Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:37, 3 May 2014

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1

Montréal region categories

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: Introduction of geographic names that are neither official nor commonly used. MTLskyline (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note These 3 categories were nominated separately, with an identical rationale. I merged them into one discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE remaining separate category nomination also merged here -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comunes of Italy

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: to match the format agreed at Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento#Requested_move, where the consensus was to use the English-language translation "communes". Most of the sub-categories already use this format. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - seems logical.Eustachiusz (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought that "commune" was already being used. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple categories

Speedy Delete for all: population is 1 for each category; categories created to accomodate one individual -- precedent for deletion at [1] in re Category:Jamaican people of Syrian-Jewish descent.Quis separabit? 22:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native birds of the Pacific region U.S.

Propose renaming Category:Native birds of the Pacific region U.S. to Category:Native birds of the West Coast of the United States

Nominator's rationale: This is a clearer title that matches West Coast of the United States and better distinguishes it from Category:Native birds of the Northwestern United States. "Pacific region" isn't well defined or commonly used in the US; it's likely to be mistaken for the Pacific Northwest. BDD (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)1[reply]

Delete, and fell the entire Category:Birds of the United States by region tree while we're at it. Birds are not defined by occuring in the United States. If they're endemic to the United States (occur only within its boundaries), then they are. But if they are found elsewhere, it is not a defining characteristic, and is WP:OC. Even if by-country-of-occurance is acceptable, splitting it by geographic region (and ill-defined ones at that) is painfully OC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename So, I'm not sure if you're interested in deleting categories, Bushranger, where you'd draw the line. The subcategories of Category:Birds of the United States are grouped by regional area of the U.S., even outside of Category:Birds of the United States by region. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional women scientists

Propose renaming: Category:Fictional women scientists to Category:Fictional female scientists and engineers

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with List of fictional scientists and engineers; For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than creating more categories

Comment: Should a separate List of fictional female scientists and engineers be created? (example: List of fictional female detectives) --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: one of these categories is duplicated below. Can you combine these nominations?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ not everything fictionally female are women -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternate per elaqueate, instead use Category:Fictional female scientists -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming "Scientists and engineers" may be the name of a single list article somewhere, but the parent categories here are still separate things. Scientists and engineers have separate categories for both fictional and non-fictional subjects.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional females

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: The standard seems to be "female" which is more inclusive, especially since some are technically not "women" (i.e. girls, robots, gods, etc.) --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support, esp given these are not all humans.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support not everything fictionally female are women -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming The rationale isn't correct; there is no "standard" when it comes to Wikipedia's use of Women vs Females. The fact that the articles described are fictional means they are being assigned their "womanhood" fictionally in any case. Robots are not actually sexed or gendered, but we are categorizing a fictional conceit.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you create a separate female category for non-women? Such as female aliens? Or sentient female slime molds ? And if they are assigned femaleness fictionally, then robots can be female. If they are fictionally assigned as female but not as women? -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category is Category:Fictional women scientists not Category:Fictional extraterrestrial women. "Women scientists" is a longstanding category tree, these all seem to be fictional women scientists (almost entirely fictional humans, it must be said). I can say that your first questions are not about gender, they're about whether we let aliens and robots into "people" categories of any type. Should a robot doctor character be put under "Fictional doctors" or "Fictional medical equipment"? The answer is that if editors see them as presenting as "people" we put them in, if we think of them as non-sentient machines, we put them with the tools. The articles we're categorizing are mostly people presenting as human women, with very few articles about characters we think of as non-human. They're included because we think of them as being women or presenting as women, not because we've worked out the details of their alien reproductive systems. Your other theoretical questions about characters "assigned female but not as women" seem to be about fictional characters with no presented gender but with a known biological sex. I doubt there's a lot of articles that would need categorizing there.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There IS no standard of whether "women" or "female" is used in Wikipedia categories. I think women is preferable. If it is an article on a female alien or female robot, its categorization is primarily "alien" and "robot", not "female". There doesn't need to be a gender category for all fictional entities. It is important for there to be categories for female human beings, fictional or real. I think it can be assumed that most fictional soldiers, warriors, scientists and engineers that would be concluded are human characters, not alien ones. And female human beings are properly called "women". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leonardo da Vinci in television

Propose renaming:

Category:Leonardo da Vinci in television to Category:Depictions of Leonardo da Vinci on television

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Depictions of people on television. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoscientists

Propose deleting Category:Pseudoscientists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This is a problematic category for living people. Part of the problem revolves around the definition - the OED defines it as an adherent or practitioner of pseudoscience, OR a person who falsely or mistakenly claims to be or is regarded as a scientist. Now, many of the people in the subcategories (e.g. most of the people in Category:Astrologers) would not claim to be scientists, so do not belong under the second definition. The category could explicitly include people under both definitions, but the discrepancy between definitions make it misleading. With negative categorizations, this should be avoided. St Anselm (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The cat is appropriate for some articles and should not be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category has become a battleground and a WP:BLP nightmare. I can see possible justification for placing historic figures like Trofim Lysenko in the category, but really all that the category does is express disapproval, generally without any WP:RS supporting the use of the term. More specific categories are more useful, and easier to find reliable sources for. -- 101.117.28.73 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The battleground is occupied extensively with the nominator and a series of brand new, single purpose accounts. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems the OED definition provides pretty clear criteria. As per QG it is certainly appropriate for some articles. The definition lays out something that provides clear and appropriate categorization for subjects. Useful for navigation. That something is defined as A OR B does not make it misleading in any way that I see. The argument that some don't belong under one definition that explicitly states OR is not supportable. It is the nature of categories that they have sub categories. A reader would not be misled. The only possible BLP issue is with second part of the definition and articles about subjects who falsely or mistakenly claim to be scientists are clear in their content. The OED definition is clear and succinct a reader can easily understand it. The word OR does not mislead or cause confusion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Atheist and skeptic here, but what purpose does this category really serve? It's bound to generate edit wars and waste a lot of time with dispute resolutions, arbcom etc. What do we really gain by keeping it? MaxBrowne (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy? Clarity? Adherence to objective standards? Not lying to readers? Not allowing whitewashing campaigns? --Calton | Talk 01:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is at a real cross-roads here. We must decide now if we are going to let the most opinionated among our editorship continue to rule the roost, and continue to have free reign to besmirch and impugn living people with their own personal pejorative opinions that they think are made out of gold and must be forced down all other editors' and readers throats. This is identical to the same sort of persecutorial foolishness and intolerance that brought down Soviet Science, and it can bring down wikipedia even quicker. 71.246.158.7 (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no-one is going to say "I'm a pseudoscientist", and it is too prone to being misused by anyone who disagrees with a scientist/scholar's opinion. You might just as well have a category "cranks". Far too subjective. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has categories for murderers, burglars, pedophiles, prostitutes, and sockpuppeteers. The fact that a category may not be flattering to its occupants is not a valid reason to delete it. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we put people in those categories because there is an accepted and agreed upon standard for what that represents. A murderer, for example, is someone who has murdered someone. What is a pseudoscientist? There are many many conflicting claims.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't use the "murderer" category for people who have murdered someone, we use it for people who have been convicted in court of murdering someone -- that is, we use it when there is an official determination that the category fits. Otherwise we would certainly be staring down the barrel of serious legal action. For "pseudoscientist," as you say, there is no accepted and agreed upon standard. Some of the category members are respected scientists who have an off-the-wall hobby. Some of the Russian members are academics with off-the-wall ideas about history. It seems that the category is simply a vague "Wikipedia disapproves of this person" label. -- 101.117.108.195 (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also have us believe that there is serious scientific disagreement about the theory of evolution? Pseudoscientist is not a vague term. A pseudoscientist is a person who makes scientific claims that they can’t prove. To claim that a bullshitter is a scientist is to lie to our readers, and Wikipedia should not be packed full of lies to placate some fringe-pushing reality-denialists. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You illustrate the problem of a category that's inherently based on WP:OR (since no reliable sources seem to ever explicitly use the "pseudoscientist" label). Parts of modern physics are currently in the category of "making scientific claims that they can’t prove," so that's a bad definition. Conversely, many people promoting astrology, homeopathy, or the like are not "pseudoscientists" because they're not even pretending to be scientists -- so simply being a "bullshitter" is a bad definition too. And omitting the "pseudoscientist" label is a very different thing from endorsing someone as a scientist or "packing Wikipedia full of lies." Nobody is suggesting doing that. The fundamental problem here is that, in the absence of reliable sources using the "pseudoscientist" label, this category invites editors such as yourself to make personal value judgements as to who deserves the label -- which is contentious at best, and a WP:BLP violation for living subjects. -- 101.117.110.209 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between “claims that they can’t prove” and presently unproven scientific hypotheses. One is an unsupported assertion and the other is a proposed explanation based on facts. If I were to say “The fact that Tutankhamun’s children were both stillborn may be the result of inbreeding depression” then that would be a proposed explanation based on facts. When a fringe pusher says “The tomb of Osiris contained the mummified remains of an alien but Zahi Hawass covered it up because he’s in cahoots with the Reptilians” then that would be a claim that they can’t prove.

I didn’t say that all bullshitters are pseudoscientists. Margaret Murray was a pseudohistorian, Edgar Cayce was a mystic, and Kim Jong-il was a politician. Pseudoscientists are a specific kind of bullshitter.

I think that AndyTheGrump said it best when he wrote “we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters”. [[2]] Labeling a pseudoscientist as a pseudoscientist is one way that we can warn the readers that what they are about to read may contain the absurd claims of a person who feels entitled to their own facts. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to "warn the readers," categories are a lousy way to do it, since (1) they are, by their nature, unreferenced and (2) they come at the end of the article. And I think it's also obvious that this particular category does not have clear inclusion criteria. -- 101.117.57.43 (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think the inclusion criteria 'This category includes biographies of people who explicitly study and advocate areas currently included under Category:Pseudoscience' is unclear ? In what sense ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many things people are unlikely to admit to which are nonetheless completely supported by reliable sources. We're an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to reflect the truth, insofar as our sources let us. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Restrict~~Delete. Because pseudoscience is a fairly subjective term, and because a person more or less never just says "I work on pseudoscience", but always works one some specific pseudoscience, I would recommend making the effort to create subcategories so that we can separate "X is an astrologer" from "astrology is a pseudoscience". This is at once less insulting and also more manageable, because we can keep the argument over whether a particular belief is pseudoscience separate from the names of individual persons, rather than using them as political footballs. Ideally, provided there are no jam-ups trying to do this, a notice can then be placed on the category to put individuals in subcats rather than listing directly. Wnt (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as a trial balloon, I've edited Peter Brock to remove "Pseudoscientist" in favor of a new Category:Orgone technicians, in which I have placed him and Wilhelm Reich. It is a subcat of Category:Orgone energy and Category:Pseudoscientists. I haven't checked every entry under pseudoscientists, but I doubt I'll find many (any?) others. I feel that the stylistic trade-off between having a small subcat and having a direct categorization of a person as a pseudoscientist favors the former approach, but I'm no expert with categories and I welcome your views. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sent up the trial balloon because I couldn't decide whether I wanted my opinion to count as keep or delete, and someone has shot it down,^[3] saying that I shouldn't "disguise" the category as a subcategory. That kind of thinking - that "pseudoscientist" is a brand of shame that should not be allowed to be hidden, rather than a way of neutrally collecting groups of people into one of many supercategories, is not desirable or in keeping with BLP notions. So count this as a simple delete based on excessive subjectivity like the others. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have plenty of reliable sources indicating that this is a real word. We have controversial categories such as racist, white nationalist, etc. We simply need to abide by our guidelines and policies. What concerns me is the arrival of single purpose IPs. Sorry, but either someone is recruiting meatpuppets or someone(s) is socking, here and to edit war at articles(which I noticed before I discovered this discussion). I can't think of any other explanation. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IP addresses are not the same as SPAs. -- 101.117.108.195 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was thinking that I am seeing a lot of registered accounts participating in this discussion who I rarely see involved at CfD. It's like a mini-reunion of regulars at the Fringe noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racism is a category but Category:Racists is not. And Category:White nationalists are for people who self-identifying as such.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- fairly ridiculous nomination; the category is entirely sensible, & useful to our readers when judiciously applied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Pseudoscience advocates? I see no reason for outright deletion but perhaps a change pof name would provide clarity? Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete This loops together too many unlike things. Use article space to make such points, but don't needlessly tag bios with "pseudoscientist". This term has been applied by reliable sources to scientists who some people didn't agree with, but we should not engage in such tagging. Per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, we don't have an objective standard for inclusion in this category, therefore it should be deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restrict - there is too much scope for this cat to be used for personal attacks in BLPs, with the resultant difficulties and time-wasting. If its use can be restricted to dead people, prob OK, but if not, then better to delete it.

@User:Nomoskedasticity - unfortunately, experience seems to make it clear that judicious application is unlikely. Eustachiusz (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the nominator has been blocked for edit warring over the inclusion of this category. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and/or Restrict per above mentioned reasons --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to "Pseudoscience advocates" or thereabouts - I see that the category is defined as including 'biographies of people who explicitly study and advocate areas currently included under Category:Pseudoscience'. That seems reasonable enough "when judiciously applied" as Nomoskedasticity says. Evidently the community thinks it can reliably distinguish between science and pseudoscience using Wikipedia's policies. If that is the case and we are able to categorize people as scientists, we should be able to categorize people as pseudoscientists. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (modified to incorporate proposed renaming option). Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely subjective; we have Category:Cryptozoologists (which is a child of Category:Cryptozoology, which in turn is a child of Category:Pseudoscience) and similar; we don't need to lump every form of these together at the practitioner level. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unnecessary and opinionated attack cat. Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subjectively worded category, and one which implies that such a judgment has been made by the Wikipedia community and is unanimous. Quis separabit? 03:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On balance I favor deleting. Wikipedia has already established that some beliefs, for instance, application of creationism to science, are pseudoscience and therefore placing an individual in both a category related to intelligent design and this category would be redundant and unnecessary. Note that Category:Racism explicitly states that "It must not include articles about individuals". While beliefs like white nationalism are almost universally considered a form of racism, since very few people openly self-describe as racists, just calling them white nationalists is more neutral and yet at the same time people still understand that white nationalists are generally racists. If we don't delete it entirely, I favor Wnt's very compelling suggestion on restricting its use.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Definitions of pseudoscience are complex, and the head article identifies many ways in which pseudoscience can be identified. The problem with any concept such as this is that there so many cases which are open to interpretation, or where changing understandings of the scientific method problematise particular forms of research. This demarcation problem leaves the term wide open to use as a language of attack and denigration, against against both individuals and whole disciplines.
In supporting the deletion of this category, I do not support removing the word from articles. Wikipedia has a well-established and stable policy on the use of such terminology, at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (with more guidance at WP:LABEL): this sort of description should be attributed. So it's quite fine for an article to say that X described Y as a pseudoscientist (with ref), and for any opposing views to be given due weight. However, a category does not attribute the label, so it should not be used to apply a subjective label without qualification.
BTW, if anyone wants an example of how this concept can be used in categories as an attack mechanism, see CFD:Pseudoscience petitions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ridiculous nomination brought about by this discussion and the opposition of the editor who nominated it for deletion of seeing Ham included in that category. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply @Gaba_p. "Ridiculous" is an insult rather than a rationale. The discussion Gaba_p linked to is an excellent example of why this sort of pejorative category is a Bad Idea™. First, it causes a huge dispute between editors who could otherwise be directing their energies to developing the article, rather than arguing about one word which appears at the bottom of it. And secondly, the dispute illustrates the sort of synthesis involved: person X is described by person Y as practising B, and person Z describes B as pseudoscience. Ergo, X is a pseudoscientist. Classic WP:SYN.
  Thanks for taking the time to post a link which illustrates so well the folly of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - - No, "ridiculous" would be an accurate description, and your protest illustrates your misunderstanding: "avoiding disputes" -- or, more accurately in this case,, "avoiding clean-up campaigns by POV pushers" or "avoiding butthurt" -- is pretty much irrelevant compared to Wikipedia's goal of being ACCURATE. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per WP:CAT#Overview, the purpose of a category is "to provide navigational links". The absence of a category may or may not inconvenience those interested in a particular form of navigation, but a category is not content, so its presence cannot affect the accuracy of an article. As I noted above, descriptions of someone as a pseudoscientist should be made in the text of the article, and clearly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:WTA. That's what we have already done with the word "terrorist": Category:Terrorists was deleted in 2009.
        BTW, the heated nature of your response suggests that you are as much engaged in POV-pushing as anyone who wishes to remove critical content from an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Your wikilawyering notwithstanding, the goal of providing -- what is that word? Oh, yes ACCURATE -- navigation links among pseudoscientists is not related to non-encyclopedic norms of "not causing offense". As for your "heated nature of your response" attempt at deflection, three things: 1) you need to get a refund on your mind-reading lessons; 2) a read of psychological projection may prove instructive; 3) I become reflexively annoyed by ludricrously obvious nonsense and wiki-lawyering, it's a fault of mine. --Calton | Talk 17:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        "nonsense", "ludicrous", "ridiculous", "ACCURATE". Assertion is not reasoning, and neither your reflexive annoyance nor use of adjectives makes it so. If you overcome your reflexes and want to address the principles set out in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I would be interested to hear what you have to say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        BrownHairedGirl you can see in the discussion I linked that I presented a published book where the person is explicitly referred to as a pseudoscientist, there is no WP:SYNTH at all in that. The fact that there could be synth is no reason to not have this category. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 04:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Gaba_p. The ref you presented is this link, which is to a book called "The Divine Default: Why Faith is Not the Answer"

As noted in that thread by Collect, that book is not a scholarly work; it is a partisan polemic whose blurb on Amazon reads: "JJ Dyken sets out to debunk many of the most common religious assertions from the power of prayer to the seemingly inseparable bond between religion and morality. In so doing, he presents a persuasive case as to why the clash between faith and reason is not just irrational, but potentially deadly for mankind".

By using this sort of source to justify labeling someone in this way, you are demanding that Wikipedia adopt the terminology of one partisan side in a clash between two systems of knowledge. But most categories based on partisan terminology have been deleted: e.g. Heretics, Homophobes, Anti-Semitic people, Stalinists, Dictators, Terrorists. But despite the long history of deleting this type of subjective and partisan category, you want to keep a category for the term used by polemicists you agree with.

Your partisan understanding of NPOV is set out eloquently in the exchange between you and DavidLeighEllis:

DavidLeighEllis: There's a POV in saying science=fact and religion=fiction, don't you think?
Gaba_p: No, I really don't

Anyone is quite entitled to view religion as fiction, rather than neutral description of "a set of variously organized beliefs" set out in the lede to religion. But per WP:NPOV, we don't categorise religion under fiction; we leave the reader to choose for themselves between the many different ways of understanding what religion is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl if your point is that the source I presented is not reliable, then I disagree. We could move that discussion to WP:RSN if you'd like. There are many many sources that refer to creationism as a pseudoscience so stating that the main visible face in peddling this nonsense is a pseudoscientist is more a statement of a heavily sourced fact rather than WP:SYNTH.

We are sidetracking the discussion, but "a set of variously organized beliefs" is just a purposely convoluted way of saying "a set of unproven and unfalsifiable claims". So yes, I sustain that "unproven and unfalsifiable claims"=fiction and science=fact. You're free to disagree.

The issue here is if we should keep a category that can be useful if backed by reliable sources (in the body of the article of course) or if we should remove it to avoid offending WP:FRINGE nonsense supporters. I stand by the first option. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba_p, I have no interest either way in whether WP:FRINGE supporters are offended. My concern is that wikipedia should not be presenting complex, subjective judgements on any topic as if they were binary choices.

Your case is based on the notion that "unproven and unfalsifiable claims"=fiction and science=fact. That is extremist, partisan POV ignore the widely-documented demarcation problem. It asserts that any human knowledge other than current scientific orthodoxy is fiction, and it is as intolerant of other views as any biblical-literalist creationist. Go place the whole of Category:Philosophy under Category:Fiction, and let us know how that goes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl if by a binary choice you mean either adding the cat or not then all categories should be removed based on that argument. If you don't mean that then I don't know what you mean, sorry. I don't ignore the demarcation problem, I just don't see it as an issue in this particular case since the fact that creationism is non-science is painfully obvious to pretty much everybody except for creationists. Again, we are sidetracking the issue here, but any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. It might be interesting fiction, but it's not science and it's not fact. There is no intolerance in recognizing this, political correctness does not trump over common sense and scientific facts (as much as religious people would like for that to happen). The last part of you cmmt is a straw-man and therefore I won't be commenting on it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is some opinion on Wikipedia by editors that the term Pseudoscience is an insult and that it becomes a BLP issue to claim a person is a Pseudoscientist. That is actually the very opposite, as we do not want to lump people who study UFOs with people who study space etc. In other words we should be careful who we add to the category, but it does serve a true and reasonable encyclopedic purpose in seperating atrue sceience from that of the Pseudoscientific community/world.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Please look at the category structure. People who study UFOs are already categorised in Category:Ufologists, not in Category:Astrophysicists etc. Deleting this category will not alter that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category has tremendous potential for BLP violations and also misuse by POV editors.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is there any objective measure which we could use to definitely classify someone as a pseudoscientist? If not, it's meaningless to keep such an arbitrarily imposed category. -A1candidate (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been listed at the Fringe theories Noticeboard with the edit summary "This requires urgent attention". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Whitewashing POV attempts frequently require urgent attention from interested parties, yes -- or are you suggesting that editors interested in pseudoscience should remain ignorant lest they offer their opinions? 00:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

Sigh. Per WP:CANVASS, notifications can be appropriate, but must (inter alia) be neutrally-worded. "This requires urgent attention" doesn't look particularly neutral to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Neither word games nor avoidance of upsetting the delicate are good reasons for the deletion of objective, accurate categories. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; use with care. Cardamon (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because of the issue of whether it's appropriate to call someone a pseudoscientist, but because of the nominator's statement. This term can have two separate meanings, and we have articles on people that fit into both. It's thoroughly unhelpful to put phrenologist Franz Joseph Gall into the same category as Piltdown Man creator Charles Dawson, but both would fit in Category:Pseudoscientists, because one's a pseudoscient-ist and the other's a pseudo-scientist. I wouldn't object to the creation of separate categories: one for the pseudoscient-ists and another for the pseudo-scientists. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One difficulty with this category is that some people in it are respected academics in their area of expertise, but they also engage in pseudoscience outside that field. Tagging them as "pseudoscientists" devalues their mainstream work and becomes a WP:BLP issue (in the extreme case, we could, for example, list every scientist who looks at a horoscope). I don't think it's possible to use this category with care, because it does not, in fact, have an objective definition; categorisation is based on subjective criteria or WP:SYNTH. However, the effect of this category could easily be achieved by listing people in appropriate subcategories of category:pseudoscience. -- 101.117.108.170 (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no one self identifies, and there isn't an objective standard possible for inclusion. BLP nightmare. Our goal isn't "Truth", it is "verifiable facts", and this strays from that goal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this isn't verifiable. We can identify pseudoscience, and it's not difficult to find reliable sources which identify the members as advocates for pseudoscientific ideas. That's why I suggested the "advocates of" rename: really, it's indisputable whether or not some one is pushing such ideas. Mangoe (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is synthesis, not a reliable source. And any reliable source would be giving an opinion as there is no universal definition. Go ahead and disagree, but I assure you I've thought this out and I'm beyond persuasion on this BLP nightmare. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This sort of labelling is a bad idea. One problem that especially concerns me is the difficulty with people who are reputable conventional scientists in one field,and have also done psuedoscience. Neither inclusion nor exclusion is really a NPOV statement in such cases--it amounts to a judgement about which part of their career is primary. There are also all the practical difficulties to WP editing specified by -BrownHairedGirl. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Potential for misuse is not an argument for deletion; it can be used against any category. An editor could put Mike Tyson under Category:Otolaryngologists or anybody under Category:Monsters and it would be equally disruptive yet not an argument to delete Category:Otolaryngologists or Category:Monsters. Reliable sources (of higher quality and academically sound) identify some people as pseudoscientists whether they self-identify or not. It is entirely possible to verify if some subjects meet the criteria amongst better reliable sources, and not for trivial reasons. We don't have a standard definition for who is a writer, or even who is a certain kind of fraud, or any number of "subjective" categorizations that we currently use, positive or negative, we look to better academic sources to tell us. We should describe (without undue euphemism) subjects named by better sources as being involved in pseudoscience in a defining way. We should remove entries where the description is undue, but that still leaves articles to categorize this way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is no more subjective than the term "scientist". That's the very nature of the demarcation problem. If we have inclusion criteria for the term "scientist" clear enough such that we can use it for categorization, then we also have inclusion criteria for the term "pseudoscientist" clear enough such that we can use it for categorization. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone espouses a particular pseudoscientific belief, then categorize by belief ("creationist", "flat-earth advocate", "anti-vaccination campaigner", etc.). With the more specific category we have a much better chance of the person self-identifying. With the overbroad "pseudoscientists", there's no self-identification and the label is applied only by those who disagree with what the person believes. The gain to be had isn't worth the arguments this is going to cause. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those who think the category definition is "clear," which of these people belong in the category?

Linus Pauling -- legendary Chemist and winner of the Nobel, but also promoted pseudoscience about megavitamin treatment of disease
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev -- Russian astronomer with a good early career, but became out-of-date during imprisonment in a Soviet gulag, so that his later work had limited value
John Hartnett (physicist) -- respected minor physicist, but has also written some Creationist papers
Elizabeth Rauscher -- American physicist with a good early career, but now focussed entirely on psychic healing, faith healing, and the paranormal

-- 101.117.89.99 (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are people, who most would agree are pseudoscientists, this category has no sharp boundaries. Philosophers of science have never formulated an adequate demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Why do we think we can? I am One of Many (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this is delete, rename or what, but to call someone a pseudoscientist when they advocate pseudoscience is a categorical fallacy. Linus Pauling was an advocate of pseudoscience, but to call him a pseudoscientist is perverse given that he is a Nobel laureate. Same for Brian Josephson. So if we keep the category it needs to be renamed to something like "pseudoscience advocates" (which eliminates a lot of the BLP issues) or if we don't then the prominent advocates of pseudoscience, such as Chopra, Pauling, Josephson, Sheldrake and all, can go into the category Pseudoscience. I suspect that pseudoscience advocates is better, and I also suspect that in some cases it is redundant: any young Earth creationist is, by definition, an advocate of pseudoscience, as is any homeopathy, alternative medicine practitioner, nutritionist and so on. Where someone is primarily known for activity in a field which is itself identified as pseudoscience (as opposed to fringe or pathological science) then any pseudoscience categorisation of that person probably amounts to OVERCAT.

Examples:

Deepak Chopra, Rupert Sheldrake, Linus Pauling, Brian Josephson etc. should IMO be in Category:Pseudoscience advocates

Dana Ullman, George Vithoulkas and others should be in Category:Homeopathy advocates, which should be included in Category:Pseudoscience advocates.

Ken Ham, Kent Hovind et. al should be in Category:Young Earth creationists, which should be included in Category:Pseudoscience advocates

So I guess my !vote is probably: rename' and partially depopulate on the basis that it is perfectly possible for a respectable scientist still to be an advocate for pseudoscience, especially outside of their own field of expertise. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the notion that it's a categorical fallacy based on the premise that the categories form disjoint sets i.e. that a person can't be categorized as both a scientist (or a related category) and a pseudoscientist (to cover different periods of the life or work for example) ? I find some of the delete arguments in this discussion quite persuasive, but the community has apparently decided that it can distinguish between science and pseudoscience. It seems reasonable that certain things follow from that including giving readers the ability to navigate categories that contain articles about people who reliable sources identify as explicitly studying and advocating pseudoscience. Deletion seems a step too far for me but perhaps pseudoscience advocates would be better. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sean.hoyland Why not simply categorise people by the type of work they do, rather than by the value judgement some sources place on that type of work? In this case, we we already have Category:Phrenologists, Category:Homeopaths, Category:Ufologists, Category:Alchemists etc.

A look at these topics shows that there are huge differences between them. For example, alchemy is one the precursors of modern science; many of its techniques and findings informed chemistry, and our article on the topic doesn't even use the term "pseudoscience". Yet Category:Alchemists is a sub-cat of Category:Pseudoscientists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Scientist' is a value judgement too. It's based on a judgement about what constitutes science at the moment. Some people regard the term scientist as a pejorative. I'm thinking clever, cooler than me, sophisticated, artsy types who hurt my feelings when I was a student and apparently left me embittered enough to mention it years later here. Simply categorising people by the type of work they do is probably fine, as long as the local branches of the category tree associated with it are also fine and somehow preserve the notion of pseudoscience where appropriate. I can support that approach but my primary concern is practical and making sure things actually make sense, at least to me e.g. that they incorporate the implications of the community deciding that it knows the difference between science and pseudoscience, scientists and pseudoscientists/advocates of pseudoscience based on policy. If a reader would like to navigate a category of people who advocate pseudoscience (in general, they may not know exactly what they want), will they be able to do that without having to go too far down the rabbit hole that is Wikipedia's category system ? These kind of discussions often seem to me to be a bit too influenced by concerns about misuse of what ever it is that is being discussed. People are very creative in Wikipedia and will find ways to misuse anything and everything. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rename to advocates of pseudoscience per Guy. being able to find people who push various forms of quackery is legit navigation aid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP, self-identification... Also, problems of mixtures: the person holds a mixture of scientific and pseudoscientific views. Is she a pseudoscientist? Howunusual (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . "Pseudoscientist" is not a label of self-identification. It is a pejorative term used to label those individuals who some people view as quacks. I doubt that anyone who is placed in this category sees themselves as a pseudoscientist and there are more defining categories that would be more appropriate than some catchall category that includes a wide variety of individuals with very different beliefs, education, backgrounds and occupations. There is no set criteria for belonging in this category, it is a subjective view of individual Wikipedia editors who to include and that is not a good basis for categorization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lifeguards

Propose deleting Category:Lifeguards - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: WP:COP#N. People like Clint Eastwood and Ronald Reagan are not notable as lifeguards. No objection to this category being kept/recreated if we ever find sufficient aricles about people who are notable as a lifeguard. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

purge but keep We have Michael_Newman_(lifeguard) for example, and a few others. I'd remove everyone for which being a lifeguard isn't defining, but we're sure to have some people left.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newman is actually made notable by his appearances in Baywatch. In sampling the members I have yet to find someone whose lead even mention lifeguarding which doesn't also mention some other occupation which is the actual source of notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think he's also notable for being a lifeguard. The point is, this is a valid occupation. I agree with a purge, but lifeguard doesn't have to be the sole reason for notability - it just has to be defining of the person. If it says "X is a lifeguard" in the lede, there's a good chance this is defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

purge but keep--172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete As all Americans know, lifeguarding is a common summer job for American kids; my back-of-the-envelope calculation is that there are probably a hundred thousand every year, maybe ten times that. It has more cachet than dipping ice cream or selling T-shirts on the boardwalk, but it conveys no more notability. I've gone through the main list, and there is maybe one person whose fame derives from being a life guard, and her notability is really quite dubious. The rest are actors, athletes, writers, models, politicians—really just about anything. The Babewatch guy gets a slight notch up, but he's no Audie Murphy; he was hired as an actor, not as a lifeguard. The situation is perhaps slightly better with the Aussies, but again I'm seeing a lot of "John Doe is a surf lifesaver and a job-he's-actually-notable-for" leads. If we purged this, there would be nothing left except for a couple of articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial, unnecessary and pointless category. How about Category:McDonald's employees?? Quis separabit? 00:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well we have Category:Restaurant staff which is valid. It's a valid job and there are a few people notable for it. No call to delete accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, there are two people who are notable in it; the other biographical entries suffer from the same issue as this category. It is more justifiable because of the "fictional" subcat and because it contains articles on particular restaurant positions. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about Category:Restaurant staff -- I had no idea such a ridiculous (I really wnat to say moronic, but maybe I shouldn't) category existed. I should AFD it. I am not looking down on any legal employment or hardworking people and their jobs -- but not every occupation or vocation or job can or should be categorized, or listified, for that matter! Quis separabit? 03:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have Category:McDonald's people... --BDD (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purge but keep Categories don't magically create a wikipedia article for every person who was ever a lifeguard or restaurant staff; they organize articles we already have, of which a limited number would even mention it. The categories should be added where the characteristic has some significance to the subject, of course, but kept if those articles exist.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Purge but keep although it is not clear to me what the difference is between a lifeguard and a "surf lifesavers". I'm not sure these subcategories are necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fortification in Central America

Propose deleting Category:Fortification in Central America - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: All of the subcategories are appropriately categorised under Category:Fortifications by country and :Category:Buildings and structures in Foo. We don't categorise fortifications by continent; Category:Fortification in Africa is a special case. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should Category:Fortification in Africa be OK, but Category:Fortification in Central America not? Central America has a fairly unified history in terms of Spanish colonisation, and strong political links between the countries in the region, which make it more than purely a geographical grouping - see, for example Central American Integration System. Historically, Central America has been regarded as a unified country, see also Federal Republic of Central America and other related articles. I think there is enough joint history to categorise Central America in its own right. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the "Africa" category covers historical fortifications that were in ancient countries and now cover multiple countries, while this is a container category for national cats. However, it might well be possible to simply re-categorise the African ones in the relevant country categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my previous comment - Central America also covers former countries, and unified countries. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However Category:Fortifications by country does not, and we do not have "Fortifciations in Foo former country" as a tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see where your coming from - I think the category should continue in existance, but not be in Category:Fortifications by country (I just checked and it isn't anyway). It currently sits under "buildings and structures in Central America" and directly under "Fortification(s)". Perhaps a new subcat under Fortification(s) is necessary. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 :::::::::{{u|Gaba_p}}, I have no interest either way in whether [[WP:FRINGE]] supporters are offended.  My concern is that wikipedia should not be presenting complex, subjective judgements on ''any'' topic as if they were binary choices.
 :::::::::Your case is based on the notion that ''"unproven and unfalsifiable claims"=fiction and science=fact''.  That is extremist, partisan POV ignore the widely-documented [[demarcation problem]]. It asserts that any human knowledge other than current scientific orthodoxy  is fiction, and it is as intolerant of other views as any biblical-literalist creationist. Go place the whole of {{cl|Philosophy}} under {{cl|Fiction}}, and let us know how that goes. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 19:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
+::::::::::{{u|BrownHairedGirl}} if by a binary choice you mean either adding the cat or not then all categories should be removed based on that argument. If you don't mean that then I don't know what you mean, sorry. I don't ignore the [[demarcation problem]], I just don't see it as an issue in this particular case since the fact that creationism is non-science is painfully obvious to pretty much everybody except for creationists. Again, we are sidetracking the issue here, but any "human knowledge" that is not empirically falsifiable is not "knowledge" at all, it's just fiction. It might be interesting fiction, but it's not science and it's not fact. There is no intolerance in recognizing this, political correctness does not trump over common sense and scientific facts (as much as religious people would like for that to happen). The last part of you cmmt is a straw-man and therefore I won't be commenting on it. Regards. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] <sup><font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - There is some opinion on Wikipedia by editors that the term Pseudoscience is an insult and that it becomes a BLP issue to claim a person is a Pseudoscientist. That is actually the very opposite, as we do not want to lump people who study UFOs with people who study space etc. In other words we should be careful who we add to the category, but it does serve a true and reasonable encyclopedic purpose in seperating atrue sceience from that of the Pseudoscientific community/world.--[[User:Mark Miller|Maleko Mela]] ([[User talk:Mark Miller#top|talk]])  23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 **'''Reply'''. Please look at the category structure. People who study UFOs are already categorised in [[:Category:Ufologists]], not in {{cl|Astrophysicists}} etc. Deleting this category will not alter that. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 00:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)