Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 4



Category:ALF

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:ALF to Category:ALF (TV series)
 * Nominator's rationale: To match the main article and avoid confusion with other common uses of the acronym ALF. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Can't think of anything else to say. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Global warming criticism

 * 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 Black Falcon points out, nothing's really changed since the 2008 AUG 7 CfD. If an "activists" category is desired, it could still be created without prejudice towards it from this or the previous CfD. Such a category could be evaluated on its merits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * global warming criticism
 * As a repository for biographical articles, this category is essentially circumvents the consensus reached in the 2008 August 7 discussion. Delete (1st choice) or rename to Category:Global warming controversy (a very, very distant 2nd choice) to match Global warming controversy; however, if renamed, the category will most likely become a dumping grounds for any article about a concept, organisation, object, or person related to global warming. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; it's an article masquerading as a category, hence dumping ground. Postdlf (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per last discussion and the discussion pointed out above. If anyone wants to listify the material, feel free to do so, but it should be done before the CfD closes.  Listification should not be a requirement of the close.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to :Category:Activists against Global warming theory or similar, per the close of the August debate, removing the 2 non-biogs & the 3 US radio people, who are not especially active in nor notable because of global warming controversy. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Criticisms of anthropogenic global warming. No one doubts that there is warming, just whether it is man made.  A category for all these critics is good regardless of one's viewpoint on the issue.  58.174.73.247 (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be kept it needs to be an "activists" category, as only these are allowed for bio categories, as the escape the ban on categorization by opinion. I'm sympathetic to "anthropogenic" though "man-made" would be more widely understood. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If renamed, I think it's important to include "anthropogenic" (I prefer it over "man-made"), but it's equally important to include "theory" or something to that effect. Activists against anthropogenic global warming would include people who seek to reduce man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * bastard sons of johnny cash


 * Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category. Only categorizes the main band article and their albums.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - one album, 2 articles in all, no need for 2 categories. Occuli (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am always in favor of artist categories to contain categories like "X albums," "X members," and "X songs." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree if there were songs and band members with articles. Occuli (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization with a dearth of material to warrant it. Otto4711 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Eric444 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete to avoid mis-use based on a literal interpretation of the title due to the lack of band-member articles. — CharlotteWebb 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not all bands with albums should have an eponymous category. There should be some (more than in this case) albums, band member articles and possibly other articles before such a category is justigued. It's unfortunate that the child category isn't included in this nomination, however, it contains only one item and closing admin may venture to delete it as well. __meco (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Black Christmas

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * black christmas


 * Nominator's rationale: Category contains one article only, with little scope for expansion. The JPS talk to me  15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - small category with only one possible article to expand it. Otto4711 (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the 2 possible articles are already adjacent in the parent category Category:Slasher films. Occuli (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:International rivers

 * 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 - jc37 01:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:International rivers to Category:Transnational rivers
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename . I just created the current category, but as I was populating it I thought that perhaps a better name would be what is being proposed. Then I stumbled across the Trans-boundary river article and I wonder also if this is an applicable candidate for a new name. The only thing with that is that according to that article, this term does not automatically entail crossing of a national border, so even though the name sounds fine, its meaning is ambiguous if we are to trust the information in that article. meco (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (There's also Category:International lakes which has not been nominated, but that category inspired me to create the current category and the results of this discussion may have a bearing on that one. __meco (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Why even have this category (either name)? What is so special about rivers crossing national borders that they deserve a category? From a European perspective, this is such a common characteristic that I wonder if anyone if anyone has used this as a topic of research. Fram (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's rather obvious that landforms and water bodies that span areas of several sovereign nations warrant that special considerations be undertaken and collaborative administration of travel, environmental and conservation protection has to be observed. This has bearing on international relations and for these reasons I see these hierarchies being justified in their existence. __meco (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as is per information provided by Skookum1. I do still however wish to explore the viability of Category:Trans-boundary rivers. __meco (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support renaming to transnational, and the existence of the category. Seems useful.  Regards, Ben Aveling 12:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Being within more than one arbitrary political boundary is not a defining commonality among unrelated rivers, lakes, or any other natural geographic feature. That the Danube passes through several countries can already be deduced from the other categories: Rivers of Austria | Rivers of Bulgaria | Rivers of Croatia | Rivers of Germany | Rivers of Hungary | Rivers of Moldova | Rivers of Romania | Rivers of Slovakia | Rivers of Ukraine | etc. Delete . — CharlotteWebb 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By that argument, being within an arbitrary boundary is no more of a commonality. Border-crossing rivers are notable precisely because of the differing geopolitical entities governing their use. In fact, Canada and the US have a whole international committee just for this. In the Middle East also, a water-poor area, international (dis-)agreements on water use are notable. And of course, there's the Pulp mill conflict between Argentina and Uruguay. This is certainly a category one might wish to follow as a line of research. It can be deduced from multiple "Rivers of..." categories, but there is no way to find that in advance. Franamax (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that you used "international committee" rather than "transnational committee". Think about it.  And as below, the IJC uses the term "international river"....as does the media.  I think you'll find it's a standard geographic definition, i.e. in dictionaries of geographic terms.  I used to have the Penguin/Pelican but don't have it for reference; it may even be in the OED...indeed, you'd expect it to be.Skookum1 (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that a river partly in Canada and partly in the U.S. has nothing directly in common with a river partly in Romania and partly in Moldova. It would be fine to add such rivers to categories such as Category:Canada-United States border, etc. or even to sub-categories for waterways forming or crossing each border (of which "international rivers" or whatever new name could become a second parent category). However, I'm not convinced that one massive (if fully utilized) category for "all rivers within or touching more than one country" would be useful. — CharlotteWebb 17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying that the thing in common is that both will have political arrangements governing their use, things like water removals, pollution, fisheries will be general themes for all these rivers. I agree the category could become unwieldy when all minor rivers get added, but we can deal with that once it is fully assembled. And there may be fewer such rivers than you think, countries tend to be divided by single rivers or high points of ground. Franamax (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but there are many large countries whose borders which follow "imaginary" straight lines, and a lot of land-locked countries whose rivers obviously must drain somewhere else, but I digress. These estimates would be clearer if we had a clear consensus whether this category should include rivers which cross borders, or those which form borders, or both. If the category is going to exist it should include all of these. I mean at any given time, some of the water is in one country and some of it is in another country, regardless of the direction it is flowing. Can we agree on this much? — CharlotteWebb 18:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some subtle (and sometimes overt) differences in the politics when one country has sovereign control over either of the upstream or downstream portions of a river (salmon fishery management on the Yukon, meltwater management on the Columbia, irrigation removal on the Euphrates) as opposed to use of a fully shared resource like the Niagara. However I for one agree that the category should include boundary rivers. The spirit here (I think) is to present the subset of rivers which are subject to agreements between countries, which to me is the only commonality of note. This category, as you note, will become crowded with every little stream that crosses a border, once we get Wikipedia finished with all human knowledge therein. I'm thinking already that Category:Boundary rivers, Category:International rivers in North America, and such-like will be needed to make this manageable. But one step at a time often works well. Anyway, yes I think the category should include boundary rivers. Franamax (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind. Keep, no rename. Only when I began populating this category (just to see how many more I could add—thirty-two so far) did I become aware that a naming dispute exists for at least half of them, so if nothing else the category would be a helpful as a watchlist for page-move wars. No, seriously I like the idea of getting a better sense of how many we have (maybe 250-300 existing articles?) and how many we will have, then deciding how to sub-divide it. I might also work on Foo-Bar border articles/categories to see how they should fit into this picture. — CharlotteWebb 16:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- this seems a pointless category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Transnational rivers Keep as International rivers I think Skookum1 is probably right here. Franamax (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC) - and I believe it's a point-ful category, as outlined just above. Boundary-crossing rivers are the source of perennial (and notable) disputes. Question though - will this category include boundary-defining rivers? For instance, the Saint Lawrence River doesn't actually lie solely on US territory on any part of its course, and the Niagara River doesn't flow through any one country at all. Franamax (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is something we will have to deal with subsequently. __meco (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (I'm lost on this page so will make this comment here) Category:Boundary rivers grammatically and in anti-neologistic senses is far preferable to "trans-boundary rivers", though of course you mean something different by the latter than you do by the former. I oppose the latter because it' necessarily going to include everyting that's in "international rivers" (which in the North American Can-US case does include virtually every little stream, because of the Boundary Waters Treaty and other agreements); Category:Rivers which form boundaries is, while clumsy, more precise, as "boundary rivers" is sojmething also of an invented term, and the syntactial sense of the latter one, htough clumsier, is clearer.  But again, in nearly all cases, "international rivers" is also going to apply; if anything rivers-that-form-boundaries are a subset of international rivers in almost all cases I can think of; maybe I'm wrong, but the exceptions will be rare.Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep /rename at least. This is certainly a relevant class of rivers. It is as, if not more, significant a category as any of the multitudinous subcategories of Category:Rivers by country for the reasons meco points out. I agree that the proposed name is clearer/better. Skookum1's comments below convinced me that the current name is probably best. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion as to whether it should be kept, but if kept support rename, possibility of ambiguity per international waters. Postdlf (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While in abstract terms, i.e. pure definition, "international rivers" is a subset of "international waters", but the conventional usage of the latter refers to the International Law of the Sea, i.e. what are national waters vs international waters. Lakes tend to have actual boundaries, as on the Great Lakes, Lake Lucerne, Bodensee, Lake Victoria; what I mean is that "international waters" as that term is normally used refers to the oceanic expanse beyond the 3, 12 or 200 mile limit (actually the 200 mile limit tends to be for bottom/undersea resources etc, what hte distinction between the 3 and 12 is I've forgotten).  There's no ambiguity at all in the term, except for the exclusion of (fresh) waters which have or form boundaries; it's a different context than "international rivers", i.e. in the meaning of "international" - re the rivers it's governed between and as part of nation(-states), whereas "international waters" are waters in which no nation has a priori or territorial interests; both are terms used in legal convention and media, and they are not usually mutually inclusive, so while in an apparent-syntax way making one the subcat or another seems to make sense, it doesn't; ineternational rievrs are governed; international waters are governed only by the Law of the Sea and its various colloraies.Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Which title is being supported: Category:Transnational rivers or Category:Trans-boundary rivers? Both were mentioned in the nomination statement. –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the category will include rivers which form a boundary, such as the Niagara, then Transnational would seem to make sense. Franamax (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I will now backpedal in the face of Skookum1's cogent arguments. International rivers is looking pretty good after all. It sounds a little funny, like the rivers are flying around on airplanes or something, but "international" is definitely a real word. If it's used in treaty language and would be the term most English-speakers would recognize, that's what we should use, right? Franamax (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I support "transnational" as well. Postdlf (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Postdlf (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - And I repeat (from below), "transnational" is a neologism, it also means "across (a/the) nation" in th same way "transcontinental" means "across (a/the) country", likewise as in Trans-Canada Highway; contrast Interprovincial highway (if that's a redlink, with a capital-h it's the old name for the Trans-Canada's predecessor until it became a federal responsibility, etc., and meaning "between provinces". And again addition to  my original comments below below and newer ones above, the Niagara and St. Lawrence fall in the category/nomenclature of "international river" because they are governed by international agreements and authorities which define them as such; the St. Lawrence Seaway is a special case and may be technically bi-national rarther than international, though the "international" term is still used in reference to it; similarly in the agreements creating the, and in language used by, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Commission, the Boundary Waterss Agreement which govern the Great Lakes and Seway aetc., and I think the International Joint Commission, though I'm more familiar with it from its activities re the Columbia, and also the North Pacific salmon fishery, also has jurisdictions in the Great Lakes and St. lawrence.  In other woreds, you've given examples of rivers that are - I'm fairly sure - described as international rivers by law/treaty and as used by the agreements and bodies governing them.  Similarly the Bosporus and Straits of Hormuz are "international  waterways".  They are not "transnational waterways", they are waterways where more than one nation has an interest and/or all are specified as having rights; ditto the term in relation to the American perspective on the  Northwest Passage, and various American calls over hte years to declare the [Inside Passage]] (BC portion only) as "international waters".  All references I've seen to commissions and treaties and policies regarding the Rhine and Danube and so on have said "international rivers", in the same sort of construction as "heritage river" or "wild and scenic  rivers" - it's a category of river as defined and as used by governments and media and researc hers.  it's not for Wikipedians to go making up new names, or new ways of redfining terms in current use.  If there are border-crossing rivers that are not governed by wording othat uses "international rivers" or not under any international guarantees, treaties, or agreements, there's an argument that "international river" applies because of the "inter-" construction, meaning "between"; "trans" means "across", it's ultimately about that distinction, even beyond the usage from international law, which applies to the majority of border-spanning rivers (this is a litigation-happy world).  "International rivers" is a term in widespread use; "transnational riers" is not.  A trans-national river would include the Saskatchewan system, or the Amazon or Volga or Yangtze or Ganges, but only in a descriptive sense; unless you can show me lots of examples of its usage vs the number of examples of "international river" you'll find.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose/keep as-is "Transnational river" is an invented term, a neologism; "international river" is a term long-established in international law and treaty wordings; it means a river where inter-national interests are at play, i.e. not because a river crosses a boundary, but because it as a resource and belongs to more than one nation.  Of the North American rivers, many are legally designated, by treaty or domestic legislation, "international rivers", but they are not styled "transnational rivers" (which by standard usage of "trans" to me means a river that crosses a nation, as in transcontinental railroad or Trans-Canada Highway).  I'm pretty sure the Amur, Rhine, Elbe and Danube are also "international rivers" in treaty law/int'l agreements, likewise the Tigris-Euphrates and Jordan...ditto the Tsangpo/Brahmaputra and Mekong....I don't think you['ll find "transnational river" in any documentation surrounding their international status....as for any ambiguity in "international waters" that's usual a saltwater term, maybe it comes into play on the Great Lakes but I don't think so (as there's a water boundary in the GL); but suggesting that "international rivers" and "international waters" are somehow confusable jsut because they share a common adjective isn't a strong conclusion to make; in any case I stand by the international law usage, it's out there.  Transnational isn't.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These are helpful and convincing points, in my opinion. I'd support a keep of the current name based on this information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:80's Metal muiscal groups

 * 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 80's metal muiscal groups


 * Nominator's rationale: Uncontrolled criteria category. Appears to be just a fan favourite list that overlaps with existing parent categories for heavy metal music. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete – ill-spelt, ill-parented, ill-conceived, empty. Occuli (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And don't forget ill-punctuated (unless, of course, this is for groups belonging to 80). Delete. Grutness...wha?  23:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Superfluous at best.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Lists of Romanian people

 * 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: merge to Category:Lists of Romanian people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Lists of Romanian people to Category:Lists of Romanians
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, merge either way - no opinion - significant overlap of categories. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Lists of Romanian people per Category:Romanian people (and majority in Category:Lists of people). Occuli (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally the lead article is titled Romanians, so something's gotta give here. "Fooian people" has been more common than "Fooians" in my own experience. — CharlotteWebb 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Pseudoskeptic Target

 * 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 Category:Pseudoskeptic Target. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with categoryPseudoskeptic Target

 * pseudoskeptic target


 * Nominator's rationale: This category has no references to back up the claims it makes abouy pseudoskepticism being a hegemonic cultural attempt! Gillyweed (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Gillyweed (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Preliminarily, and for clarity's sake as regards this nomination for deletion, the term 'hegemonic' is being used in a specific sense with respect to the extant cultural conflict. Whereas it is usually employed to describe "aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination" (over smaller ones) (ref: dictionary.com), in this instance it is describing aggression and expansion/exclusion of cultural factions which are vying with one another outside and within Wikipedia.


 * Secondly, the argument for keeping this category is, initially, to be found at my Talk page, in Sections 1/2/3 prior to the CfD notice appearing there, with its Section 3 being an explanation of the use of the term 'hegemonic' when applied to the cultural struggle being engaged. By its aspects of pejorative dismissal and exclusivity in the arena of knowledge, incursion and dominance for attention and throughput, the hegemonic character of pseudoskepticism is self-evident.


 * Thirdly, fine and realistic skepticism of (especially) the categories mentioned in the above presentation should allow the topics themselves and the pages which describe them a safe haven from oversight by and contention with skeptics. It is this characteristic of labelling a category and page and topic 'pseudoscience' -- regardless of whether in fact its participants try to give the impression of being science; regardless of whether it falls into the same species of object, as compared to a supposed phenomenon, a set of techniques for achieving a supposed result, a list of those with whom the pseudoskeptic disagrees such as occultists, or some theoretical principle or platform with which the skeptic disagrees -- which earns the skeptic the prefix 'pseudo', and discloses in part the hegemonic character of their activities. Another important indicator of this character is the haphazard, or worse, strictly inconsistent application of skeptical analyses and challenges (so as to reveal some of the favouritism or bias being brought to bear in this application), disclosing for the careful observer the factional identity of those issuing the challenges and those to whom they are being issued (note the comparison mentioned by cat yronwode between treatment of the religion of Thelema which purports to employ the method of science toward the aims of religion (no attention) and that of Spiritualism which issue no contentions about being scientific at all).


 * Fourth, specifically with regard to citation and reference, while it is quite true that the scientific community is more adept at documenting its progress and the references that it builds to justify this (one of the reasons that i love science and its treatment of the objects or subjects of its evaluation in its respective sandboxes), the fact is that by and large the factions being targetted here by pseudoskeptics and 'picked off' with the unfair labelling practice employed is that they are disorganized, tend to be nonscientific (in many cases far more artistic honestly, proceeding intuitively and without strictly empirical standards), and aren't likely to bring to bear any sort of representative defense against an establishment whose proponents are well-organized and interested in effacing them from cultural participation. What should be happening in the topical areas of coverage within Wikipedia are citations from the authorities within the respective fields of endeavour, rather than a strict critical standard applied across the broad spectrum of knowledge such that each topical zone becomes a battleground of empirical vs non-empirical viewpoints, perspectives, and values. For some of the same reasons mentioned in this paragraph it is very unlikely that sufficient and convincing reference will be brought to bear in the defense of the assertion of pseudoskepticism being a hegemonic cultural attempt, and the best that might be attempted here is a reasoned argument disclosing for the interested reader the evident facets of the struggle which may be interpreted as such a hegemonic attempt on the part of particular cultural factions in pursuit of hegemony.


 * Finally, and ultimately, we are not, by my estimation, dealing here merely with the consideration of a single category (Pseudoskeptic Target) and its substantiation or legitimacy based simply upon its cited references, though that is of course what this discussion and strawpolling shall determine. The point in part of the creation of this category was to underscore the serious problem which pseudoskeptics are making for the integrity of the knowledge base that Wikipedia has the potential to and may become if some balance may be struck between those who are opposed to the topics of contention and those who are trying to represent in a fair light and from a NPOV categories and topics which may be labelled 'pseudoscience' and castigated by the scientific establishment for sociopolitical purposes. The misuse of this term in application for knowledge's sake is not therefore justified, even though one might be able to cite scientific opinion as to the legitimacy of employing this pejorative term to the target within Wikipedia. At that point the NPOV is abandoned and the real struggle between the (sub)culture being described and the skeptical advocates outside of it will have entered into a presentation about the topic itself. This is not only obscuring of the presentation, but places additional hurdles and roadblocks beyond general citation before those interested in issuing coverage of these topics for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. If this inhibitory practice is allowed to continue unabated, Wikipedia will be left behind for all contended zones of inquiry and become an encyclopedia featuring only 'solid' topics such as are supported by the data from natural sciences and conventional, uncontested topics such as games, sports, and cuisine. Other wikis will then take up protected zones of coverage for the disputed topics, and we can only hope that what develops there will begin to influence the content of Wikipedia. Perhaps this lesser content, lesser coverage (by net result) quality to the information showcased is truly the interest and intention of those driving and supporting Wikipedia's current pro-skeptic stance, but i don't it is sustainable as presently pursued and am taking steps to voice an objection to it in as clear a way as is possible before moving on to other wikis where my interests aren't impeded by those who are arrayed against me in cultural struggle.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or rename to Category:Pseudoskeptic targets (or other). Occuli (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for the above-mentioned reasons, though renaming to [Category:Pseudoskeptic Targets] is a fine idea, no objections if it is deemed appropriate form. Thanks for the suggestion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Revised to Category:Pseudoskeptic targets based on the proper naming convention. Again thanks for the suggestion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The category makes no sense to me.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the sense of it is as a response to the overall abuse of the Category:Pseudoscience, which has been nominated for deletion unsuccessfully 2 times and whose abuse is becoming more and more apparent. As explained, my interests in refining the use of the Pseudoscience cat were met with resistance, and so i took up a compensatory identification with this category identifier.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So this category exists because of "sour grapes"? Your I don't like it with the other category? Bubba73 (talk), 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't really provided a better solution for the problem here. I think that an extension of Truzzi's pseudoskeptic labelling nomenclature for those doing the plastering of 'pseudoscience' all over that with which they contend would be the optimum solution, but of course this will not be workable, so identifying that with which they contend seems a suitable alternative.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles in the pseudoscience category are pseudoscience, like it or not. Bubba73 (talk), 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. See my notes on "false branding" below. For example, the entire category of "New Age" is falsely branded as "Pseudoscience" when it is quite obviously a set of loosely related spiritual, religious, social, musical, artistic, and mystical concepts and cultural pheneomena. This is a blatant abuse of the category "Pseudoscience." The use of the negative counter-category "Psudeoskeptic target" allows editors to patrol pages for such abuse. Compare with "Judaism" and its approved counter-category "Antisemitism." cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. They are at best protoscience, and usually not even that. They are generally phenomena and principles and techniques, etc., with which scientific skeptics (whose writings i sometimes enjoy) disagree, and they are being calumnized as "pseudosciences" by the hyper-skeptical or irrational/unscientific science proponents. Here's a helpful discernment explanation again from Talk:Pseudoskepticism:
 * "...by analogy we have habitual abusers of science, and we label their practice 'pseudoscience,' and those who behave this way are usually called 'pseudoscientists,' and CSICOP publications often shorten this to the term 'pseudos.' A class of people certainly exists who practice fake science, facades of science with a corrupt core, science in name only. They need a name! They have one: 'pseudoscientists.' But sometimes 'pseudoscientist' is used as a slur. Does this mean that we should remove 'pseudoscience' from WP? Of course not. It's use as a slur has no effect on its more clinical uses and definition. So then Truzzi attached a name to a similar but opposite problem: people who call themselves Skeptic, but are irrational and unscientific; skeptics in name only. .... --Wjbeaty 01:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)"-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, even setting aside the host of POV and verifiability problems, that a topic (such as astrology, apparently) may be a "target" of "pseudoskeptics" is not defining of that topic. We shouldn't categorize any subject by who criticizes it.  Postdlf (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that precisely what the Category:Pseudoscience does? If you accept the legitimacy of the (mis)use of that category's application to topics (/subcats/pages) which don't represent themselves as such, why not accept a compensatory categorical label which disputes the scientific character (presented) of the topic under consideration? If calls for deletion of pseudoscience category don't work (and there is no reason to think that they should or that they will, primarily because it does have a valuable referent but is being extended beyond this referential application to infringe hegemonically), and identifying the ground of contention (with the Category:Pseudoskeptic Target) don't work, what do you suggest as an alternative means of stemming this abuse?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER + WP:POINT ≠ a compelling argument for keeping this category. I don't have any opinion about the pseudoscience category at this time, but I don't accept any of the premises you seem to be operating from here.  Postdlf (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your criticism. That said:
 * --'Other stuff exists': it isn't just that other stuff (in this case Category:Pseudoscience) exists but that it is being used in a particular way. The remediating and compensatory response is pseudoskepticism to call attention to this and a tag that legitimately calls attention to the zone that the pseudoskeptics are attempting to unjustifiably efface.
 * --'Disruption to illustrate a point': i was trying to find a way to remediate the situation which is longstanding. I started by removing the offending abuse of the category and was called a vandal by administrators whose User pages made it clear that they had a strong interest in the pseudoscience category. I responded by applying their standard deriving from an extant refusal page deriving from Truzzi and others and burgeoning as part of this cultural struggle.
 * Therefore i think i have adequately refuted your assertions that WP:OTHER + WP:POINT is applicable here. (oops unsigned)-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't like the inclusion of particular subjects in Category:Pseudoscience, and you've been unable to convince a consensus of editors on those subjects that the category should not be applied. So you created this category as a counterbalance against those decisions you were on the losing end, making this in substance Category:Articles categorized as pseudo-science that User:Self-ref believes should not be.  So you're not only trying to have your way in a content dispute through improper use of categories, but this category also does not even accomplish what you believe it does&mdash;that something is a "target" of "pseudoskeptics" (whomever those people may be) is in no way mutually exclusive with it nevertheless being pseudoscience and a legitimate target of substantive skepticism.  Postdlf (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct that i don't like the inclusion of particular subjects to Category:Pseudoscience. I don't think that i or anyone else will be able to convince a consensus of editors that it should not be applied, so i am not going to try to do that. You are ignoring that it isn't just my taste that elicits my objection, but that i think it is being misapplied based on certain perverse criteria, and better and more supportable criteria are adequately described by text such as has occasionally been posted within the discussion in the Pseudoskepticism article itself, such as by Wjbeaty:
 * "Honest and unbiased people can decide, based on the meaning of 'pseudoscience' and 'protoscience.' For example, if supporters of a certain belief embark on a search for supporting evidence while rejecting contrary evidence, yet they adopt the trappings of science... that's science in name only: pseudoscience. But if professional researchers in academia decide to investigate a controversial claimed anomaly (bigfoot, paranormal, etc.), and they rigorously adhere to the methods of science, then they're working outside of normal science (since science operates by replication and concensus.) They're doing 'protoscience,' science which is not yet replicated nor accepted by the scientific community. --Wjbeaty 20:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)"
 * Distinguishing these categories (pseudoscience and protoscience) is not being adequately achieved by those employing it as a marking tool.
 * I created this category as a means of defending against the incursion so described, because the encroachment is unidirectional. I have not been on the losing end of any of the discussions to which you refer because i wasn't a participant in them. I can see that were i to have been involved with them i would indeed have been on what you are calling the losing side. What i am attempting to do here is forge a means of extending off of pseudoskepticism in like manner to how Category:Pseudoscience has forged a weapon of incursion into topics/subjects etc. which are not properly examples. If a portion of WP is plastered by pseudoskeptics as part of the Category:Pseudoscience then this becomes part of the epistemological territory captured and corrupted by insertion of negative views and critical voice, insufficiently justifying the application of the categorical tag by demonstrating its sufficient resemblance to science through its operations or claims. The compensatory Category:Pseudoskeptic target would make the zone of contention more plain and allow a visible marker for that contested cultural divide.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be saying is that the pseudoskeptics to whom your category refers are Wikipedia users, correct? Postdlf (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I have sufficient familiarity to the subject matter that i am aware (through review of CSICOP publications, scientific journals, online discussion of this precise topic in other contexts, as well as evaluation of the general make-up and conversation proportions engaged in WP) that this extends way beyond Wikipedia users. These users are representative of a cultural struggle about knowledge that is ongoing in the media, in online forums of discourse and, more importantly to me, in zones where the boundaries of knowledge are in part being exemplified and socially "defined" (e.g. the ODP, various computer network user boards such as Yahoo, Google, and any number of others). The greater majority of literate participants seem to be science-advocates and seem to want to employ the strategy of abusing the pejorative "pseudoscience" or "superstition" to eradicate consideration of, and fair attention to, those topics which i have consistently been identifying (some of which have now had the Category tags i applied removed from them since our discussion began).
 * It is therefore my interest not to attempt the futile move of badging Wikipedians, but to properly label an epistemological terrain of disputed character in part due to the allowed methodology prior of applying Category:Pseudoscience to these same categories. 'What is sauce for the goose is,' as they say, 'sauce for the gander.'-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't need two questionable categories on the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not happy with the name Category:Pseudoskeptic Target (and Occuli is correct, in proper Wikipedia form it should have been titled Category:Pseudoskeptic target. The strongest argument against it is that it is a negative -- but see, for comparison Category:Antisemitism. The strongest argument in favour of it is that it is USEFUL, in that those who wish to locate such pages quickly could do so. It could be a good tool to help Wikipedia editors and admins come to grips with the deliberate (and so-far condoned) campaign of effacement and deletion of biography pages about authors who have written on these topics (see below), and the deliberate campaign of false-branding of articles on spiritual and folkloric topics as "pseudoscience." (see below):
 * (1)The deliberate campaign of effacement and deletion of pages by pseudo-skeptics: This is easily demonstrated. See evidence here, here, here, here, and here. The technique is to engage in hostile cite-tagging (placing multiple fact-tags on the page, generally one per paragraph). These fact-tags insist on "verifiability" and the pseudoskeptic editor poses as one who is simply "enforcing verifiability." If no other editor wanders by to add the cites, the data is eliminated and a second round of hostile cite-tagging ensues. Articles are stripped of their images with no justification, further reducing byte-count. Byte-count can drop 75% in a month or two. The article is then either tagged for deletion due to non-notability of the bio subject or it is redirected or merged to another page. If it is redirected, none of the data on the page is carried over to the new page -- it is simply effaced. The same happens when a merge is made -- the small amount of remaining data left after effacement (1,00 bytes or so) is not carried into the page into which the merge is made. Since this is a gradual process, it is very difficult to document, but i suggest that anyone interested in how this tchnique has been applied should start by checking the page for Wallace Wattles and the page for Charles F. Haanel. Both were New Thought authors. You will need to read the HISTORY of each page for the byte-count numbers. Watch them gow and then gradually shrink. Note the names of the editors making the shrinkages. If you wish, track them back to their contributor pages. Look where they are editing. Then, also, if you have time, read the talk pages for the two biographies. You will find some evidences there of how other editors, now alerted to the technique of effacement and deletion, are trying to combat the pseudoskeptics. Here is one sample of such a discussion, and note that one page (a page on a book the author wrote) had at that point already been deleted and that in order to even learn what was there, i will have to find an admin who will give me a copy of the version of the page when it was at its highest byte-count. (I am not saying that the missing "Master Key System" page is notable, only that it was deleted without being merged into the author's page, and then the author's page was slowly, incrementally cut from 4,000 bytes to 1,000 bytes, and then tagged for non-notability -- so i am very curious about that deleted page, as you can imagine.)
 * (2)False-branding of articles as "Pseudoscience": Rather than write something new on this, i am going to copy-and-paste what i have previously written on this topic. Short version: It is prejudicial, bigoted, and biased to allow pseudo skeptics to brand religions and folkloric customs as "Peudoscience" when adherents and practitioners themselves may not have ever made claims of using the "scientific method." Long version:


 * Pseudoscience category as a weapon in the hegemonic culture wars
 * In Wikipedia, Pseudoscience is defined like this:
 * Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.[6]


 * This sentence contains an opening clause -- the "claimed to be or made to appear" clause -- and three dependent sub-clauses, the "does not adhere" sub-clause, the "lacks supporting evidence" sub-clause, and the "lacks scientific status" sub-clause.


 * The sub-clauses only function as agents upon the first clause ("claimed to be or made to appear scientific"). If this were not so, then anything in the world which "lacks scientific status" -- a cheeseburger, a dog, a piece of hand-woven cloth from Equador -- could be classified as a "Pseudoscience." Obviously this is not the case, because these items (and a million others), are never thought of as Pseudosciences because they were never "claimed to be or made to appear scientific."


 * The problem is that the pseudoskeptic group at Wikipedia treats these three sub-clauses as independent clauses. They do this despite that fact that adherents and practitioners of the subjects labelled "pseudoscience" are not always claiming a scientific basis for their beliefs or, if they are, they may be using the word "science" in its broadest sense, meaning "knowledge," and not in the narrow sense of "an approved academic curriculum of study of the material world that utilizes the 'scientific method' of investigation into physical phenomena".


 * Let us take Spiritualism, for an example. Spiritualism is a religion. There have been claims made for it of a scientific nature in the narrow sense of the word, mostly in the past, and mostly by a very small minority of adherents. However, this entire religion, consisting of many denominations (see List of Spiritualist organizations) is unfairly labelled a Pseudoscience at Wikipedia. This is grossly unfair and prejudicial to the religion of Spiritualism.


 * Then let us take New Age. This is an interfaith religio-cultural movement. Again, a small minority of adherents have made scientific claims, narrowly defined, for aspects of the movement, but the general woman-in-the-street adherent does not make scientific claims, merely thinking of herself as a "New Ager" or "New Age pracititoner." Labelling her beliefs a "Pseudoscience" is inaccurate, prejudicial, and discourteous.


 * Scientology is listed as "Pseudoscience" at Wikipedia, which makes some sense, as this religion does curently present itself as "science" based. But why is the religion of Thelema NOT labeled a "Pseudoscience" at Wikipedia, despite the fact that its motto is "The aim of religion, the method of science"? This is inconsistent, to say the least, and also a-historical, given the intertwined origins of the two religions.


 * Then we have Divination, in all its many branches. While some forms of divination are presented by some (but not all) adherents and practitioners as "scientific," others are virtually never given that appellation. In my 40-plus years of reading tea leaves, for instance, i have never heard Tasseography "claimed to be or made to appear scientific," yet it is still classified at Wikipedia as a "Pseudscience." WHY?


 * Why are the pseudoskeptics holding these topics hostage inside a category that exists only in the NEGATIVE, only to disrespect the items thus contained? Why is Wikipedia openly allowing a small coterie of editors to discredit and tarnish sincere religious and spiritual adherents?


 * It is my opinion that a pseudoskeptical faction of active and aggressive editors is waging a hegemonic culture war against small religions, folkloric customs, divination, mysticism, ccultism, and spirituality, that they are doing so by taking over and controlling the categories in which these diverse socio-cultural topics appear at Wikipedia, and that this is being done with the full knowledge and encouragement of Wikipedia administrators and bureaucrats.


 * If this were not so, the pseudoskeptics would allow members of these religions to absent their religions from the "Pseudoscience" category -- but they do not. They would allow practitioners and adherents of folkloric forms of divination to ask for independence from the "Pseudoscience" category -- but they do not.


 * WHY NOT?


 * As a Jew, i cannot help but note that this enforced classification of religions as "pseudo-somethings" is abhorrent and grossly offensive. Let me tell you how horrific it appears to me. Judaism is not "Pseudochristianity" and no one at Wikipedia would allow it to be listed as such -- but at the same time, Spiritualism and its attendent organizations like Universal Hagar's Spiritual Church and Pentecostal Spiritual Assemblies of Christ - International and Metropolitan Spiritual Churches of Christ -- which are not "Pseudoscience" and should never have been classified as "Pseudoscience" in the first place -- are thus listed, held captive to the mocking whim of pseudoskeptics who think that their connection to rich, powerful, White scientific atheists gives them the right to disrespect and malign any religion they choose.


 * That's what it looks like to me, and i invite anyone who doesn't have a closed mind to click on the links to those small, mostly African American, Spiritualist groups and tell me why -- WHY? -- they are placed in the "Pseudoscience" category. Can you justify it? Really? If you can, tell me why. Or better yet, tell THEM.


 * Please feel free to carry this material to any other discussion page at Wikipedia where it might be appropriate.


 * Thanks for reading. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another example of false branding: The entire New Age category is tagged as "pseudoscience" and if you go to that category, you will find the following topics: [−] New Age [+] Angels [+] Astrology [+] Atlantis [+] Bermuda Triangle [+] Channelling [+] Consciousness studies [+] Contactees [+] Hollow Earth theory [+] Integral thought [+] Jewish Renewal [+] Large Group Awareness Training [+] Neoshamanism [+] Neotantra [+] Neuro-linguistic programming [+] New Age authors [+] New Age female spiritual leaders [+] New Age music [+] New Age texts [+] Otherkin [+] Paranormal worlds and bodies [+] Rainbow Family [+] Reiki [+] Transcendental Meditation [+] Transpersonal psychology [+] Vitalism [+] New Age stubs

You will note that, as part of their culture-war, pseudoskeptics have placed Angels, Jewish Renewal, Otherkin, New Age female spiritual leaders, and New Age music (!) in the category of "pseudoscience" -- yet, to the best of my knowledge, none of these beings or cultural goups have falsely presented themselves or their activities as "science" or "scientific."

What we are seeing here is not a group of scientists defending their discipline against false claims (the proper use of the term pseudoscience) but a goup of anti-theism, anti-spirituality, anti-mysticism, anti-folklore, and apparently anti-music pseudoskeptics falsely branding and thus targeting topics that they oppose.

The category of "Pseudoskeptic target" allows editors to easily patrol and maintain the articles thus tagged. It functions much like the extant "Antisemitism" categpory (also a negative) and helps those who support the inclusion in Wikipedia of articles on topics that are the targetted for false branding and/or effacement-deletion by pseudoskeptics with a convenient database management system.

Again, thanks for reading. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The category seems to be an attempt to censor criticism. Of course critics need to maintain a NPOV and might even be over zealous, but a category isn't a corrective mechanism for any (perceived) abuses.  Smallbones (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the corrective mechanism for a pejorative category marker being used by a majority at a knowledge-generation website such as Wikipedia? Each time i am asking this question in a different way i am getting little to no response. If you can't beat them (the users of category markers to (in this case) shift boundaries of their involvement for perturbing toward POV what should be NPOV), then why not join them (and use the same mechanism for (maintaining boundaries as a) defense)? It isn't criticism which is being repulsed, or attempted so, by these actions, but niggling EFFACEMENT which should be the primary concern of all Wikipedians (the integrity of the knowledge, not just the science knowledge).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is complete nonsense.  Q ua ck Gu ru   18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (speedy?) DELETE Absolute nonsense category, trying to make a WP:POINT. The comment above about all new age music being tagged is also incorrect. Verbal   chat  18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently POV, and confusing as well. DGG (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: appears to be simply a POV-'rebranding' of Category:Pseudoscience or similar, giving WP:UNDUE weight to the WP:FRINGE viewpoints of the category members, purporting them to be victims of a "hegemonic" conspiracy to silence them. HrafnTalkStalk 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on a misunderstanding of the fact that inclusion of verifiable sources stating that a subject is considered pseudoscience is normal policy, and a misunderstanding of the meaning of pseudoskepticism, which is being used as a pejorative label for scientific skeptics. This category is a part of one editor's hegemonic cultural attempt to edit war changes here. -- Fyslee / talk 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. On User:Self-ref's own admission, "the sense of it is as a response to the overall abuse of the Category:Pseudoscience".  In other words, the reason to keep this category is because of a perceived abuse of another category.  This smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Regardless, as someone who has occasionally edited pseudoscience-related articles, I can say that inclusion in the category is generally a very difficult process requiring a broad consensus and high-quality references.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 20:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)  (I was invited to comment here by User:Self-ref.)
 * Previously explained. If the Category:Pseudoscience can be used to hegemonically provide incursions upon topics where it has no call, some kind of Pseudoskeptical category should be able to repulse it. When a majority effectively controls where the category markers are to be placed, then the POV of critical, pro-science factions gains ground where it has no call.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "critical, pro-science" has a call everywhere in an encyclopedia such as wikipedia.·Maunus· ƛ · 10:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This category is just plain ludicrous. I would go into more detail, but really we are forbidden from discussing such things on Wikipedia by the political correctness police here.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW The only keeps are from the same user. Verbal   chat  21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: strictly speaking, the 'keep's have come from a husband and wife couple, not "the same user". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This category has way too many inherent assumptions on a variety of levels to be of any use. (Filll is a wise man).   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a violation of point. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I agree that Category:Pseudoscience is often time abused by POV-pushers, I don't think that this is the solution. Category:Pseudoscience should only be applied to a topic per WP:PSCI. That said, if there was some independent sources which categorize topics as being "Targets of Pseudoskepticism", then perhaps this category could remain here. However, I have not seen such sources presented here as of yet. Therefore, the criteria for inclusion is way too subjective and easily abused. I don't think that Wikipedia should be creating categories which don't exist outside of Wikipedia (unless it is a Wikipedia-specific topic). If it is any consolation to Self-ref, I agree that Category:New_Age should not be categorized as "Pseudoscience". There is really no justification for this per WP:PSCI. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POINT Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POINT --MediaMangler (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a battleground.·Maunus· ƛ · 05:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As per WP:POINT.  The contents of this category (as far as I can tell from a quick glance) already should be adequately covered by Category:Pseudoscience (noting that this category is often abused).  --P LUMBAGO  08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Blatant attempt at disruptive WP:POINT activity. (At very least rename to meet normal captilization if by some gasp consensus is overturned.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - blatant WP:POINTy attack using neologisms to disparage WP:WEIGHT being given to mainstream views. . . dave souza, talk 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fork of Category:Pseudoscience. Ben Aveling 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * comment hmm recruiting. Geni 13:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - obviously. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POINT Nicolharper (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Filll. This category is just plain ludicrous, but I won't go into more detail because we are forbidden from discussing such things on Wikipedia by the political correctness police. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 13:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no generally-accepted means to discriminate between real and pseudo-skeptics. The difference is whether a particular skeptic will accept genuine evidence if presented, and that question will often hang on whether a particular type of evidence is even valid.  This category is just an invitation to POV-wars and is harmful to Wikipedia. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. bad category. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with categoryPseudoscience
Gotta run, but I suggest we split this conversation into two... Regards, Ben Aveling 21:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then someone should open a discussion about that category. Creation of one category as a means of discussing alleged problems with another category is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.Robert A.West (Talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.