Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 15 September 2007

See also: Misplaced Pages:Featured articles with citation problems

Archives
pre-12/2003 and renaming poll Origins dispute up to January 1, 2005 up to January 1, 2006 up to May 1, 2006 up to Aug 7, 2006 up to January 31, 2007 up to August 23, 2007

• ]

Fairly close to 2000 FA's

Not net, but gross: As of this writing, there are 447 Former Featured Articles (23 of which are now Featured, plus one which is now a featured list) and 1,546 Featured Articles. That leaves a net total of 1,970 articles to have ever been considered Featured (447-23=424, 424+1546=1970). So we are, as of this writing, 30 articles away from 2,000 articles to have ever been considered Featured. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This always puzzled me. Was the "1000th FA" given the that title using the above theory or did it just get the current number in 4 digets for the first time. Buc 06:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FA 1000 was gross, not net. See Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-12/Thousandth_FA. I don't particularly foresee any big deal made of the 2000th net FA as would likely happen when we reach 2000 gross FAs, I'm just pointing it out for reasons of perspective and as a bit of trivia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really; WP:FFA doesn't accurately track FAs lost during RBP and before Dec 2004. We've only audited through 2004. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but we are not talking Brilliant Prose, just specifically "Featured Articles." The stuff that was removed from BP or lost in the shuffle never technically became featured... if you include BP in the mix, as some are wont to do (and it can get fairly confusing), then we are hopelessly lost in trying to figure out an accurate gross. This number is only calculating what have been called and considered, specifically, "Featured."

Also, when I created WP:FFA, I believe I included everything from the FARC archives going back to March 2004, not December 2004. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not what we found in the recent audit. There were articles that were listed as featured and then removed that weren't counted at FFA. We may have passed 2,000 already. And, when I was in the history and diffs, I found that FFA and FA were a wreck until you got involved, and then they settled down. 2003 is the issue; you may have counted everything in archives, but a lot never made it to archives and we had to create files after the fact. People moved articles on and off of FA without a record, only an edit, not even always with an edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So how did you know what the 1000th one was? Buc 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Who knew what the 1000th was? It was likely a guess at best, considering the early (pre-2004) chaos in FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Brihanmumbai_Electric_Supply_and_Transport

I just looked at this FA and it seems that most of the sources come from the company website. That's not allowed is it? Else someone can make a nonsense puff-piece website about themselves and use that to write a rosy FA about themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Purplepickle (talk • contribs) 03:00, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Let FA appear on the main page without an image

There are a long of FA that have been FA for a very long time without appearing on main page, such as Something (over three years). I'm assuming that this is mainly due to them not having a good free use image that well depicts the subject. I proposes that in cases like this they appear without an image or some general image like a T.V for a media article. Buc 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For that specific article, there is a fairly easy fix in using a copyleft image of one of the individuals involved in the production. For instance, Harrison wrote the song, so use a version of this image to illustrate it on the main page. For instance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Young subject

I’ve just got the article James Milner up to GA status and I hope to ultimately get it to FA status. But what worries me is that the subject is very young and therefore the article is likely to need a lot of updates over the next few years.

Would this affect it’s chances if I were to make it a FAC?

Would it be better to wait before nominating and if so how long? Buc 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair made FA at some stage. So it's certainly possible to make an FA for a subject in which the details are likely to change significantly over the next few years. Reviewing editors should only be evaluating the FA based on how things are now not what may or may not happened in the future. If there is ongoing controversy then it sometimes can be difficult to make an FA. For example, I don't think anyone realisticly thinks GWB can be made a FA any time in the near future. However for this specific subject I definitely think it would be possible. But bear in mind unless you and other editors are willing to put in a fair amount of work keeping it up to date and in a good shape then it's likely that the article will degrade enough over time that it will probably be delisted after a FAR. Nil Einne 10:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting list of featured articles

I would like to discuss the possibility of formatting the featured article list with every item on a separate line (a break after every article.) Rather than having multiple article links on the same line.

The main pro of this change would be that the articles would be easier to search, especially if you try to do so in alphabetic order.

The main con would be that the page would become a lot longer.

I would personally be in favor of this change, because in my opinion, articles being easy to find should be the main concern on an overview page.

An example of how this might look:

Art, architecture and archaeology

· An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump

· Angkor Wat

· Felice Beato

· Belton House

· Matthew Brettingham

· William Bruce (architect)

· Buckingham Palace

· Campbell's Soup Cans

· Cathedral of Magdeburg

· Chicago Board of Trade Building

· Salvador Dalí

· Deconstructivism

· Dürer's Rhinoceros

· Adolfo Farsari

· El Greco

· The Four Stages of Cruelty

· Four Times of the Day

· Holkham Hall

· House with Chimaeras

· Hoysala architecture

· History of erotic depictions

· IG Farben Building

· Paul Kane

· Robert Lawson (architect)

· El Lissitzky

· Michigan State Capitol

· Henry Moore

· Sylvanus Morley

· Mosque

· Benjamin Mountfort

· Palace of Westminster

· Palazzo Pitti

· Palladian architecture

· Francis Petre

· Point Park Civic Center

· Pierre Rossier

· Sanssouci

· Scottish Parliament Building

· Shotgun house

· Shrine of Remembrance

· Sicilian Baroque

· St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

· Tech Tower

· Templon

· Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion

· Triptych, May–June 1973

· John Vanbrugh

· Roman Vishniac

· West Wycombe Park

· Xanadu House

Frostlion 10:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If nobody has a problem with it, I will go ahead and change the layout in a week or so. Please let me know if you would prefer to keep it in it's current layout. Frostlion 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, the articles are quite easy to find with the current layout, since they're already in alphabetical order. I see no benefit to greatly increasing the page length like this. Kirill 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing that makes items in a single line list easier to find is you can just move down until you get to the right first letter. In the current layout it's a fair bit trickier to do in my experience. Then again, maybe it's just me not being particularly handy. That's why I'm mainly curious if other people have noticed the same thing (it being tricky to find particular articles in the current layout.) Of course if I am the only one who has this problem, then you're absolutely right that it would be silly to change things.Frostlion 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine the way it is. There are currently 1591 FAs listed, my hand hurts thinking about scrolling down line by line to the bottom. ♫ Cricket02 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK as it is. Though you might consider putting something stronger between each article listing, like a "*":

Aldol reaction * Ammolite * Antioxidant * Baby Gender Mentor * Bupropion

SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 16:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You could bold the dot too, like this: • Titoxd 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Splitting?

Why is biology, medicine and psychology grouped together in the section "Biology, medicine and psychology"? I propose that Biology gets split off into its own section leaving the remainder as Medicine and psychology. I mean, biology and psychology could never be confused and I don't quite know why they were grouped in the first place. The section is quite long and there's undoubtedly going to be more additions, so if we split them now it saves a bit of work later, when most of the page is going to need revamping as is likely to happen. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Spawn Man 12:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Some articles overlap biology and medicine; I don't think that's a good split. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Such as? Warfare and history overlap, yet they are separated. How would you categorise an article such as the Treaty of Versailles? It's both history and it's a treaty which brought WWI to an end. I fail to see how this would affect any splitting of the section... Spawn Man 03:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many feature articles that cover multiple topics and hence can be placed in more than one section. As an example, Angkor Wat is currently in "Art & Architecture" but can justifiably placed in "Relgion" as well. It is inevitable that as the number of FAs grows and more classification groups are added, it will difficult to decide where certain articles should go. Gizza 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so if Angkor Wat (What??) overlaps, I'm sure the few article from medicine that overlap with biology wouldn't cause too much concern... Why, we could even rename them "Biology" and "Health". Spawn Man 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should take as example the GA page. It is well organized and easily searchable. CG 08:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The GA page isn't very attractive. The graphics are cartoonish and unhelpful, the collapsing sections don't seem to serve a purpose for the reader, and breaking up the articles into groups as small as 1, 2, or 3 is not useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:V0.5 dealt away with the collapsing sections, so that wouldn't be as troublesome as you imagine. Titoxd 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the collapsing sections are annoying and the sections of 1 or 2 are stupid, but in the near future, when almost every subject is going to have a featured article due to the sheer acceleration of Misplaced Pages's prgress, "Biology, medicine and psychology" isn't going to suffice. I'm proposing this not for now, but in preparation for the future. Anyway, I'm fine with it for now, but those sections of one or two aren't always going to be that small... Spawn Man 02:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I had to restore Parapsychology to its place as a sub-discipline of psychology. Parapsychology is a scientific discipline. Please see the recent ArbCom on the paranormal Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal for details. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to recent edit warring, I've had to remove the section here, pending consensus. Please see the ArbCom for details.

You're the one doing the edit warring! There's no need to delete an entire section to have a discussion. Given that ArbCom does not rule of matters of content, how is that decision relevant? WjBscribe 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom rules on matters of content when it wishes. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But the link you're pointing to does not indicate that ArbCom wants the article moved from one section to the other. While I don't object to moving it, your principle is flawed. Titoxd 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't my intent to do any edit warring- which is why I tried to remove the relevant section for discussion. Anyway, my second change gave the necessary reasons.

The case is pretty much cut and dried, per the ArbCom case, because parapsycholgy is called a scientific dicipline, and that is the reason given for not having it under psychology. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, as you see here, parapsychology is -to the extent these things are formal- under Transpersonal psychology, which is under psychology as you see here. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, parapsychology is not a scientific discipline. The article correctly labels it a pseudoscience. The arbcom decision says as much: The loci of this dispute are the articles centering on the Paranormal and similar subjects such as ufology or the occult which have traction in popular culture, but not in mainstream science... Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor. It is not going in biology, which is a science. It goes in religion/mythology/mystecism category, which is where belief systems go. Raul654 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The section that it belongs in is "Psychology" which happens to also share the same space as "Biology". Martinphi is not suggesting it is biology. The article does not label it as pseudoscience and neither did the arbitration. The article mentions the view of some that it is pseudoscience. Psychiatry Psychoanalysis, also considered by some to be pseudoscience, is likewise properly categorized as psychology. You mentioned in an edit summary that it is a belief. Parapsychology is not a belief and you only have to read the article to come to that conclusion. There are many sources in the parapsychology article linking it to psychology. --Nealparr 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And that section heading is a long-standing problem and not a good example for you to use, since there is not a single Psychology FA on Wiki–only Psychiatry articles which the Psychology Project has tagged. I remove the Psychology heading; WP Psychology members re-add it so they can claim FAs, although to my knowledge, they've never written one. That's part of why your consensus issue will be difficult; I can't opine where to put a Psychology article, when everything else in Biology and Medicine right now truly is Biology and Medicine, and the Psychology heading shouldn't even be there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion only centered around that section because it included "Psychology". Like I said, no one was suggesting it is Biology or Medicine. If psychology was there by mistake, that's fine and solves that problem (it shouldn't be in that section because psychology shouldn't be there). If psychology remains there, though, and isn't going to be removed, then there's a question of why not put it there since not doing so is pretty much saying it's not psychology, something not supported by the sources. But there's some other alternatives we're currently exploring as compromises that could hopefully skirt the issue altogether. --Nealparr 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope it helps you see the dilemma. I can't convince myself that Raul put it in the wrong place or that the ArbCom ruling has any bearing on its placement here, since there exists not a single Psychology article to which it can be compared, there are no Psychology FAs, and that heading is problematic on its own. We also have to take care with how we "skirt the issue"; that's why I advocate that everyone slow down, develop consensus, look at the big picture, and ... remove the inflammatory section heading. WikiDudeman raises a good question, for example, about where an article like homeopathy would be categorized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't read it properly in a few min. Here is a quote: "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way..."

This is very clear. Many people have the POV that parapsychology is not a science, but your or my opinions don't matter in Misplaced Pages. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Carl Jung, also arguably a pseudoscientist (though technically a psychiatrist), who engages in (quoted from the article) "exploring the worlds of dreams, art, mythology, world religion and philosophy" would also go under "Psychology" despite the actual things he applies psychology to being labeled "Religion, mysticism and mythology". The difference is one is a belief system and one is the study of things related to a belief system. Psychology is not a belief system and neither is parapsychology. --Nealparr 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, Carl Jung was a psyhiatrist/psychologist. In fact, if you go to his article, that's exactly what it says about him. ESP, psychokenesis, telepathy, ghosts, the occult, etc have no basis in science. As I said above, they are beliefs, and go with other belief systems. Raul654 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's exactly what I said, that he's a psychiatrist. With all due respect, if you can't read my short comments completely, how can your claim that you've read and are familiar with the subject matter of parapsychology be considered credible? Psychology deals with belief systems regularly without being considered a belief system. Parapsychology is likewise not a belief system. You only have to read the material to discover that. It's all there in the article. --Nealparr 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to abide by Misplaced Pages rules on this one. I've tagged the article till others have a chance to weigh in. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You and a handful of other people from Wikiproject:Parapsychology do not a consensus make. Raul654 01:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it irrelevant where the page is placed. Where it's placed here has absolutely no effect on anything IMO. I don't want to get into the "is parapsychology a science" debate again. Let's just end this here. It's not something to get into a debate over. Wikidudeman 01:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not placed in the category because it is or isn't a science. It's there because it's psychology. Perhaps if the category is split into two categories, one for "Biology, medicine" and a separate one for "Psychology", that can resolve the issue simply. --Nealparr 02:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No. POV-pushing of this type, especially by an admin, is unacceptable. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

@Raul654 - Your edit summary says "not psychology"? Huh? Read the article and check the sources. Psychology all over the place. I understand your statement that it isn't biology, but saying it isn't psychology is completely baseless and is a unilateral decision based on some sort of original research. --Nealparr 02:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Parapsychology" isn't technically a "belief system". Parapsychology is the attempted scientific study of claims of the paranormal relating to the brain. Many Parapsychologists don't believe in Psychics or Ghosts etc. Parapsychology is simply the study of supposed paranormal phenomena which relate to the brain or mind. Many(or all) of the studies showing positive results for the paranormal are criticized for having faulty experimental procedures, etc. This would make parapsychology a "fringe science" but I don't think "belief system" is a good way to describe it. Maybe a new category is in order which include fringe science. Wikidudeman 02:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And I wouldn't be opposed to another more appropriate category like "fringe science", or even "paranormal", or something that's supported by the sources. --Nealparr 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrative powers by User:Raul654

I see you've decided to abuse your admin powers by actually reverting a tag placed in good faith (with explanation), refusing to discuss rationally (above), and by protecting your reversion of the page. This will not stand, and will merely be taken to the next levels. You are fighting the Arbitration Committee here.

Ah, I see that Raul654 is actually an Arbitrator. Even worse. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, It's not a big deal. I don't think it's worth getting worked up over where the article is placed on this page. Wikidudeman 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I do- and even if I didn't, it has now become an issue of principle. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the category isn't that important, but one guy decides that it's not psychology? That doesn't seem right. Both the proponents of parapsychology and the critics are psychologists. Many of the references are from psychology journals. This is more a case of one guy upset because his personal point of view isn't supported by the sources. The category is less important than unilateral decisions and edits based on bruised egos. --Nealparr 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And it makes his actions far, far worse that he is actually an Arbitrator, and that he use admin powers in a way I've never seen them used before. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 doesn't get to decide if Parapsychology is a field of psychology or not. He simply decides where the article is placed on this page. It should be noted however, The Parapsychology article doesn't actually state that parapsychology is a type of psychology. Sure a lot of parapsychologists are also psychologists and parapsychological studies have appeared in psychology journals, but nowhere does it state that parapsychology is a type of psychology. Wikidudeman 02:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The combination of headings is highly problematic. Were other paranormal articles to make it here, they should not be lumped together with religion. However, parapsychology is a special case, being a sub-field of science. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this above. Raul's reason for shoving it down is that it isn't science. In this, he goes against all the other Arbitrators, in a formal decision. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it state that it is a belief system, religion, or mythology either. That's original research. The "psychology" part is supported by sources. If Raul654 gets to decide where it goes on the page, and no one else gets any input, and we don't have to go off sources, why doesn't he just create a pseudoscience category and place it in there if that's how he feels about it? I'm new to this whole FA thing, but when has anything at Misplaced Pages been just one guy's decision based on his own uninformed opinion? --Nealparr 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We could have a "Fringe Science" category, But there aren't really any other fringe science FA's to occupy it. Wikidudeman 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when? Obviously since an Arbitrator started abusing his position. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when what? All of the other articles on fringe sciences are not FA's. Wikidudeman 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a response to Nealparr's question "when has anything at Misplaced Pages been just one guy's decision based on his own uninformed opinion?" ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a fring science cat wouldn't work here, as stated by WDM. But perhaps we need a "paranormal" cat in the future, if other articles make it here. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stay cool, folks. Someone started off on the wrong foot here by removing a broad patch of FAs to the talk page, and 'ya jest can't do that. Raul is the FA director and an ArbCom member; he has broad discretion over the FA process, and he respects talk page consensus. You all haven't developed consensus that it goes anywhere other than where he placed it. I read the ArbCom decision, and I'm not convinced yet. There's no need to be starting sections here with inflammatory headings (which by the way is against talk page guidelines). I suggest that the person who started this section might start over by re-labeling the section heading. (Martinphi, that's one heck of a long sig; could you consider shortening it?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that was the wrong thing to do (on this page, that is). Raul does not respect consensus, that is patently obvious. If he respected consensus, he'd have noticed that two editors think it should be under psychology, and discussed things rationally. I admit I wouldn't be coming down so heavily on him were he a normal editor. But there isn't anything which I think is worse than abuse of power. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychology is an appropriate category. However, as a compromise, how about renaming "Religion, mysticism and mythology" to "Religion, paranormal, mysticism and mythology". Then it would be appropriate there as well. It's not religion, mysticism, or mythology, but it is the scientific study of the paranormal (strict def, not a point of view), so that would warrant inclusion there. Simple fix, please consider it. --Nealparr 02:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a sub-discipline of psychology, and is published in psychology journals or specialty journals, and exists under university psychology departments. And no, under any other circumstances we wouldn't be making compromises which we know are not really right. To knuckle under to city hall is immoral. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I don't accept scientific fields being lumped with religion. That would single parapsychology out of all the other sciences- in other words, controvert the ArbCom. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but a handful of editors involved with the article doesn't make consensus, and you really started off on the wrong foot by disrupting such a high-profile Wiki page with text removal and premature tagging. Cool off, give others time to weigh in (this really isn't an urgent matter), lower the rhetoric, and, um, change the section heading here, because Raul *is* in charge of the FA process, and you hadn't generated consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already said it was a mistake to remove the section. That doesn't excuse later actions. By the same token, one Arbitrator does not make consensus. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I know you are trying to make peace here. I'm all for that. But this is a matter of principle. I'm one of those who says it like it is. I'm never uncivil, but I say what I believe to be real- no matter the personal cost. And there is nothing in the world worse than abuse of power. I won't change that heading. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that's folk, not folk-s : ) I'm trying to get it "appropriately" classified and am stating my reasoning for doing so as clearly as possible. I didn't tag or remove anything, nor did I edit war or cause a ruckus. As such, I'm wondering why the "edit" button is now gone from the page for me. Am I being punished? --Nealparr 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if the Arbitrator thinks he has reason to block, let him block me alone. That would be wrong, but perhaps not as wrong as group punishment. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look folks, I know some people would interpret my reaction here as overboard or hysterical. But after all I've been through on Misplaced Pages -and this is saying a very great deal- I've never seen anything much worse than this. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's all I'm going to say for now, but this "matter of principle" doesn't have to be decided in a "matter of minutes", cool heads will make more progress, consensus works and Raul respects consensus, but disrupting the FA page will get no one anywhere. Cool down, wait for consensus to develop. That's all, folk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

About consensus

That's just it, the categorization did reach consensus. Not in minutes, but in years. Myself and other editors have been working on that article for at least a year and a half, have worked through several disputes, NPOV tags, polls, etc. to reach a categorization. We worked through the arbitration itself for several months, going over every detail. I can't tell you how many sources we've read through painstakenly. We've been objective and neutral in presenting all views on the subject according to weight. The result of all of that was that parapsychology resembles science enough that it shouldn't be blanketly referred to as "pseudoscience". Again, years of that and months of arbitration. If that's not consensus, I don't know what is. Imagine the frustration when one guy (sorry Raul654, but I have to be honest), decides completely and certainly that it is pseudoscience and that's that. If all the other stuff we've worked through isn't consensus, what makes consensus? --Nealparr 03:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration as consensus that parapsychology is not "a belief system":

3) Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor.

Passed by 7 members of the arbitration committee.

10.1) According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This has occurred in some instances; for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).

Passed by 9 members of the arbitration committee.

11) In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.

Passed by 8 members of the arbitration committee.

Note that this is in addition to months and months of conversations and compromises and consensus's reached in the article itself, by many editors who have come and gone and may not actually be monitoring this particular page for comment. All those discussions can be found in the archives of the parapsychology talk page.

All I'm saying (maybe the other editor's have differing opinions) is that it isn't a belief system, is appropriately described as "Psychology", and in the very least the heading "Religion, mysticism and mythology" should be modified if parapsychology is to be placed in it.

Thank you for your consideration of the consensus already reached. --Nealparr 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But it isn't acceptable to single out parapsychology for inclusion with non-science. If you want to put Psychology there also , then it's fine with me (see this essay). ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I'm afraid you're missing an important point in that point 11 you are using as evidence. The title. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Three_layer_cake_with_frosting. The point of that decision is that there are three separate classifications:

1. Mainstream science
2. Parapsychology
3. Popular culture not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology

In other words, the arbcom makes a differentiation between parapsychology and mainstream science. That decision does not support your claim. --AnonEMouse 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Differentiation between mainstream science and parapsychology, but not a differentiation between parapsychology and science. The term there would be "fringe science", which no one objects to. All three (especially 10.1) do draw a differentiation between parapsychology and belief systems, which was Raul's contention and reasoning for putting it in the religion/mysticism/mythology section. --Nealparr 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section name change

"Sport and recreational activities" to "Sport and recreation" Buc 07:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why not, but prefer to leave time for others to opine before changing FA headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything objectionable about this, so I've gone ahead and done it. Raul654 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Better headings

I would like to change the above heading, but I simply believe too strongly that it was -and remains- true, especially because Raul is in such a high position. But the reason I would like to change it is that I would like things to settle down to problem solving and to avoid all unpleasantness. I'm copying the following from Raul's talk page, since it would be more appropriate to discuss it here:

We do need a category which includes "paranormal." This is because there will be more articles, (like say Reincarnation research, which made good article at one point), which will make it here. But Parapsychology is a special case. After many months of work and a very contentious Arbitration in which Raul's viewpoint was eloquently expressed by many, including Wikidudeman, the Arbitrators wrote this:

...there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way...

This is not really open to interpretation; parapsychology is serious science, and deserves to be recognized as such- at least if other aspects of the field such as psychoanalysis are also recognized.

However, I understand Raul's reluctance to put the article under hard sciences such as Biology. I think what is needed is a heading Anthropology, sociology and psychology. Parapsychology would fit under that, with the rest of the questionable sciences (and I live on the Navajo Reservation, I know that Anthropology is very questionable(-: )

But parapsychology does not fit where it is. I have no idea why biology and psychology are lumped together. My position is that parapsychology is a sub-discipline of psychology. It may be hated, in reality it may be pseudoscience- but the ArbCom said it was science, and it is definitely under psychology. So wherever psychology is put, there also goes parapsychology, though it be the Harry Potter in the Dursley's house. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, the current problem is that there are no Psychology FAs, and the heading is only there because Psychology editors persist in putting it there. What Sociology and Anthropology articles do you propose populating the new section with? Would you be pulling those articles from Culture and society, and how would you distinguish the categories? How many articles would this new section contain? I posted Wikidudeman's hypothetical homeopathy question to the Medicine project, and the one reply so far gives a strong reason for including it in Medicine, since it is "health" related. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm new to this page. Tell me why do we have to have these combined headings?

Actually, what we're dealing with is purely Raul's POV- in other words an issue which the ArbCom is supposed to have decided. Parapsychology should be wherever psychology is. And psychology shouldn't be combined with biology. I understand the problem with the headings I think, and perhaps what needs to be dealt with is the POV. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On Placing 'Parapsychology'

First, I would like to suggest that items on this category page be reorganized to include a heading 'Social and behavioral sciences', which would include articles related to the disciplines/sub-disciplines of anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, and archealology. Second, I would recommend that parapsychology be placed under such a category. Contrary to Raul654's assertions aboove, parapsychology is not a belief system, rather, it is an area of academic expertise. While many people approach paranormal matters from belief or disbelief, parapsychologists typically approach them from a position of non-belief. In fact, some of the best skepticism of the paranormal comes from within this field.

Just a while ago, I was reading the proceedings of the Parapsychological Association's latest convention. The first paper I read was a correlational study on the relationship between paranormal beliefs, anxiety, and perceived locus of control. The second paper was on the neurophenomenology of hypnotic states using questionnaires and an EEG. And just before logging into this site, I finished reading a paper about the frequency of dissociative identity disorder symptoms in Brazilian mediums. All of these papers were presented by university professors at accredited universities. All of them fall under the academic discipline of parapsychology. All of them were attempts to study a set of behaviors and experiences scientifically.

Raul654, your edits suggest that you are conflating parapsychology with popular beliefs about 'the paranormal'. The Arbitration Committee tried to reduce this conflation with their recent decisions (which are referenced above). I respectfully request that you carefully consider the consensus of your peers, and that you read carefully the current parapsychology article, considering the quality of its sources. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Four talk page sections to discuss one article. Same question I asked above; what articles are you proposing to populate this heading with? Are you going to pull all of Culture and society, as well as Language and linguistics? How do you distinguish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It could have simply gone under "psychology" : ) --Nealparr 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if that is what it takes to stop conveying POV with headings, we need new headings- or none. An alphabetical listing. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there are minor problems that have been experienced before relative to categorizing articles under headings. But the immediate problem is purely that one editor has an opinion and the means to enforce it. Normally, this is considered against the spirit and rules of Misplaced Pages. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow SandyGeorgia, that's tough. I didn't realize that there were so few FA's at Misplaced Pages. Perhaps 'Social and behavioral sciences' isn't the best idea at this point in time. In its current state, parapsychology really belongs under 'Biology, medicine, and psychology' but next best heading for it would probably be 'Culture and society'. But the current categorization under religion is misleading. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, if you persist in that approach to this situation, you're not likely to generate useful dialogue, but you are likely to slow down a productive solution. It is not one editor; read the talk page, and please take care with accusations of POV. The situation is not that simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't merely about parapsychology. It is about preventing abuse of power in the future as well. I don't know how this will be acomplished, but it must be if Misplaced Pages is to remain Misplaced Pages. By stating the truth as I see it, by continuing to bear witness and to speak, I am doing my part. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Constructive (copied over from Raul's page):

Nielparr, Martinphi: How about changing the section header to 'Religion, belief, and the paranormal"? (I prefer to keep the section headers to 3 words or less) Raul654 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Martinphi may not be, but since parapsychology is the study of paranormal it is an appropriate category. I would suggest dropping "belief" and replacing it with mythology. Right now it's "Religion, mysticism, and mythology". Mysticism can be dropped because it's close enough to Religion. Mythology is needed because Greek mythology is in there. Beliefs also include philosophy, which has it's own category. So my recommendation is "Religion, Mythology, and Paranormal". But like I said, as long as it has "Paranormal" in it it's appropriate for parapsychology. --Nealparr 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You could alternatively change it to "Religion, Mythology, and Alternative Theories". Then it would house everything from UFOs to parapsychology to conspiracy theories to homeopathy (Wikidudeman was looking for a place for that in the future). The only qualification to meet "theoretical ideas" would be for it to be unproven. That can certainly be said of most paranormal subjects. --Nealparr 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are suggestions at WP Medicine that articles that are health care related, involving a healer-patient relationship (like homeopathy or chiropractic) belong in Medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I would like to suggest that articles that are related human behavior, involving the use empirical methods (like parapsychology) belong in Psychology. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul, thanks for trying, but parapsychology is categorized as a sub-discipline of psychology. It doesn't belong alongside religion, or mythology, and it is not the paranormal- only the study of some types of it. In other words, this is treating Parapsychology differently from everything else on the page- apartheid for a loathed science. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To make this even more clear: the only reason for this argument is that people don't like parapsychology. Even though the ArbCom said it was science, even though it is institutionally in psychology departments- still it is being singled out for lesser status and treatment. This is completely unacceptable, and though I am all in favor of compromise, I am against any compromise which treats parapsychology as second class. The scientists in the field deserve better than that. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not have psychology as a topic here. Nor are we going to be putting it into biology and medicine because, despite your repeated claims to the contrary, it is not science. And again despite your repeated claims, the arbcom did not say parapsychology was science, as Anonemouse pointed out above. You reject the paranormal heading because " is not the paranormal- only the study of some types of it". (1) The paranormal is: an umbrella term used to describe a wide variety of reported anomalous phenomena. According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions.". - Paranormal Which of the sections in Parapsychology#Scope are not paranormal: Telepathy, Precognition, Clairvoyance, Psychokinesis, Reincarnation, Hauntings. Last I checked, science deems all of these impossible. (2) As to claiming that parapsychology is only the study and is not these things itself, where the headings are concerned, this is a distinction without a difference. Raul654 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To make this even more clear: the only reason for this argument is that people don't like parapsychology. - no, this is an argument because you are trying to claim it is a science, when it is not. When parapsychology makes falsifiable predictions and tests them using properly (non-fradualent) controlled tests and published them in respectable peer-reviewed journals, then it can be called a science. Raul654 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, I would appreciate it if you would respond to my comments above which started this thread. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

When parapsychology makes falsifiable predictions and tests them using properly (non-fradualent) controlled tests and published them in respectable peer-reviewed journals, then it can be called a science. They have, and I wish that you would look into some of this research before mislabeling an entire field based on your preconceptions of it. Pick up a Journal of Parapsychology sometime. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect (Raul), that is exactly the view of the Parapsychology#Criticism section only and leaves out the other viewpoints in the article. If you check the sources on the research section, you'll find many of them are respectable peer-reviewed journals. Even James Randi, one of the most famous debunkers of the paranormal calls parapsychology a science. The view that it is -not- science is the minority view according to weight. The consensus on that has, again, been covered in depth over the course of at least a year and a half. I could elaborate, but all of this whether or not it is science stuff is besides the issue. The argument is that it is not a belief system, and that it belongs in psychology because it is psychology. That is supported by the sources and as such it doesn't belong in a category of beliefs. Again, with respect, and now aware that this page is your page, why is your view (the criticism view) the final say after a year and a half of work? I don't mean any disrepect by that. I'm just saying, all of this has already been covered ad naseum. --Nealparr 00:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical? Separate?

It looks like the thorny issues of headings are nearly impossible to resolve, and are only going to get worse. Alphabetical has a down side because it would be hard to find things merely by title of page. I do believe however that is might work if we had headings for each field. For instance, there would be a psychology heading. As it is, the headings group things which should be separate. Perhaps this would help people to feel that good things are not sitting beside bad things, accumulating pseudoscience by association.

This has the advantage of its being possible to make a seperate headings if someone objects that field Y is really not part of field X. You could say, OK, it can go under several headings, choose one, and then let people come to a consensus. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, under no circumstances are we going to throw out all the sections and have one big alphabetized list. Raul654 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree; would render the page unuseful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So how about breaking it down into fields? That was another option I suggested. I also don't like the alphabetized option. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we please lower the excess markup here, per WP:TALK#Good practice? Along with these monstrous sigfiles, it makes the page hard to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way to solve this is to bring up several articles to FA status and then make a new category called "Pseudo science, Fringe Science, Quackery" and another one called "Paranormal and Supernatural". Parapsychology could fit into either. Wikidudeman 01:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)