Talk:Pathological skepticism/Vote to rename

Proposal: Rename to "Pseudoskepticism"
I would like to see if we can already get a consensus to at least rename this article to "Pseudoskepticism." This is a natural continuance of the ongoing discussion at Articles for deletion/Pathological skepticism. Just to make sure that no one misunderstands the purpose here -- this isn't the place to decide the delete/not delete, or merge/not merge questions.

Relevant information:

Google results show notability and more common use of "pseudoskepticism"'''


 * "pseudo skepticism" (with quotes) - 1,800 hits

plus...


 * pseudoskepticism - 2,930 hits

in contrast to....


 * pathological skepticism - 2,770 hits

-- Fyslee 16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support (and suggest the analogy with "pseudoscience" be mentioned prominently). CWC (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! The two subjects are inseparable. If it isn't already done (I haven't looked), then you can start working on it. -- Fyslee 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Characteristics of Pseudoskepticism" already make the connection, but we probably don't want to expand on this point, unless there is verifiable material, and we expand the other points too. Otherwise there could be suggestions of undue weight. --Iantresman 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. No objection, with "pseudo-skepticism" and "pathological skepticism" redirecting. --Iantresman 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Makes sense to me. --ScienceApologist 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - even if the ~Google count would be similar, it's the better umbrella designation. Harald88 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support as above. Arbusto 03:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I was looking into doing this last year, but lost ambition. Note that google hits can mislead, since this term has been on WP long enough that many sites which mirror/steal WP content will appear as search hits.  And about "suggest the analogy with "pseudoscience" be mentioned prominently", an earlier version defined pseudoskepticism as a form of pseudoscience.  To the extent that "skepticism" means scientific skepticism and requires a carefully openminded truth-finding scientific attitude, pseudoskepticism is pseudoscience.  It's the "Scoffer" end of the pseudoscience spectrum, rather than the "True Believer" end.  Hmmm, that's another reason to keep the term: "pseudoscience" is most often the label for type-1 error: accepting incorrect information, i.e. gullibility.  Pseudoscience based on type-2 errors (based on rejecting correct information, closedmindedness) needs its own shorthand term. --67.136.141.97 06:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support per discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Pathological_skepticism. --Jim Butler(talk) 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on hits
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but about the statement "pseudo skepticism (without quotes) - 407,000 hits, a very significant number." - without quotes, doesn't this match "pseudo" OR "skepticism"? Bubba73 (talk), 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe it means "and". It gives many more examples, but also a lot of other irrelevant pages. I think I'll remove it. -- Fyslee 16:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. But if both terms appear on the page, it probably shouldn't be counted as a hit for "pseudo skepticism".  Bubba73 (talk), 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I have removed it, and yet "pseudoskepticism" still comes in a clear winner. -- Fyslee 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Google searches without quotes are equivalent to "AND" searches (ie both words must be present on the page). A Google search with quotes, search for the exact phrase. --Iantresman 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, have you tried spelling skepticism with a c instead of k? Bubba73 (talk), 19:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but that's a good idea, since it will find all the British-type uses. -- Fyslee 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here they are:


 * "pseudo scepticism" (spelled with "c") - 175 hits


 * pseudoscepticism (spelled with "c") - 170 hits


 * -- Fyslee 19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * More comprehensive (from Jim Butler:
 * - Google search for {pseudoskeptic OR pseudosceptic OR "pseudo-skeptic" OR "pseudo-sceptic" OR pseudoskeptical OR pseudosceptical OR "pseudo-skeptical" OR "pseudo-sceptical" OR pseudoskepticism OR pseudoscepticism OR "pseudo-skepticism" OR "pseudo-scepticism"} results in ca. 18600 hits;
 * - Similarly his Google search for {"pathological skeptic" OR "pathological sceptic" OR "pathological skeptical" OR "pathological sceptical" OR "pathological skepticism" OR "pathological scepticism"} results in ca. 615 hits.


 * -> But there seems to be something wrong with Google: the last search should result in > 2770 hits. Anyone who knows what's the matter?? Harald88 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Result: support
I sense a pretty good consensus here....;-) Now to the next step. I have done several renames before, but there is a proper way to move an article, so as to move the history as well. Who knows how to do that? If you can do it, please do so and make the necessary redirects.

To avoid edit conflicts in the process, please volunteer here before beginning. Then we will know what's going on and give you some peace and guiet to get the job done. If you get hassled by a New Articles patroller, just point them to this page.

Thanks to all who have expressed their support here. -- Fyslee 13:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We should wait until the AfD closes out. Then simply hit the move tab and you're done. --ScienceApologist 14:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The AfD is on another topic, and this subject is mentioned there and the article's talk page, providing all an opportunity to be heard. Therefore I see no reason not to proceed. If the AfD results in a "delete" (so far it's a strong "keep"), then the article, regardless of name, will be deleted. -- Fyslee 17:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Selmo has now withdrawn the AfD nomination. Let's move ahead with renaming it. -- Fyslee 17:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently here you confuse two articles - right? Harald88 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OMG! You're right. (Pounding head against wall.....) -- Fyslee 18:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In spite of that, there is still no reason to not move ahead. -- Fyslee 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)