Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 8

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Let FA appear on the main page without an image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Young subject

message: 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
· 
· 
· 
· 
· Matthew Brettingham
· William Bruce (architect)
· 
· 
· 
· Chicago Board of Trade Building
· 
· 
· 
· Adolfo Farsari 
·  
 
· 
· Four Times of the Day
· 
· House with Chimaeras
· Hoysala architecture
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· Point Park Civic Center
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· Tech Tower
· 
· 
· Triptych, May–June 1973
· 
· 
· 
· 
Frostlion 10:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: You could bold the dot too, like this: • Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting list of featured articles 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Since when?  Obviously since an Arbitrator started abusing his position. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That's fine.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Request denied - arbitrators are editors before they become arbitrators, and editors they remain. Raul654 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Exactly. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Abuse of Administrative powers by [[User:Raul654]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Exactly. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: About consensus

message: "Sport and recreational activities" to "Sport and recreation" Buc 07:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't see anything objectionable about this, so I've gone ahead and done it. Raul654 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed section name change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: It could have simply gone under "psychology" : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, this is not the time for unilateralism. - perfectblue 13:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Credit goes to , who pointed me to List of Dewey Decimal classes.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for waiting for agreement, Raul. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent resolution! --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 06:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Placing 'Parapsychology'

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Alphabetical? Separate?

message: (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)
replies: text: *Credit goes to , who pointed me to List of Dewey Decimal classes.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for waiting for agreement, Raul. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent resolution! --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 06:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paranormal and parapsychology under new section, Philosophy and psychology

message: 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)
thread_title:  mercedes benz 0305