience". I suppose it could be argued that one sounds like the person experimenting in the lab while the other sounds like the person making a case from the podium. However, if this is used only as a holding category, the relevant inquiry is whether he subject is described (in whatever terms) as an advocate of the field (alchemy, cryptozoology, astrology, etc.), and whether the field in turn is described as pseudoscience to be a subcategory of the category at issue. bd2412 T 03:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another point of CSD that your summary did not capture. That is that not all astrologers, for example, hold pseudoscience views. That is, they don't pretend their is any scientific basis for their beliefs but hold them as pure mysticism. This is probably true for many categories. For example, I understand that some anti-vaccine advocates believe children are better off getting sick to get the "valuable" life experience and don't subscribe to the pseduoscience ideas such as vaccines cause autism. This is probably not much of an issue as long as we aren't directly classifying the people as pseduoscientists/advocates of pseudoscience, but is something to consider. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we go with the holding category idea, then I think we escape that problem. There are plenty of people in categories that are subcategories of Category:Criminals who are individually considered folk heroes or gadflies, and not lumped in with "real" criminals such as serial killers. However, I also think that if an advocate of astrology is claiming (even based on "mysticism") that astrology is in any way effective, then they are advocating a result that should be testable in the realm of science. Similarly, the person who would avoid vaccination based on this "life experience" idea would need to ignore the scientific idea of herd immunity that makes vaccination effective. bd2412 T 15:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB: @BOZ: - let's get this wrapped up. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for BOZ to weigh in before commenting further... --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it has been a busy few days for me. This evening I will have some time to catch up. BOZ (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having read over your summary, and the arguments above, I feel very comfortable with calling consensus in favor of the idea of renaming the category to "Advocates of pseudoscience" as a start, with further development to be discussed as necessary. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that we are all in agreement that there is a consensus to change the status quo, and I think that WP:BLP and WP:V strongly support a change. I propose the following determination:

Although there is no consensus to entirely eliminate the categorization of "pseudoscientists", the consensus of the discussion, and the overriding policies of WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability, favor renaming and restricting the category. The category will therefore be renamed Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, and this category will only serve as a holding category for subcategories. 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. 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.

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. BOZ (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The close language is agreeable. I wanted to add a bit more analysis here (which supports, not changes, the proposed close) for reference... Guy's suggestion to rename the category came fairly late in the CFD; after it arose, it got a good amount of support which tends to suggest it is a reasonable compromise that many earlier !voters could support, indeed may prefer; the only reason some early commentors did not support it is because the option was not on the table at that time. 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-indentify as pseduoscientists, but do self-indentify as crytozoologists). Additionally, this solution does not prevent a renomination if problems arise, while outright deletion would effectively cut off a potentially better solution. Finally, renaming the subcategories was not discussed in the CFD so we can't offer any binding decision on that, only personal advice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 I believe you made a typo above. "Serve as a holding category for other articles" should be "serve as a holding category for other categories" Gaijin42 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a typo. Typing "the Lord oft he Flies" is a typo. This was a straight-up mistake. Fixed, thanks. bd2412 T 00:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB: Now that we have heard from BOZ, I await your final approval (or amendments) for my proposed closing language. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have refined this a bit more, incorporated ThaddeusB's analysis, and added some language noting that the categorization scheme will not appear on the subject's pages. Here is my (hopefully) final draft:

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 implented once that option becomes available). Furthermore, this category will only serve as a holding category for subcategories. 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-indentify as pseduoscientists, but do self-indentify 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.

Cheers! bd2412 T 14:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we had a "Like" button. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ:: We do have {{like}} --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB:? bd2412 T 16:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If both of you would be so good as to please sign the close at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists, this matter will be concluded. Except, of course, for the inevitable challenge to the closure. bd2412 T 17:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts by Gaijin42[edit]

Although I am not a member of this panel, prior to the objection of my inclusion, I did do a review of the discussion and put together some thoughts. These are below. Feel free to consume or ignore them as you like.

Gaijin42's weigh in

Although certainly not a headcount, the count is clear that the status quo is not desired. By my analysis 17 !voted for keeping as is. 21 !voted for outright deletion. The easy way out is obviously a no-consensus result, but I believe the "other" !votes are the deciding factor. 6 editors went in for splitting the category into subcats, either based on the two definitions, or into various narrow subcats for each type of pseudoscience. 7 went in for the rename, either of "advocates of" or some such, or something more inline with the split. 2 explicitly !voted to restrict the membership in the category more firmly. Complicating matters is that many of the arguments went in explicitly for multiple options, or implicitly did so (to my eyes) in their argument.

I especially found the arguments of BHG, Wnt, the 101 ip persuasive on the outright delete. Nyytend and Anslem for the split. Guy for Rename, and Atethnekos for the keep.

It is my feeling that moving into a renamed and more heavily sub-categorized system would be acceptable (although certainly not preferred) by the bulk of the participants. For those on the keep side, insisting on a no-quibble-they-are-pseudoscientists version seems petty, particularly in light of the BLP issues and definition issue.

The subcat also resolves many of the BLP issues. No subject is going to identify themselves as a pseudoscientist. But All the homeopaths identify themselves as homeopaths, and it is enough to say that homeopathy is pseudoscience in the nesting.

Although usually an argument to avoid the OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST also seems persuasive. Other cats such as Terrorist etc has much less of a grey area problem than this cat, and yet it was not kept.

After I wrote this, I went back and read bd's and ThaddeusB's statements above and I find it much in alignment with my own analysis.

Thanks for your input. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Advocates_of_pseudoscience/Move_discussion_notes&oldid=1110110455"