Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-scholarship


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-scholarship

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a definition, and belongs in Wiktionary; it is original research and cites no dictionary for its source other than a Wiktionary definition created by the article author today ; it exists purely as a category heading ("catmore") for a category created by the article's author. Anthony (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC) (I have found an authoritative dictionary definition to support pseudoscience, etc. being types of pseudoscholarship. Anthony (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Keep This is a list article which helpfully draws together various sub-species of pseudo-scholarship for easy reference. It's simply untrue that the article constitutes original research as the definition used on the page is supported with sources (one of which is an academic journal) published by three different academic publishers--two of them university presses.

Further, Anthony is engaged elsewhere on Wikipedia in a dispute over whether a certain fringe theory can be legitimately labeled "pseudoscholarship". Anthony didn't think it could. When he failed to achieve consensus on that point he indicated that he didn't think that that article should wiki-link the word "pseudoscholarship". When he failed to achieve consensus on that further point he came to the pseudo-scholarship page and tried to force a bizarre implied definition into the article that clearly cut against the word's general usage. Now that even that has failed, Anthony is trying to just delete the page.

Don't play along with Anthony's little WP:GAME. Eugene (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion concerning use of the word "pseudoscholarship" in the Christ myth theory article is very much ongoing. No one has succeeded of failed on that issue. This discussion (what is pseudoscholarship) is a part of that debate. First, define your terms. There is no dictionary definition of pseudoscholarship, as there is no dictionary definition of pseudogrape or pseudotired. Pseudo- is a prefix. Understand it and add it to a word. Then understand the word.


 * The "bizarre implied definition" I tried to "force" into the article derived from
 * Pseudo-
 * 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.


 * Think for yourself, don't let Eugene's spin snow you. Look at the dictionary definitions of the suffix and noun. My "bizarre, implied definition was "Pseudoscholarship is a word comprising the suffix 'pseudo', meaning not real, pretended, imitating, apparent but not actual; and 'scholarship', meaning a high level of learning."Now look at his definition. Anthony (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My definition is the one that is actually supported by sources that use the word; your's is your own personal attempt to reverse engineer the hypenate into its constituent parts without sources that support such an endeavor. Deconstructing a word into its elements can be helpful (E.g. senseless --> sense + less = "without reason") but in other cases it can be highly misleading (E.g. frogfish --> frog + fish ≠ "a genetic hybrid of a frog and a fish").  Your OR definition falls into the later category and contradicts general usage as seen in the sources. After all, which of the definitions of "scholarship" is the one in use here? You've preferred the OED's "learning of a high level" while overlooking Cambridge's a "serious, detailed study". This is why your definition, given without a direct source for the complete word, constitues OR. Eugene (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Eugene. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Eugene. Trigaranus (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to Pseudoscience, which this just seems to be another name for. (Unless anyone can explain what would make something pseudoscholarship, but not pseudoscience.) We already have an umbrella term here, we don't need to invent another one. Robofish (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pseudo-scholarship can also refer to goof-ball stuff in the humanities whereas pseudoscience is more narrowly focused on the sciences. Eugene (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete No opinion (But define according to a reliable dictionary definition.) I've been involved in an ongoing discussion at Christ myth theory with Eugene and Bill about whether or not to use the word "pseudoscholarship" to describe the theory. I looked for a definition of the term and found none online in any dictionary but Christ myth theory and a number of other Wikipedia pages were linked to this version of Pseudoscholarship. This didn't fit what you get when you add "pseudo-" to "scholarship" (pretended learning), and it wasn't sourced, so I PRODed it, and the PROD was removed by Eugene. (I have found this dictionary definition of scholarship, so dab's use now fits one of the definitions of scholarship. Anthony (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC) )

Since then there has been a discussion at the Talk page. dab (𒁳) - the author of Pseudoscholarship - has today created a Wiktionary definition of pseudoscholarship derived from three examples that in no way support his definition. His Wiktionary definition differs from Eugene's Wikipedia definition, neither is supported by a dictionary definition and neither is supported by the usage sources they cite. Should Wikipedia even have a page that consists solely of a definition?

I was making a start on an article by adding a discussion of EM Forster's view on pseudoscholarship but it was deleted by Eugene and --Akhilleus (also an editor of Christ myth theory) because the article "should be a simple list page that defines the term and links out to the varieties" and because EM Forster is "not talking about pseudoscholarship in the sense that this article is about." At that point I decided to nominate the article for deletion. Anthony (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete non notable neologism, despite special pleading. Artw (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This word has been in existence for more than 150 years; it is not a neologism. Eugene (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect. It definitely exists, for quite a while, and there is plenty of material to expand it. And I'm quite comfortable with its current state as a set index with a brief definition. However, the difference between pseudoscience and pseudoscholarship is beyond my comprehension. The article does not assert this difference at all. If Eugene is confident that there is -scholarship which is not -science, he'd better put it, properly referenced, in the article. East of Borschov (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference between the more specific "pseudoscience" and the broader "pseudo-scholarship" is akin to the difference between integers and numbers: the one is a specific class of the other. Pseudoscience is junk related specifically to science (E.g. Timecube) whereas pseudo-scholarship can refer to pseudoscience, but it can also refer to junk in the humanities (E.g. Priory of Sion). The article already includes a citation indicating that "pseudohistory" is a subset of "pseudo-scholarship". Eugene (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that there are people who exclude humanities from sciences? Isn't it a prime example of pseudoscience? East of Borschov (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to pseudoscience . Keep and turn into a disambiguation page. While there is scholarship that isn't science I think this is best dealt with at that entry because this particular phrase doesn't have the coherence that the other one does.  It is, with regularity, simply used as a disparaging term for scholarship people don't like.  Take this example for instance.  Someone is calling the view that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch "pseudo-scholarship".  Clearly, by the definition proposed here, it's exactly the opposite.  The view this author holds is itself pseudo-scholarship.  But such examples of use are not uncommon.  Let's keep the list but as part of a disambiguation page to the varieties of pseudo-scholarship that have coherent phrases associated with them.Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly would it disambiguate? What other article topics are ambiguous with "pseudo-scholarship". I don't mind a !vote of "keep and turn into a list article", but it's not a disambiguation page candidate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Dab's response below. This is prime for disambiguation.Griswaldo (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is prime for a list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not a clearly defined concept. Just because two words can be combined does not establish a concept.  In order to do that we would need to show that there is a body of study of "pseudo-scholarship".  TFD (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Just because two words can be combined does not establish a concept" may be true enough, but did it occur to you that it wasn't us who combined these two words? That these two words have been combined in a meaningful way for at least 180 years now? No? See wikt:pseudo-scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 20:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but they have not been combined to form the same concept. I have commented in detail below.  TFD (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Convert to disambig page - The term is not notable and otherwise is a wikt entry. That said, I can see someone typing in searching for "pseudoscholarship" to be offered links to the notable "pseudo-" articles that are listed. --M ASEM  (t) 19:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That'd be a list article of notable "pseudo-" articles, not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Much broader than pseudoscience. As indicated above, it's used as a disparaging term for scholarship people feel is illegitimate --hurled by the fringe as well as the mainstream: global warming is an example where both "sides" claim the other is engaging in it.- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * keep as disambig page, or merge into fringe theory & friends. This AfD is pure WP:POINT, inspired by the derailed forum-style "controversy" at Talk:Christ myth theory. I find it unacceptable that this trainwreck of a debate now begins to spill to other pages. --dab (𒁳) 20:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is most definitely not material for a disambig page. Mercury is an example of a proper disambig page - there's a god, a planet, an element, cars, and a singer all known by that specific name, all having the word "Mercury" in the article name. That, and only that, is what disambiguation pages are for. As for the article, keep and expand. There is a history to the phenomenon as a whole to be explored. bd2412  T 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the term "pseudo-scholarship", depending on context, may refer to pseudohistory, pseudoscience, pseudoarchaeology, all of which already have articles. This is exactly what disambiguation pages are for. To help locate the reader the article they are looking for in their present context. What we do not want are sterile stubs on random terms just because they exist and a short definition can be referenced. If you want to explore the entire phenomenon as a whole, for pity's sake merge it into fringe theory, and that possibly into fringe science, along with half a dozen of other forlorn stubs people created just because there was a redlink. --dab (𒁳) 20:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those were exactly my thoughts when I proposed this above.Griswaldo (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That still sounds more like a list of types of pseudoscholarship (a list article). I am not suggesting a red link. I am suggesting a list article be used where a list article makes the most sense, such as when pointing readers to articles on types of pseudoscholarship, none of which try to address a concept of "pseudoscholarship" itself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * what you would do well in realizing is that in the real world, our concepts of "list", "content index" (and, God help us all, "outlines") and "disambiguation" have topical and conceptual overlap. It's not as clean-cut as our pretty guidelines would have you think. Since this discussion is hardly the place to go into this, and since you have shown exceptional resilience in withstanding common sense in the past, I will not be willing to further elaborate this particular point here. --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or from the other perspective, you would do well to realize is that on Wikipedia, we have consensus to distinguish between articles and non-articles, and consensus to treat lists as articles and to treat disambiguation pages as non-articles. Our pretty guidelines make that clean-cut distinction, and fortunately they are both easy to understand and easy to follow. Since you have shown exceptional resilience in withstanding them, I elaborated further on this particular point for the benefit of the reviewing admin. I agree that there is no need to try to change those guidelines here, which is why instead I'm recommending that we follow them. Since you think the lines are blurry, I do not understand why you object to making the resulting list a list article instead of a disambiguation page -- that would appear to work for both sides: you get a list in the supposedly blurry realm of "lists, content indexes, outlines, and disambiguation pages", and I get a list that I think is not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if not possible as an article then as list or disagmbig page. Andries (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into pseudoscience. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand so it becomes more than a list article or dab page. A little research should allow us to note prominent people who have used the term, and in what context they use it (which would substantiate the links to other articles). Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already done this, at wikt:pseudo-scholarship. I do not think that there is more than a (well-developed, extensive) dictionary entry in there. It turns out that the term has been used in respectable literature in exactly the sense intended by our Category:Pseudo-scholarship since at least the 1850s (which is to say, balls to the original nomination). One prominent person quoted is Alan Sokal (2000), who uses the term as a synonym of pseudohistory, for the historical revisionism in both Afrocentrism and Neo-Nazi Holocaust denial (saying that if we allow Afrocentrist pseudohistory as "good pseudohistory" and reject Holocaust denialism as "bad pseudohistory", we will be on extremely shaky ground, because we base our judgement on "good" vs. "bad" rather than "pseudo" vs. real scholarship). [I thank Mr. Sokal for this, since it is exactly what I have been preaching in the Talk:Afrocentrism debate for years. An encyclopedia has no use for affirmative action.] --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - it makes sense as a category or (shudder, I hate lists) a List of pseudo-scholarship topics, but I don't see how the article can ever be more than a stub. Dlabtot (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep  and expand. Pseudo-scholarship is not the same thing as pseudoscience.  The first is the practice of parodying (intentionally or otherwise) scholarship, and it is prevalent today with easy publishing and software geared towards gratuitous referencing.  The second is the science of scientifically discredited science, which can be supported by scholarship, thought it is more often supported without pretense of scholarship.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD below is making a convincing case that there are no independent sources. No one is using the term who is not using it for some purpose.  There is no material discussing the use of the term dispassionately.  I expected that there would be, but until such independent secondary source material is available, it probably belongs on wiktionary only.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a tendency in Wikipedia when we find that a google search shows that various writers have put together an adjective or prefix and a noun to assume that there should be an article. Before we do this we must establish that there is a body of literature that defines and uses the concept.  We would expect that there would be a least one scholarly book about the subject and that later scholars would refer to earlier scholars' use of the term.  Various writers will attach terms like pseudo, new, old, neo, proto, national, etc. to nouns.  Sometimes these will come to refer to specific concepts, e.g., "new money", "neoliberalism", sometimes they will be used differently by different writers, e.g., the "new science", the "old liberalism".  Without a concept articles become a mishmash of unrelated concepts and are just original research and synthesis.  The way to tell that this is not a recognized concept is that the sources used each individually define the terms for use in their books without any reference to previous writers.  TFD (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * indeed. This page is one large exercise in "popular misconceptions about Wikipedia". Misconception 1: each term needs an article. This is why wiktionary and other sister projects were created. Misconception 2: we have a page about a term that doesn't really deserve an article: Omg, take it to AfD. This is why merge was invented. I am not exaggerating when I say that 90% of AfDs I have seen were completely pointless and could have been solved by a good editor without touching admin buttons in a couple of minutes. I won't go into Misconception 3, literal exegesis of guidelines trumps common sense, because that is getting my goat too much. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, each entry in a list article does not need an article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with TFD and dab. We are discussing a borderline neologism here.  Disagree that an entire book is required to demonstrate sufficient notability.  Non-trivial coverage, even just a few paragraphs, in a teaching textbook, would be enough.  Definitely agree that if we decide it is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, we should consider the merits of merging to a section in pseudoscience or elsewhere before resorting to deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the three sources used to establish the notability of the topic, there is no information on what Jacobsen wrote in 1941 and no evidence that his paper has influenced later scholars. Stern used the term to refer to politically biased scholarship, but says nothing further about the topic.  Smith and Cohen were writing about pseudo-scientific proofs of events in the Bible.  Both the later writers tell the readers what they mean by the term and neither credits any previous writer with having used the term or make any claim that anyone else uses the same term in the same way that they do.  TFD (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful list article, clearly not a neologism - over 150 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.136.194 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary. I thought the AfD might spur better sources, but if this is all that exists, it's best left as a definition. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only authoritative definition is the one produced by combining the definitions of "pseudo-" and "scholarship" from an authoritative dictionary. No one is disputing the meaning of "pseudo-". I opened this AfD because all the free online dictionary definitions for "scholarship" say it is "the learning or qualities of a scholar" or the like; i.e., a personal attribute, and this combined dictionary definition of pseudo- + scholarship (faked scholarly qualities such as erudition and discipline) conflicted with the way dab was using it at Pseudoscholarship ( "appearing to be but not really in the realm of honest, disciplined, intelligent learning; looking like but not actually a part of the sum of scholarly wisdom") , and Eugene was using it at Christ myth theory ("the work, output, publications of a scholar"). I have now found this at the Oxford English Dictionary subscription site:"Scholarship: The attainments of a scholar; learning, erudition; esp. proficiency in the Greek and Latin languages and their literature. Also, the collective attainments of scholars; the sphere of polite learning. (Full text)"The first, purple, part matches what the free online dictionaries say but the green part confirms dab's use. Since "scholarship" also means "the sphere of polite learning" it is the perfect generic term for all the disciplines of learned inquiry, and "pseudo-scholarship" is the perfect generic term for "pseudo-science", "pseudo-history", etc. There is nothing wrong with the way dab is using the term. All that remains to do here is decide whether the article deserves to exist and, if so, in what form. Anthony (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Eugene. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this is an old term, not a WP:NEO. The nomination seems pointy. Also, Eugene. Verbal chat  20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.