Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:33, 4 September 2008 editSelf-ref (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,295 editsm →Category:Pseudoskeptic Target: extended vote minor correct← Previous edit Revision as of 13:35, 4 September 2008 edit undoSelf-ref (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,295 editsm →Category:Pseudoskeptic Target: bracket fixNext edit →
Line 39: Line 39:
::*Fourth, specifically with regard to citation and reference, while it is quite true that the scientific community is more adept at documenting its progress and the references that it builds to justify this (one of the reasons that i <i>love</i> science and its treatment of the objects or subjects of its evaluation in its respective sandboxes), the fact is that by and large the factions being targetted here by pseudoskeptics and 'picked off' with the unfair labelling practice employed is that they are disorganized, tend to be nonscientific (in many cases far more <i>artistic</i> honestly, proceeding intuitively and without strictly empirical standards), and aren't likely to bring to bear any sort of representative defense against an establishment whose proponents are well-organized and interested in effacing them from cultural participation. What should be happening in the topical areas of coverage within Misplaced Pages are citations from the authorities within the <b>respective fields of endeavour</b>, rather than a strict critical standard applied across the broad spectrum of knowledge such that each topical zone becomes a battleground of empirical vs non-empirical viewpoints, perspectives, and values. For some of the same reasons mentioned in this paragraph it is very unlikely that sufficient and convincing reference will be brought to bear in the defense of the assertion of pseudoskepticism being a hegemonic cultural attempt, and the best that might be attempted here is a reasoned argument disclosing for the interested reader the evident facets of the struggle which may be interpreted as such a hegemonic attempt on the part of particular cultural factions in pursuit of hegemony. ::*Fourth, specifically with regard to citation and reference, while it is quite true that the scientific community is more adept at documenting its progress and the references that it builds to justify this (one of the reasons that i <i>love</i> science and its treatment of the objects or subjects of its evaluation in its respective sandboxes), the fact is that by and large the factions being targetted here by pseudoskeptics and 'picked off' with the unfair labelling practice employed is that they are disorganized, tend to be nonscientific (in many cases far more <i>artistic</i> honestly, proceeding intuitively and without strictly empirical standards), and aren't likely to bring to bear any sort of representative defense against an establishment whose proponents are well-organized and interested in effacing them from cultural participation. What should be happening in the topical areas of coverage within Misplaced Pages are citations from the authorities within the <b>respective fields of endeavour</b>, rather than a strict critical standard applied across the broad spectrum of knowledge such that each topical zone becomes a battleground of empirical vs non-empirical viewpoints, perspectives, and values. For some of the same reasons mentioned in this paragraph it is very unlikely that sufficient and convincing reference will be brought to bear in the defense of the assertion of pseudoskepticism being a hegemonic cultural attempt, and the best that might be attempted here is a reasoned argument disclosing for the interested reader the evident facets of the struggle which may be interpreted as such a hegemonic attempt on the part of particular cultural factions in pursuit of hegemony.


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


* '''Delete''' or rename to ] (or other). ] (]) 12:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC) * '''Delete''' or rename to ] (or other). ] (]) 12:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:35, 4 September 2008

< September 3 September 5 >

September 4

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:80's Metal muiscal groups

Category:80's Metal muiscal groups - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Uncontrolled criteria category. Appears to be just a fan favourite list that overlaps with existing parent categories for heavy metal music. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Romanian people

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

Category:Pseudoskeptic Target

Category:Pseudoskeptic Target - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: This category has no references to back up the claims it makes abouy pseudoskepticism being a hegemonic cultural attempt! Gillyweed (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Gillyweed (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Preliminarily, and for clarity's sake as regards this nomination for deletion, the term 'hegemonic' is being used in a specific sense with respect to the extant cultural conflict. Whereas it is usually employed to describe "aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination" (over smaller ones) (ref: dictionary.com), in this instance it is describing aggression and expansion/exclusion of cultural factions which are vying with one another outside and within Misplaced Pages.
  • Secondly, the argument for keeping this category is, initially, to be found at my Talk page, in Sections 1/2/3 prior to the CfD notice appearing there, with its Section 3 being an explanation of the use of the term 'hegemonic' when applied to the cultural struggle being engaged. By its aspects of pejorative dismissal and exclusivity in the arena of knowledge, incursion and dominance for attention and throughput, the hegemonic character of pseudoskepticism is self-evident.
  • Thirdly, fine and realistic skepticism of (especially) the categories mentioned in the above presentation should allow the topics themselves and the pages which describe them a safe haven from oversight by and contention with skeptics. It is this characteristic of labelling a category and page and topic 'pseudoscience' -- regardless of whether in fact its participants try to give the impression of being science; regardless of whether it falls into the same species of object, as compared to a supposed phenomenon, a set of techniques for achieving a supposed result, a list of those with whom the pseudoskeptic disagrees such as occultists, or some theoretical principle or platform with which the skeptic disagrees -- which earns the skeptic the prefix 'pseudo', and discloses in part the hegemonic character of their activities. Another important indicator of this character is the haphazard, or worse, strictly inconsistent application of skeptical analyses and challenges (so as to reveal some of the favouritism or bias being brought to bear in this application), disclosing for the careful observer the factional identity of those issuing the challenges and those to whom they are being issued (note the comparison mentioned by cat yronwode between treatment of the religion of Thelema which purports to employ the method of science toward the aims of religion (no attention) and that of Spiritualism which issue no contentions about being scientific at all).
  • Fourth, specifically with regard to citation and reference, while it is quite true that the scientific community is more adept at documenting its progress and the references that it builds to justify this (one of the reasons that i love science and its treatment of the objects or subjects of its evaluation in its respective sandboxes), the fact is that by and large the factions being targetted here by pseudoskeptics and 'picked off' with the unfair labelling practice employed is that they are disorganized, tend to be nonscientific (in many cases far more artistic honestly, proceeding intuitively and without strictly empirical standards), and aren't likely to bring to bear any sort of representative defense against an establishment whose proponents are well-organized and interested in effacing them from cultural participation. What should be happening in the topical areas of coverage within Misplaced Pages are citations from the authorities within the respective fields of endeavour, rather than a strict critical standard applied across the broad spectrum of knowledge such that each topical zone becomes a battleground of empirical vs non-empirical viewpoints, perspectives, and values. For some of the same reasons mentioned in this paragraph it is very unlikely that sufficient and convincing reference will be brought to bear in the defense of the assertion of pseudoskepticism being a hegemonic cultural attempt, and the best that might be attempted here is a reasoned argument disclosing for the interested reader the evident facets of the struggle which may be interpreted as such a hegemonic attempt on the part of particular cultural factions in pursuit of hegemony.
  • Finally, and ultimately, we are not, by my estimation, dealing here merely with the consideration of a single category (Pseudoskeptic Target) and its substantiation or legitimacy based simply upon its cited references, though that is of course what this discussion and strawpolling shall determine. The point in part of the creation of this category was to underscore the serious problem which pseudoskeptics are making for the integrity of the knowledge base that Misplaced Pages has the potential to and may become if some balance may be struck between those who are opposed to the topics of contention and those who are trying to represent in a fair light and from a NPOV categories and topics which may be labelled 'pseudoscience' and castigated by the scientific establishment for sociopolitical purposes. The misuse of this term in application for knowledge's sake is not therefore justified, even though one might be able to cite scientific opinion as to the legitimacy of employing this pejorative term to the target within Misplaced Pages. At that point the NPOV is abandoned and the real struggle between the (sub)culture being described and the skeptical advocates outside of it will have entered into a presentation about the topic itself. This is not only obscuring of the presentation, but places additional hurdles and roadblocks beyond general citation before those interested in issuing coverage of these topics for the benefit of Misplaced Pages readers. If this inhibitory practice is allowed to continue unabated, Misplaced Pages will be left behind for all contended zones of inquiry and become an encyclopedia featuring only 'solid' topics such as are supported by the data from natural sciences and conventional, uncontested topics such as games, sports, and cuisine. Other wikis will then take up protected zones of coverage for the disputed topics, and we can only hope that what develops there will begin to influence the content of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps this lesser content, lesser coverage (by net result) quality to the information showcased is truly the interest and intention of those driving and supporting Misplaced Pages's current pro-skeptic stance, but i don't it is sustainable as presently pursued and am taking steps to voice an objection to it in as clear a way as is possible before moving on to other wikis where my interests aren't impeded by those who are arrayed against me in cultural struggle.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)