Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tcaudilllg/Esoterism in Academics: Difference between revisions

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.
< User talk:Tcaudilllg Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:54, 21 October 2009 editTcaudilllg (talk | contribs)1,051 edits removed vandalism by User:Rmcnew← Previous edit Revision as of 15:06, 22 October 2009 edit undoTcaudilllg (talk | contribs)1,051 edits →DiscussionNext edit →
Line 7: Line 7:
{{rfctag|prop}} {{rfctag|prop}}
''']''' ''']'''
:Hi, I'm Tcaudilllg and I am requesting your attention for a proposal to clarify Misplaced Pages guidelines with respect to "attempted takeovers" of non-esoteric fields of study by proponents of ]. This issue recently became a matter of grave import on the socionics article (]) and has now come to Arbcom's attention. However, Arbcom has no guidelines by which to rule. It is a frequent occurrence in academia, especially these days, that a person will do the work to get a PhD, making an actual contribution to their field along the way, and then use the authority associated with having a PhD as a megaphone to push far out, outlandish ideas (]), among them esoteric speculations. In ] this has indeed happened, and a person who obtained a PhD from the reigning authority in the field has taken it upon themselves to create their own institute with the apparent intention of pushing the notion that socionics, an offshoot of ], is a form of esoterism. A user on here took it upon himself for a time to advocate that position at the expense of the socionics article's quality. Although that dispute has been resolved between him and the disputing users (including myself and an official spokesman for the field, ]), it is still possible that another user might be taken in by the esoterism rumors. Further, it is unclear that the user in question will abstain from reinserting said rumors indefinitely, and if he does then Arbcom is without recourse because he apparently really believes he's right about it. It's a case of delusion overcoming sanity. :I request attention for a proposal to clarify Misplaced Pages guidelines with respect to "attempted takeovers" of non-esoteric fields of study by proponents of ] and other fringe theories. This issue recently became a matter of grave import on the socionics article (]) and has now come to Arbcom's attention. However, Arbcom has no guidelines by which to rule. It is a frequent occurrence in academia, especially these days, that a person will do the work to get a PhD, making an actual contribution to their field along the way, and then use the authority associated with having a PhD as a megaphone to push far out, outlandish ideas (]), among them esoteric speculations. In ] this has indeed happened, and a person who obtained a PhD from the reigning authority in the field has taken it upon themselves to create their own institute with the apparent intention of pushing the notion that socionics, an offshoot of ], is a form of esoterism. A user on here took it upon himself for a time to advocate that position at the expense of the socionics article's quality. Although that dispute has been resolved between him and the disputing users (including myself and an official spokesman for the field, ]), it is still possible that another user might be taken in by the esoterism rumors. Further, it is unclear that the user in question will abstain from reinserting said rumors indefinitely, and if he does then Arbcom is without recourse because he apparently really believes he's right about it. It's a case of delusion overcoming sanity.
:Aside from the esoterism issue, this user has made many constructive edits. I don't believe they should be singled out; rather I think what is necessary is that we clarify our stance. ] offered the approach of merely observing that some socionists had done research on esoteric subjects. I think we could extend that principle and argue that when a scientist does notable research that is outside of the purview of their field, then that research should be noted only as having been done by individual practitioners of that field, without carrying any connotations that the field is itself to be defined in such terms. This is especially true for esoterism. ] (]) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC) :Aside from the esoterism issue, this user has made many constructive edits. I don't believe they should be singled out; rather I think what is necessary is that we clarify our stance. ] offered the approach of merely observing that some socionists had done research on esoteric subjects. I think we could extend that principle and argue that when a scientist does notable research that is outside of the purview of their field, then that research should be noted only as having been done by individual practitioners of that field, without carrying any connotations that the field is itself to be defined in such terms. This is especially true for esoterism. ] (]) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:06, 22 October 2009

Proposed Guideline

Work done by professionals of a field that is not directly related to the field itself does not reflect on the field as a whole.

Discussion

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

User talk:Tcaudilllg/Esoterism in Academics

I request attention for a proposal to clarify Misplaced Pages guidelines with respect to "attempted takeovers" of non-esoteric fields of study by proponents of esoterism and other fringe theories. This issue recently became a matter of grave import on the socionics article ( see talk) and has now come to Arbcom's attention. However, Arbcom has no guidelines by which to rule. It is a frequent occurrence in academia, especially these days, that a person will do the work to get a PhD, making an actual contribution to their field along the way, and then use the authority associated with having a PhD as a megaphone to push far out, outlandish ideas (WP:Fringe), among them esoteric speculations. In socionics this has indeed happened, and a person who obtained a PhD from the reigning authority in the field has taken it upon themselves to create their own institute with the apparent intention of pushing the notion that socionics, an offshoot of analytical psychology, is a form of esoterism. A user on here took it upon himself for a time to advocate that position at the expense of the socionics article's quality. Although that dispute has been resolved between him and the disputing users (including myself and an official spokesman for the field, User:Rick DeLong), it is still possible that another user might be taken in by the esoterism rumors. Further, it is unclear that the user in question will abstain from reinserting said rumors indefinitely, and if he does then Arbcom is without recourse because he apparently really believes he's right about it. It's a case of delusion overcoming sanity.
Aside from the esoterism issue, this user has made many constructive edits. I don't believe they should be singled out; rather I think what is necessary is that we clarify our stance. User:Rick DeLong offered the approach of merely observing that some socionists had done research on esoteric subjects. I think we could extend that principle and argue that when a scientist does notable research that is outside of the purview of their field, then that research should be noted only as having been done by individual practitioners of that field, without carrying any connotations that the field is itself to be defined in such terms. This is especially true for esoterism. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Category: