Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

v • d • e
Featured articles discussion 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 • up to September 19, 2007 • up to April 10, 2008

Contents

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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(?!? - cool stuff) 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. GizzaDiscuss © 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(?!? - cool stuff) 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 Wikipedia'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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal for details. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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(?!? - cool stuff) 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. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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)

Inserted for cause of direct reply, after the fact:
There actually exists an extensive amount of periodical and textbook literature into the study of parapsychology, including, of all places, the Soviet Union, per that nation's intense research into the field, circa the mid-1950s. Spiritism, as well, and the studying of possible psionic properties of the human mind have been a staple of research since the later part of the 19th century. Scientific studies into actual temperature anomalies of "haunted" houses have been undertaken since the 1970s...and their findings have been published. Appealing, therefore, to "mainstream" science, rather than SCIENCE, is basically a classic example of marginalization, and tacit statement that, to quote a certain author, "some are more equal than others." Raul has indeed abused his extensive power, in this matter. --Chr.K. 11:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Except that Parapsychology is not a belief system. Parapsychology is not the source of paranormal beliefs or a catalog of them, it is the study of a limited subset of them using science, hence it is an academic discipline and therefor a science.
You do realize that under your categorization a laboratory that studied finds from Egyptian tomb would be classified as being part of Egyptian mythology, and George W Bush's biographer would be classified as being President of the United States. - perfectblue 10:34, 15 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 (talk to me) 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 (talk to me) 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 Wikipedia. ——Martinphi (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 (talk to me) 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 (talk to me) 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to abide by Wikipedia rules on this one. I've tagged the article till others have a chance to weigh in. ——Martinphi (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)
If the handful is large enough, it makes a majority
Fortunately, this page is not a democracy, so spamming for supporters is not going to affect the outcome. Raul654 16:35, 16 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 (talk) 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 (talk to me) 02:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No. POV-pushing of this type, especially by an admin, is unacceptable. ——Martinphi (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 (talk to me) 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 (talk) 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 (talk to me) 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

People people people, you are all forgetting one thing. In order to legitimately debunk an event of phenomona you need to conduct a scientifically valid experiment, and when said event/phenomona is related to psychics etc, your experiment automatically becomes an exercise in parapsychology purely because of the subject matter. By denying that Parapsychology can be included as a science you are actually denying the scientific validity of people such as James Randi and organizations such as csicop that are dedicated to the scientific debunking of frauds.

So, what is James Randi? Is he a theologists, is he a mythologist, is he pseudoscientist? Because that's what you're effectively calling him. - perfectblue 10:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Let us look at this one piece by piece
  • Parapsychology institutes do not study religious texts such as the Qur'an or the Tora
  • Parapsychology institutes do not write religious material or promote the following of religion
  • Being religion is not necessary to be a parapsychologist.
  • Many religions heavily criticize parapsychology as it does not accept many religious views on creation, spooks (possession, poltergeists etc) and life after death, etc.

Therefore Parapsychology should not be categorized under religion

  • Parapsychology does not study folklore or urban/classical myths/legend
  • Parapsychology does not write or catalog folklore or urban/classical myths/legend
  • Parapsychology does not study modern conspiracies
  • Parapsychology does not write or catalog conspiracies

Therefore Parapsychology should not be classified under mythology, folklore, conspiracies or urban myths/legends

  • Parapsychology covers only a very small subset of the paranormal. For example it covers remote viewing and mind reading, but does not cover mysterious disappearances, ghost ships or bigfoot.

Therefore while Parapsychology can be categorized under the paranormal it should not be the only category

  • While some of the methods used in Parapsychology are dubious and others are not accepted by mainstream science, other methods are entirely scientific and are accepted by the mainstream. For example the controlled experiments of James Randi.

Therefore while it can be categorized as pseudoscience, this category would only apply if science was also included.

  • Parapsychology deals only with phenomona/hypothesis relating to the mind

Therefore it is a branch of the mind sciences: Lit Psychology.

I hope that this clears things up for some of you. - perfectblue 12:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to legitimately debunk an event of phenomona - perhaps you should read the definition of science. Science is based on evidence in favor of things; you must have evidence in support of something in order to consider it true; you DO NOT assume it's true until proven otherwise. You don't need ANY evidence to debunk something - you need evidence to support the non-falseness of it. In other words, a science doesn't do any debunking at all - it falsifies theories with evidence behind them and supplants them with newer theories that better explain the evidence. Raul654 16:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. ——Martinphi (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 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I do- and even if I didn't, it has now become an issue of principle. ——Martinphi (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 (talk to me) 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. ——Martinphi (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 (talk) 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. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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 Wikipedia been just one guy's decision based on his own uninformed opinion? --Nealparr (talk to me) 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 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Since when? Obviously since an Arbitrator started abusing his position. ——Martinphi (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 (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That was a response to Nealparr's question "when has anything at Wikipedia been just one guy's decision based on his own uninformed opinion?" ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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 (talk to me) 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. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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 (talk to me) 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. ——Martinphi (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 Wikipedia -and this is saying a very great deal- I've never seen anything much worse than this. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators should not be involved in the editing of a page, this is a clear violation of their neutrality. An editor should be a participant or an arbitrator, but not both. I request that they voluntarily give up their status as an arbitrator, or that they cease involvement in the dispute. - perfectblue 10:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Request denied - arbitrators are editors before they become arbitrators, and editors they remain. Raul654 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrators should not make edits to content of pages involved in cases they are handling; this in order to maintain neutrality and integrity, but they should not be required to give up their editing rights.Rlevse 16:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 (talk to me) 03:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. ——Martinphi (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 (talk to me) 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). ——Martinphi (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. Wikipedia: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 (squeak) 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 (talk to me) 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse, the point being put above is that Parapsychology is a science that is complimentary to mainstream science but that it is not a full part of it. I hate to tell you this, but many areas of physics, biology and psychology are sciences but are not mainstream sciences. Cloning and stem cell research, for example. Please read the definition of Parapsychology, it is "the scientific study of...." - perfectblue 10:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
At this point, your comments have deviated so far from reality it is hard to tell where to begin. (1) Cloning is main stream science - it has been done in the laboratory since the 1960s. I suggested you read the article on it before making further comments about something you clearly do not understand. (2) Stem cell research is mainstream science. It has been done in the labatory scince the 1980s. The University of Wisconsin holds many lucrative patents on stem cell technology. Stem cells have been used to cure paralysis in a quadriplegic Korean woman. I suggest you read the article on stem cells before making further comments about something you clearly do not understand. (3) Nowhere in the parapsychology article does it say Parapsychology is "the scientific study of....". It is highly unlikely it would have passed the FAC had it said this. Raul654 16:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Arguments about what is and is not mainstream aside, I think you should try to convince your fellow Arbitrators- not us, since the problem we had here is now solved. I think you need to reconsider your use of your admin powers. As an arbitrator and as an admin, you have a responsibility to follow Arbitration decisions, and to act in a neutral manner. Instead, you treated this subject purely out of your own POV. That was abuse of power. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...[1]

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. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

I'm not certain that Parapsychology could be classified as a social or a behavioral science as it primarily deals with the minds interaction with its environment rather than the minds operation within its own boundaries. It should still be clasified as a sub-discipline of psychology though. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 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 (talk to me) 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 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. ——Martinphi (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 Wikipedia. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not the time for unilateralism. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow SandyGeorgia, that's tough. I didn't realize that there were so few FA's at Wikipedia. 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)
Agreed, at no point does parapsychology deal with the study, practice or formation of religious beliefs. The only area where it even crosses paths with religion is survival after death, and then that is on an extreme fringe of parapsychology that many parapsychologists avoid. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 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 accomplished, but it must be if Wikipedia is to remain Wikipedia. By stating the truth as I see it, by continuing to bear witness and to speak, I am doing my part. ——Martinphi (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 (talk to me) 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 (talk to me) 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. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, mythology deals with period events whereas parapsychology deals with the contemporary. Parapsychology deals with empirical data whereas mythology doesn't. The mythology and parapsychology are as disparate mythology and history. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 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. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In case anybody is interested, in Princeton Parapsychology was researched under the headings of psychology physic and engineering. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 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 "[parapsychology] 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)
Actually, thae arbcom said that it was not a mainstream science but that it was founded on the basis of using scientific principles. making it branch of the science family. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 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)
Ah, here we have a completely different problem. If a "respectable peer-reviewed journal" were to regularly publish Parapsychological articles, I'm reasonably confident that you (among others) would question whether it really was a "respectable peer-reviewed journal" after all simply because it was publishing Parapsychological articles. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 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 (talk to me) 00:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul, re what you say above. I could address each point, but this has been addressed over and over for months. I do not understand your position here. You seem to be in charge of this page in a way I haven't seen before on Wikipedia- and you are using that position to go against your fellow arbitrators (the ArbCom does clearly state it is a science, see quote above). If we had to convince each and every editor who came along of the same things, Wikipedia would be hopeless- that is why we have general consensus and Arbitration. So what are you doing here? Please tell me or direct me to where I can find out. You are wrong in your arguments above, but having convinced the ArbCom, I feel we shouldn't have to go through it again with individual editors. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice little POV there, but I think we can do things without throwing derogatory labels. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with a pseudoscience category is that rarely is anything "just" pseudoscience. For example, the pseudoscience of creation science belongs in religion. The pseudoscience of astrology belongs in occult or New Age. The (arguably) pseudoscience of psychoanalysis belongs under psychology. The field of parapsychology (claimed by some to be a pseudoscience) belongs under psychology. Pseudoscience is a useless category except for things like the Time Cube which would probably be better classified as "entertainment" anyway. But, geeze, again, this isn't an issue of whether or not parapsychology is science or not. The issue is whether it is a belief system and belongs in the category "Religion, mysticism, and mythology". It is not a belief system and isn't related to any of the three. It is related to psychology, but that keeps getting shot down without explanation. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The (arguably) pseudoscience of psychiatry belongs under psychology. Is psychiatry pseudoscience now, or did you mean to say psychoanalysis again? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Relax. I meant psychoanalysis. I have "psychiatry" on the brain because of another off-site project. To be honest, I wish we'd get off the whole pseudoscience issue and get back to finding a better category than "belief system". It really doesn't matter if it is science or pseudoscience -- plus it means I don't have to make a typo again : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's what I've been trying to say. I've asked twice specifically how people would re-organize the sections, and gotten no answer. All I get is, it should be part of Psychology, but we have no Psychology FAs, so we need to come up with something. Clearly, there is a difference between parapsychology and everything else currently in Biology and Medicine. We need a workable proposal based on something more than emotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Since there's not enough articles to populate a split-offed "Psychology" or "Social sciences" section, I'm cool with "Religion, Mythology, and Paranormal". That's just me though, and is based solely on the lack of FA articles. If there were enough articles to populate the section, I'd have a stronger feeling about it being placed under "Psychology". --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
(As the person who came up with it) "Religion, Mythology, and Paranormal" is something I can agree with Raul654 04:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That may work for now, but it won't solve the bigger issue of where Psychology belongs (not that any Psychology FAs appear imminent), and the problem that we will eventually have to come up with a way to sort out Biology from Medicine (not yet, but someday, at the rate TimVickers and Casliber are going). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If psychology belongs under that heading, so do all the sub-fields of psychology. Putting it anywhere else is simple non-consensus prejudice, against the ArbCom, and against common sense. Parapsychology means "beside psychology." ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Like you said, *if*. There are no Psychology articles, and I've always had a hard time imagining one that would fit there, along with medical diagnoses, birds, dinosaurs and whales. I don't know of a reasonable scheme that would include Psychology with Biology, and I don't think it belongs there. And that's without even getting into the issue of whether tooth enamel and Bald eagle belong in the same grouping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Change "Psychology" in "Biology, Medicine, and Psychology" to "Psychiatry" and then it's a non-issue. Parapsychology wouldn't go there because it's "Biology, Medicine, and Psychiatry". Nope, that's not a typo this time : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If psychology were eliminated from all headings, and "paranormal" added to "Religion, mysticism and mythology," that is a good solution. But parapsychology should be wherever psychology is, or wherever there are any articles in a sub-cat of psychology. Because if there isn't a psychology heading, then parapsychology belongs with paranormal. But if there is a psychology heading, then parapsychology belongs under that. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If there's an agreement to modify it to "Biology, Medicine, and Psychiatry" that sounds like a good consensus for SandyGeorgia as well. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty funny that apparently parapsychology is the first thing from psychology to get here, lol. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
(after many edit conflicts) Psychiatry doesn't need a separate label any more than cardiology or endocrinology do; it's medicine. The real issue here is where to put Psychology. Does List of Dewey Decimal classes help? It groups Psychology with Philosophy, and includes Paranormal there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought of that one but didn't know how it'd be recieved. "Philosophy and Psychology" would work for me. Put parapsychology in there and let the reader make their own judgement on whether parapsychology is a philosophy or psychology : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm liking it; no negatives or POV have occurred to me, and I see the natural overlap when I look at the Dewey list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The view that it's a belief is covered as well because that's what philosophy covers -- metaphysics. It wouldn't be the first time parapsychology was lumped with metaphysics. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal and parapsychology under new section, Philosophy and psychology

(per List of Dewey Decimal classes)

So it would be under the heading "Philosophy and Psychology"? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Concur. Why re-invent the wheel? Great idea Sandy. It's a rational way to call the issue done and let us move on. Good ol' Dewey. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I can live with this. I'll go ahead, unprotect, and make the changes. Raul654 05:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting for agreement, Raul. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raul! Sorry to have bothered you with all this : ) Now that it's settled I'm off to read the Dewey Decimal System article. Lived with the system all my life and never thought about it before today. Wikipedia is great! --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent resolution! --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 06:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about placement and POV headings

I am very concerned about POV expressed in the headings on the FA page, and about mis-categorization based on editor's POV. I am not concerned for the present, but for the future. There are many articles of a scientifically iffy nature, such as those dealing with the paranormal, or such articles as Cold fusion. It was suggested above that a heading such as "Pseudo science, Fringe Science, Quackery" be created for them. Recent dealings with Raul make me feel very uncomfortable on three counts:

  1. I feel that Raul might be willing to bias the reader with headings such as the above
  2. I feel that consensus is not respected on this page, but rather the views of a single editor are primary.
  3. I feel that Raul cannot be depended upon to allow scientifically iffy subjects to reside under their proper headings.

I am in a position in which I have the potential to get several articles to FA status. However, I would rather they never reach that status than have a situation recur like that which recently took place surrounding Parapsychology. Unless this situation is resolved, I have no choice but to do my utmost to keep articles on the paranormal or fringe science from achieving FA status, because I cannot be sure that they will be placed under the proper heading (as with Parapsychology), or that the headings will be NPOV. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you feel that consensus ultimately prevailed on the parapsychology article's placement, with an optimal solution attained? Why would it not prevail in a similar, future situation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It did, because you came up with an ingenious solution. If no one had been a genius, then the POV of a single powerful editor would have been enforced. I can work fine under the usual rules of Wikipedia. But I have no assurance that a dictator, even if in the end he accepted a benign solution, will act so well in the future. You see, although we came to a good solution, the issues were never resolved, only worked around. Until they are resolved, probably by placing this page under the same rules as other Wikipedia articles, I can't be sure that NPOV will be maintained.
Could you do me a favor and point me toward an explanation of how this page is governed? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't come up with an ingenious solution; I posted to the Medicine Project, and I encouraged dialogue, and we all came to a solution. That is how consensus works. I could understand that you might feel that you have a case of abuse by Raul if there had not been serious disruption to an important main page link before Raul had to protect. Given that this page was disrupted, I felt Raul acted within reason. Given that we resolved it within a day, I don't feel concerned that a similar situation can't be resolved in the future. I can't point you to a single discussion; there have been too many in too many places, and Raul's appointment as FA director predates my year and a half on Wiki. The FA process would simply fall apart if it didn't have a director, and every time that is discussed anywhere, consensus has been the same (we need one FA director). Reason usually prevails, as it did here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I made a mistake with this page. I've encountered many editors with Raul's POV, but usually the re inexperienced, and they are almost never admins. Even when they are, they do not use their powers the way he did. I treated Raul as if he were a normal editor, and I treated this page as if it were a normal article page. In both of these things I was wrong.
That issue aside, I consider the willingness to let personal opinion dictate the way this page is run utterly unacceptable. I know paranormal to be an exception. Normally reasonable people do not act reasonably, scientifically, or in a consensual manner in relation to it. I have seen this over and over, as very smart and reasonable people degenerate into raving POV-pushers when faced with what they consider dangerous unscientific superstitious hogwash.
I've outlined the things I find unacceptable above. I think a solution needs to be reached, such that the POV of one person cannot rule this page. No matter how reasonable Raul usually is, I cannot trust him to be so on subjects surrounding the paranormal or pseudoscience. He is willing to ignore consensus -even the consensus of his fellow Arbitrators- if that is what it takes to (in this case) stop parapsychology from being under the same heading as biology (for whatever reason).
I'm not asking that this page have no director. I'm asking that -somehow- the powers of the director not extend to matters of NPOV. Those should be dealt with in the same way as they are in other Wikipedia articles. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I see it differently. Raul did respect consensus; Raul's placement did not prevail. He did not ignore consensus. There was a "burp" in the interim because the page was disrupted, and he had to protect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not concerned about what happened. Though we shouldn't have had all that argument, the end result was great.

I'm concerned about the future. I don't want articles -most of them with far (faaaaar) less scientific standing than parapsychology- coming to this page if I can't be assured they will be treated fairly. I don't trust individuals. I'm not singling out Raul as a person. I'm sure he is reasonable and a good guy.

Now, I have to say that he without any doubt ignored the consensus of his fellow Arbitrators. That is a plain fact. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's open to interpretation, since several of us read that ArbCom decision differently than you do. I don't think you have a clearcut case here, because there wasn't another category where the article logically fit. Now there is, that should cover future issues, and if there'a another unforeseen similar future issue, calm heads should prevail in sorting it out. You would have a case if 1) everyone read the ArbCom decision the same way you do, and 2) Raul had not moved the article after we all came to consensus. You'd have an even stronger case if there had been no "burp" in the middle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

...there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way...[2]

The fact that people are "reading this differently than I do" is exactly my point. Apparently people can read those words and still think that there was no consensus among the arbitrators that academic parapsychology is a scientific discipline. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The main issue

The main issue here is that the power-structure of this page as it stands prevents me from supporting FA status for scientifically iffy articles. I would hope this could be addressed. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "scientifically iffy articles"? Can you provide some examples? — BillC talk 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
E.g. Cold fusion, String theory, Ganzfeld experiment, Parapsychology. Anything covered by WP:FRINGE, and some that aren't. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever compare String theory to parapsychology, Ganzfeld or Cold fusion. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This page grows and expands to accomodate new articles as needed; we deal with those kinds of articles as they come up, just as we dealt with parapsychology. We don't currently have a heading for everything; if we did, this page would look like the WP:GA page (ugh). Biology and medicine don't belong together either, but until one or the other grows large enough, they are toegether. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi is incorrectly equating string theory and cold fusion with psuedoscience like parapsychology. Cold fusion is a unsolved engineering problem - how to build a low-energy reactor that doesn't consume more energy initiating the reaction than the reaction produces. The science behind the problem is quite sound. String theory, though complicated, makes falsifiable predications (like super-symmetry). Parapsychology is not a science, Martinphi's repeated false claims about the arbcom decision not withstanding.
As for Martinphi's future non-support of such articles - if that is the case, then your support or opposition for such articles will not affect the outcome of any FAC nomination. Raul654 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is trolling, basically. Marskell 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not alone in my opinions here. There is a genuine issue of abuse of power here, as the above edit eloquently shows- apparently he also has the power to make my opinions count for nothing if I base my vote on whether NPOV will be maintained here. As for string theory, I urge you to actually read the article. At least Parapsychology is falsifiable [3].

So I repeat, it is wrong that issues of NPOV are controlled by a single editor, who in this case is obviously hostile to certain subjects, and willing to go against consensus- even the consensus of the ArbCom. What shall we, as Wikipedians who believe in the project, do to correct this situation?

But what I'd particularly like to call attention to is Raul's dependence on his own opinions. Our opinions seldom matter. What he thinks about parapsychology is irrelevant. What he thinks about anything here is irrelevant. Only what sources say is relevant- if Wikipedia is functioning properly. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. I am trying to find a solution here in which NPOV can be maintained. Raul's response was to disallow me to vote, if I vote based on whether or not NPOV will be maintained. This is more abuse of power. Therefore, it must be spoken against, and specifically addressed. I refused above to change a headline, because I felt abuse of power had taken place. Now, I know I was right. This must change. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your future non-support for Featured Article Candidates based upon what you term the power structure for this page is not an actionable objection during WP:FAC; there is nothing the nominator of such an article can do for you, nor are such concerns covered by WP:WIAFA. For this reason, it will not affect the outcome of any FAC nomination. — BillC talk 23:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm still learning how this stuff works, but in that case why did he say "if that is the case," instead of just saying that it doesn't count? What the nominator can "do for me" is to express reservations about whether such an article will be treated in an NPOV way. This is a matter of freedom and fairness. As such, it requires of us as a duty to speak.
That aside, however, I'd like to focus on the fact that this page is being run in a manner in which the opinions of a single editor not only matter (our opinions shouldn't matter), but determine issues of NPOV. I don't care how well he does his job- all humans are fallible, and none should have such power at Wikipedia. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin says he's in a "position" to get several articles to FA status? This is a point that I would definitely take issue. Moving on from that blusterous assertion, he says he is going to do all that he can to PREVENT articles from reaching FA status? What does this mean exactly? It sounds sort of like a threat to hijack the wikipedia process to make a point, clearly in violation of WP:POINT. I certainly hope he isn't serious. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I have now reached my limit with your trolling. I received an email the other day from someone who has previously run into you, pointing me towards an old RFC about your conduct, specifically, about your "clear pattern of tendentious editing on paranormal-related articles". I can see this was not exaggerated. If you persist, your privilege to edit Wikipedia will be revoked. Raul654 00:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you talk to the other members of the Arbitration Committee. NPOV is NPOV. POV is POV. Power unchecked is wrong.
Raul, as I said above, I'm sure your a good guy. I take the word of the others who have worked with you. I've also asked for an explanation of how this page is run- and no one could say. Somehow, you seem to be able to do anything. Where is the decision on this? Where was it discussed? How did you get appointed? Who appointed you? Did you get appointed, or did you just decide to take over this page on your own because you are untouchable?
Don't I have a right and duty to ask these questions? What is the setup here?
Also, this has nothing to do with the paranormal. I has only to do with a seeming complete breakdown of Wikipedia. Perhaps I am completely wrong in everything I say. If I am, please explain it to me, as I have repeatedly asked. This is not trolling, but a request for information. As an open institution -I think- Wikipedia should not have power structures which are completely opaque. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I've also asked for an explanation of how this page is run- and no one could say. - the one-sentence explanation is that I moderate all aspects the featured article process on Wikipedia.
Somehow, you seem to be able to do anything. - within reason, yes.
Where is the decision on this? - here
How did you get appointed? - By nearly-unanimous consent.
Who appointed you? The FA regulars at the time.
Did you get appointed, or did you just decide to take over this page on your own because you are untouchable? I did it for half-a-year prior to being ratified, from February 2004 until August. Prior to February, there had essentially been no featured articles, no featured article process, and no main page FA.
Perhaps I am completely wrong in everything I say. - Yes, you are.
This is not trolling, but a request for information. - now that you have this information, I expect the misbehavior to stop right now.
As an open institution -I think- Wikipedia should not have power structures which are completely opaque. - Wikipedia is not a democracy Raul654 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I thank you very much for the explanation. That is a great deal of the information I needed. Also, thank you for confirming my position here- the Wikipedia is not a democracy expresses well what I've been trying to promote here- discussion and consensus.

I hope you will understand how creepy this experience has been for me. I initially made some mistakes, in thinking you were another inexperienced editor with a POV, and in thinking this was a normal page. But for the first time in Wikipedia, I came upon something official which seemed completely antithetical to the spirit of the place.

I do have one more question, and hope you'll be kind enough to answer it as well:

If Wikipedia is functioning properly, there is at least some recourse which I could take. This recourse would involve several people, for instance the ArbCom. I don't know that the regular dispute resolution process would work in this case, but where would I go if I wanted to resolve a dispute at a higher level?

This would be un-necessary at this time. I just want to know that there is some recourse. If there is, then the institution is functioning properly, and I have no more to say here.

I hope you (everyong here) will understand that my persistence and ethical stands is what has made me an effective editor. I defended NPOV in spite of multiple editors who came to a consensus against me (NPOV is not subject to consensus, though consensus usually promotes it). In the end, the Arbitration Committee essentially institutionalized my understanding of what NPOV was. I think that had you been involved, you would have come to the same conclusions, since Bauder started off with the position that Parapsychology is an "Obvious pseudoscience," and ended by calling it a scientific discipline.

I'd also like to urge you to explain where your position comes from to future editors who come across your power at this page. Otherwise, they will flail in the dark as I did, when encountering what seems to be a situation antithetical to Wikipedia.

I will always challenge what I feel to be wrong- it is my duty, even if it gets me kicked off of Wikipedia. What I told Bauder in the ArbCom case was this: I don't care whether you decide that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, and I don't care what happens to me- ban me entirely if that is what it takes. The worst thing you could do is to do nothing, because what we need here is some clear guidance. I'm not on an ego trip here.

I try to do the right thing even at the cost of my editorship, because I believe deeply in NPOV- in creating a Wikipedia which allows the reader to decide on the facts, and never because of an editor's personal feelings. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem here Martinphi? Parapsychology is in an acceptable section. Raul is not opposing it's current placement. He only protected the article initially due to edit warring. He's been discussing his opinions throughout. I fail to see any problem here aside from your constant bad faith accusations and threats to hijack the wikipedia process. You accuse Raul of "abusing" his "powers" and constantly rail upon that point for days and days and then you threaten to hijack the wikipedia process by attempting to prevent articles from progressing to FA status, all to make a point? Please, I urge you to just give it all a break. Take a few days off wikipedia and then come back with a clear head. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Explained thoroughly above. And on your talk page. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mercedes benz 0305

Does any one know whether mercedes benz 0305 1977 busses came out with lap seat belts for drivers seat????

== Sub articles - what standard? ==

To what degree is the quality of 'sub articles' taken into account, when reviewing the main artilce for FA? Must they be at least GA standard, for example. Sorry if I've missed this somewhere. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC) (reposted on current page - sorry)--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)