Talk:Pseudo-scholarship

Recommend deletion
I propose this page should be deleted. It cites no sources and seems to be wrong. "Pseudo-scholarship" means "pretended learning".

Pseudo- is a prefix, from Greek pseudes ‘false’, pseudos ‘falsehood’.


 * Cambridge not real; pretended.
 * OED false, not genuine; resembling or imitating.
 * Websters being apparently rather than actually as stated; sham, spurious.

Scholarship


 * Cambridge serious, detailed study
 * OED academic achievement; learning of a high level.
 * Webster the character, qualities, activity, or attainments of a scholar : learning.

Anthony (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one misunderstanding the term. Pseudoscholarship generally means goofy and transparently false argumentation that masquerades as genuine scholarship; it's a reference to a body of argument, not some person's own affected status as an intellectual. The disambiguation page is fine. Eugene (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eugene. Do you have a source for that? Anthony (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's pretty common knowledge. But here's a site that uses that meaning. Eugene (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't make myself clear. I mean a dictionary, not synthesis or original research. Eugene, I am perfectly happy for us to use this word in the way you want to use it.Really. Just find me that definition in a respectable, mainstream dictionary. (The background on this discussion is here) Anthony (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the citation tag really neccesary? I'd be happy to work up a RfC on this point. Eugene (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading up on WP:AFD. Anthony (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages do not need to meet WP:NOTE, it is sufficient that the term exists.
 * I created this as the catmain for Category:Pseudo-scholarship. If you think the term is invalid, take the category to CFD.
 * --dab (𒁳) 18:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a disambiguation page. There are not articles ambiguous with "pseudo-scholarship". You have a list article of things that are (or may be) kinds of pseudo-scholarship. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an article, not a disambiguation page. Presently it consists of one sentence"For a particular form of pseudo-scholarship see pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, pseudolinguistics, seudomathematics, seudoscience." broken into bullet points, and a see also list. I guess it is a stub. The trouble is, it is both wrong and lacking citations for the one claim it makes: pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, pseudolinguistics, seudomathematics, seudoscience are forms of pseudoscholarship. Please don't remove the until you have found a source for that claim. Anthony (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll have to put a RfC together later tonight. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think that's the best thing to do. What form of words did you have in mind for a description of the dispute, and what pages/categories were you thinking of tagging? Anthony (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say something like "The list 'Psuedo-schoarlarship' contains the following sentence: 'For a particular form of pseudo-scholarship see...' and then contains the following items in list format--Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, Pseudolinguistics, Pseudomathematics, Pseudoscience. Does this require a citation?" Eugene (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you settle for "The article 'Psuedo-schoarlarship' contains the following sentence: 'For a particular form of pseudo-scholarship see...' and then contains the following items in list format--Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, Pseudolinguistics, Pseudomathematics, Pseudoscience. Does this require a citation?" Anthony (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. This page looks like a poorly formatted disambiguation page. Barring that, it's a list. The sole purpose of the page is to link out to other pages; it clearly isn't an article. Eugene (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The intent may be for this to to be a disambiguation page... but what is it disambiguating? Dab pages are usually set up to disambiguate where the same title could apply to multiple topics... this seems to be more a situation where multiple topics could all be lumped together under one article title... essentially it's backwards from the usual situation. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having the sole purpose of linking to other pages doesn't make one a disambiguation page. There have to be ambiguous topics for that. WP:LISTS may also exist to link to other pages, and they are also clearly articles (list articles). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So, shall we settle on "The article 'Psuedo-schoarlarship' contains the following sentence: 'For a particular form of pseudo-scholarship see...' and then contains the following items in list format--Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, Pseudolinguistics, Pseudomathematics, Pseudoscience. Does this require a citation?" for the wording of the dispute? Anthony (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll settle for "the list article". Eugene (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just call it "the page". Anthony (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we tag categories Pseudoscholarship, Science, Fringe theories, Philosophy. Would that get to everyone with an interest? Anthony (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine, though since pseudo-history, -archeology, and -mathematics are listed I think they might need to be included. Or we could leave it at Pseudoscholarship and Fringe theories.  Since there are just two of us, a RfC wasn't required; I added our question to WP:3O. Eugene (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of the term, in scholarly publications.
 * In books So the term is certainly in use. The question then becomes does the page need work, yes. Its clear that whilst the tem is in use its use does not solely rest within the areas defined in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the list, if an RS calls it something we can, if not then its synthasis.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. If we go to RfC, I'd prefer a wider net. People watching Pseudo-scholarship and Fringe pages will have been influenced by this page's slant on the term, through familiarity with the category and this usage on talk pages. Anthony (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an article page now, thanks to JHunterJ. I have given up discussing a reasonable approach to disambiguation with JHunterJ years ago. JHunterJ is great for maintaining straightforward cases, but he is completely unwilling or unable to assess anything beyond that would require mustering a little common sense beyond the letter of the guideline.

The most efficient way of dealing with this at this point would probably be a merger into an existing article such as Fringe theory (also a sad stub). --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This list being used in WP:GAME
Anthony is engaged elsewhere on Wikipedia in a dispute over whether a certain fringe theory can be legitimately labeled "pseudoscholarship". Anthony doesn't think it can, and failing that he's indicated that he doesn't think that that article should wiki-link the word "pseudoscholarship". To undermine the legitimacy of his opponents' position in that dispute he is now trying to force a bizarre implied definition of "pseudoscholarship" into this page, a definition that clearly cuts against the word's general usage. I'm out of reverts; please, someone else, do something about this. Eugene (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your incisive and subtle rebuttal. If I may address the major thrust of your argument in defense of this article (my motives), this is by no means part of some strategy to improve your article, though it came to my attention there. This is, in fact, the main game here, and your article is swept up in it. Here we have a page styled for years as a disambiguation page, when it is not, claiming that pseudoscience, etc are forms of pseudoscholarship, when they appear not to be. Dab's understanding of the term, the understanding that has prevailed over Wikipedia discussion for several years now, may be fair, or it may not, but until I see a dictionary definition supporting that use, we should stick to the Webster's, Cambridge and OED definitions. Anthony (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think it will do any good, but over against Anthony's belief that "pseduo-scholarship" is a negative evaluation of an individual's pretended knowledge, I found this:"In this last case there is a serious danger of pseudo-scholarship, ie, scholarship operating in vacuo and therefore replaced by invention. There have been great scholars who have on occasion succumbed to the temptations of pseudo-scholarship. The Durham University Journal, Volumes 39-41, (Durham: University of Durham, 1946) p. 96"The author states that even "great scholars" (presumably with real learning) can engage in pseudo-scholarship. Eugene (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Game" over. I just accessed Oxford English Dictionary (Online) and have copied its definition of "scholarship". It is an authoritative source for the meaning dab attaches to the word. I now withdraw my objection to his present use of the term. I'm not sure how to cite this - it is a subscription service - but since this definition appears in the online version, it probably exists in a hard copy. When I'm at the library I'll draw up a citation. I recommend the Wikipedia and Wiktionary definitions of scholarship be derived from this, using both personal learning/erudition and collective learning.


 * This does not address the question of whether the page should exist, and in what form. Good luck with that. Anthony (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene's definition
Well done. I knew we could rely on you. I don't understand there being three references, though. Are they all dictionaries? Anthony (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you have cited 3 texts in support of your definition of this term. I can't access these texts. Are they dictionaries? Are the authors lexicographers? Anthony (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They are relible sources; as far as Wikipedia is concerned that's all that matters. Eugene (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the authors are experts on the meaning and usage of the term "pseudoscholarship"? Anthony (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose. Eugene (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Shedding some light on the subject
While we might not yet have a single dictionary definition to point to, we do have usage to guide us... A simple Google Books search gives us enough instances where the term is used for us to determine usage and meaning. From context it is clear that the term is used as described. Yes, we are synthesizing... but I don't think it is an improper synthesis. If people want to get all technical about a narrow interpretation of WP:NOR, then I think that it is appropriate to counter with WP:IAR. We already have multiple arbcom rulings regarding the term pseudo-science ... pseudo-scholarship is merely an extension of that concept into a more general topic that covers all academic areas. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this may run afoul of WP:NEO. A wiktionary entry may be appropriate. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience has this to support its definition from, among other things, an OED published dictionary. Where is that for this definition of Pseudo-scholarship ? Anthony (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This article should probably be put up for AfD, so uninvolved people can help decide what should be done with it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm worried an RfC will only attract editors familiar with and habitually using this OR/V definition. I've asked for advice at the Village pump. If nothing helpful comes from that, AfD may be more appropriate. Anthony (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition isn't OR, it's sourced with three university published books. Eugene (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Can you provide some quotes here from "Notes and Comment: Pseudo-scholarship".  That sounds like it might be a good one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Occasionally it becomes necessary to assume the unpleasant task of revealing the real character of a book disguised in the trappings of scholarship. Historians of this country have been quite shocked during the past few years over several instances of plagiarism by persons whom they had every reason to trust because of previous qualifications and university connections. Historians have noted too, with considerable chagrin, an outcropping of pseudo-scholarship, or to speak more plainly, of cheating, in books whose authors violate, consciously or not, basic principles of scholarly research taught to them and fundamental principles of ethics governing publications." Eugene (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These are Google Books previews for the other 2 citations, can you read them? (Different pages are available to different countries in Google books.) They employ Eugene's use, i.e., the work is the pseudoscholarship. Does anyone have access to a big dictionary, like the Greater Oxford? I am unable to get to a library for a few days. "Scholarship" may well be defined in a larger dictionary as "learned work" or such. That would summarily end this discussion. Anthony (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene, can you provide quotes for Fishwick and Bernstein? Fishwick is an inadequate snippet view here, and Bernstein is unavailable. Anthony (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get this. What is your problem? Blueboar has shown that the term definitely exists and is used in respectable publications "in the wild". Contrary to what some people seem to want to suggest, I did not invent the term. I find use of the term in 1841 for crying out loud. I am not the one who tried to force this into article status over some pedantic interpretation of disambiguation guidelines. I do not support this as a standalone article. Things were fine as they stood. I do not think that Anthonyhcole betrays much understanding of what is going on here. We used to have a clear disambiguation page for anyone who might stumble across the term. Now we have a shoddy stub based on some random googled definition. In my view, you have made a mess of things, so please pull your own weight and fix it now. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Let me explain. On this page, you purport to say something about pseudo-scholarship, viz:"Pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, pseudolinguistics, pseudomathematics, pseudoscience are forms of pseudoscholarship."I ask "Is this so? What definition of pseudoscholarship are you using here?"

Nobody doubts the word exists. We're all agreed it is a compound of the prefix "pseudo", which means "false, pretended, apparently but not really", and the word "scholarship". The definitions of "scholarship" available on the web all say "learning, knowledge accrued by study or research" or words to that effect. So the meaning of pseudo+scholarship is pretended learning or similar, and it is often used in exactly that way (as in the EM Forster quote I found in the history of this page).

You and several other editors use "pseudoscholarship" for "theories and arguments dressed up to look like they are the product of scholarship." Eugene uses it to mean a kind of publication. I cannot find a dictionary definition that conforms to that usage. As I said above, a bigger dictionary than the free web ones or the Webster's New World that I have in my hand, may well include that usage. I'm going into the library in a couple of days and will look when I get there. Meanwhile, Eugene is finding examples of authors defining their own usage in a way that approaches, your usage.

My interest here only extends to acquiring a clear, accurate, reliably sourced definition for this word. We're getting there. It may take a little time. Be patient. Get into it.

Is this an article? All I know is you called it a catmain and a catmore is an article. Anthony (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Forester
I don't think that the section on E. M. Forester is helpful; he never actually uses the word "pseudo-scholarship". Also, his material seems awkward here since, even if this isn't a dab page it should be a simple list page that defines the term and links out to the varieties. Eugene (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He's not talking about pseudoscholarship in the sense that this article is about, either. He's basically saying that most people aren't good scholars; this article/list/dab page/whatever is talking about nonsense that uses the trappings of scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that. Anthony (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy?
The article is once again a simple list article. It contains a basic definition of pseudo-scholarship and then a list of it's various sub-species. Given that the definition is sourced with three different books from academic publishers and the list is even referenced at points, does anyone really think that the article is factually inaccurate? Eugene (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure it's notable. It seems like you can put pseudo in front of a lot of words, and this isn't one of the more famous versions, especially with that dash. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do a google search, you'll find that in (almost?) all cases, "pseudo-scholarship" is used, rather than pseudoscholarship. FYI.  Also, I think the article is accurate.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

not a valid list article. This is a "list of hyponyms", not a well-defined list of something. Also OR. List of hyponyms go to wiktionary. There is nothing encyclopedic here that is well-defined as a stand-alone topic. A brief discussion of the term as such can well be merged into a larger article on the topic. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merger
I'm against the merger. I think that this article can survive as a helpful (albeit short) list article even if it isn't quite a dab page. Eugene (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm against the merger too. I think the article is fine just the way it is. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Also against. --80.153.136.194 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

a list article of what? "pseudo-scholars"? Sorry, but there is absolutely no potential here beyond a basic dictionary entry. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Directions for expansion
When was the term first used, and in what context? Historically, when have people been accused of this practice (under any name)? bd2412 T 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

check the wiktionary entry.

As for "Historically, when have people been accused of this practice (under any name)", take it to the fringe theory and/or pseudoscience article. Don't create a stub for each term just because it exists for crying out loud. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

How about 'pseudoencyclopaedia' to describe Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8204:3500:68E8:CF19:FB28:B61 (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion – an article for pseudolaw, as found in RationalWiki, is still missing, and might be feasible if appropriate sources exist. Law, or jurisprudence, is an established area of scholarship (a social science) and has its own crankery. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)