Talk:Outline of academic disciplines and Talk:Gay: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Palaeovia (talk | contribs)
 
No we wouldn't, thank you. Put it on youtube.
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{notforum}}
{{WikiProject Education}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Reference pages project}}
{{Template:LGBTProject|class=B}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}}


{{archive box|
== Computer science ==
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
*[[/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
*[[/Archive 5|Archive 5]]}}


== Possible Weasel words ==
The recent move of the entire computer-science portion of the list from "mathematics and computer science" to "professions and applied sciences" seems totally unjustified to me, and the edit comments don't really help me understand why it was done. It is true that software engineering and related practical fields are sometimes taught as subdisciplines of engineering or applied CS, but there is a huge amount of academic research in CS which does not seem to fit very well under "applied sciences" at all, let alone "professions." I want to see a lot more justification (documented with sources, please, not just opinion) for this move before we do it. -- [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]]|[[User talk:Rbellin|Talk]] 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Does "the words gay man and lesbian are the most recommended words" amount to use of weasel words within Wikipedia's meaning? Recommended by whom?
As an addendum, note that UNESCO's [http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm classification] places computer science (48) under "science" alongside life sciences, physical sciences, and mathematics. -- [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]]|[[User talk:Rbellin|Talk]] 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


== Asterisk ==


None of the disciplines are labeled with an asterisk (*), suggesting that there is no field whose status is debated. If that's actually the case, the sentence discussing the asterisk should be removed. If that's not the case, someone may want to go around with an asterisk pen. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 21:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


== Concept of disciplines? ==
== Early Usage of word Gay ==


I just want to add this info to the section about the usage of the word "Gay," but I'm not able to edit the page. Also, I wasn't sure where to put it, or how to word it. I thought it would be useful, so if someone can add it, that would be nice. Thanks. (to verify, you can check this website with the date & lyrics: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dfox/porterlyrics.html)
There doesn't seem to be much commentary on the concept of disciplines in this article. I added a couple lines at the beginning. I hope, at some point, to add something from Discipline and Punish. Any suggestions? [[User:Fokion|Fokion]] 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Here's the information"
Also, I think that [[Science Studies]] should go somewhere. But where? It's interdisciplinary, but also a part of science, history, anthro, critical theory, philosophy... any suggestions? [[User:Fokion|Fokion]] 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Cole Porter's 1941 musical, "Let's Face It" explicitly uses the word "gay" in both a homosexual and a non-sexual sense. Lyrics for the song "Farming" repeatedly describe many celebrities engaging in rural activities because it makes them feel "glamorous and gay" (i.e. happy), and then includes the verse:
== "personal service professions" ==
"Don't inquire of Georgie Raft
Why his cow has never calfed,
Georgie's bull is beautiful, but he's gay!"
im a gay and to be gay is to like boy if u r a boy and to like girls if u are a girl! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Francis poeske|Francis poeske]] ([[User talk:Francis poeske|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Francis poeske|contribs]]) 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


[[User:Catdude]] added a section of "personal service professions" including things like [[cosmetology]] and [[nanny]]ing. It seems to me patently ridiculous to call these "academic disciplines," and I think the section should be removed immediately, but I'd like to solicit other opinions and evidence first. Can Catdude or soemone else give some serious sources for including them? I don't see how it will be possible to provide documentation showing these to be academic disciplines or fields of serious research. Perhaps some vocational colleges instruct students in some of these areas, but I can't imagine what research or study in something like nannying would even mean. -- [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]]|[[User talk:Rbellin|Talk]] 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing the aforementioned concern on the Talk page, [[User:Rbellin|RBellin]]. I perfectly understand your concern. For the "personal service professions" area, I was careful to only list fields that, from my observations, do receive attention in four-year college/university programs as opposed to just Associate/Foundation degree (two-year) programs or just certificate programs. Some of these fields (such as nannying) do have some overlap, or outgrowth, from Home Economics (aka Consumer and Family Sciences or Human Ecology). (Many professional nannies have four-year degrees in Home Economics or an allied area; the specific degree is oftentimes in, or closely related to, Early Childhood Development.) Others personal-service fields in question (such as mortuary science; travel, tourism and concierge services; and secretarial science) do not generally have such an overlap, but can be found taught in four-year institutions. (You can Google these terms and find evidence of four-year programs for them.) I was careful to leave out fields that seem to be, at this time, purely fields that would be just taught in two-year or certificate programs. (Such omitted fields would include areas such as carpentry, welding, and plumbing.) I was just trying to make the total list as "holistic" as possible, and again, do see how some people could be (in good faith) surprised or disagreeing with my inclusion of the aforementioned "personal service professions" area. Further comments, if any, are very welcome :) —Respectfully, [[User:Catdude|Catdude]] 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Since this usage is early, and totally unambiguous, and shows how the word was understood to mean both things, I thought it would be useful for this entry. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Raindeerroom|Raindeerroom]] ([[User talk:Raindeerroom|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raindeerroom|contribs]]) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Can you provide some credible evidence that there exist a significant number of university departments, scholarly journals or publications, and/or learned societies in these fields, then? As the article's lead sentence states, these are some reasonable indicators of whether a subject is an academic field -- which (n.b.) implies something more than that a course is occasionally taught about the subject. -- [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]]|[[User talk:Rbellin|Talk]] 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::That's a fair and scholarly question, [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]]; please allow me just a few days to get back to this question. At that time, I'll provide a substantive answer to your question (URLs, journals, etc.). —Respectfully, [[User:Catdude|Catdude]] 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm just a normal reader, but I agree with [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]]. It's absurd to put biology and life coaching together. When I saw the additions I laughed--they're just silly! Nothing personal [[User:Catdude|Catdude]], but I hope it gets cut soon. Good luck. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.104.25.25|71.104.25.25]] ([[User talk:71.104.25.25|talk]]) 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Gay is a word used in many insulting ways. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.240.20.61|96.240.20.61]] ([[User talk:96.240.20.61|talk]]) 19:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Why can't [[gayness]] redirect here? ==
: I have taken a small interest in this matter and have found that, while some primarily four-year colleges do offer degrees in cosmetology and mortuary science, none of them are four-year. Also, I found that no four-year schools offer degrees in life coaching, but there is an academic journal dealing with: [http://www.ijco.info/ The International Journal of Coaching in Organizations]. I hope this helps. [[User:Zrallo|Zrallo]] ([[User talk:Zrallo|talk]]) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


[[User:TheBlazikenMaster|TheBlazikenMaster]] ([[User talk:TheBlazikenMaster|talk]]) 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
== Rename to reflect content ==


:It can if you want it too. Create a redirect. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Since my attempt to cull the content of this page to what the title suggests it is about was quickly reverted I propose that this page be moved to [[List of fields of employment]] or suchlike. -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] <small>[[User_talk:Alan_Liefting|talk]]</small> 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::No, actually it can't. Don't believe me? Try to make the redirect yourself. [[User:TheBlazikenMaster|TheBlazikenMaster]] ([[User talk:TheBlazikenMaster|talk]]) 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


It has been used as an attack page in the past. East718 protected it because of this. You might want to ask [[User:East718]] to redirect it. The page should be kept under protection. [[User:ForesticPig|forest<b>PIG</b>]] 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
: I assume you're referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_academic_disciplines&diff=156040129&oldid=155824352 this edit] -- which was a massive deletion not justified by any prior discussion, with an edit summary that didn't explain ''why'' you proposed to delete such a large portion of the current list. Can you please explain what you want to happen, and why, in more detail, and provide some justification for your proposal? -- [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]]|[[User talk:Rbellin|Talk]] 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:Well, whoever protected this page from re-creation must have had a damn good reason why it can't redirect to this article. And I'd really wanna know what that reason is. [[User:TheBlazikenMaster|TheBlazikenMaster]] ([[User talk:TheBlazikenMaster|talk]]) 19:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
::I wouldn't fret too much about the gayness. I'm sure East718 will redirect it for you. [[User:ForesticPig|forest<b>PIG</b>]] 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
:::It isn't that much big of a deal anyway. [[User:TheBlazikenMaster|TheBlazikenMaster]] ([[User talk:TheBlazikenMaster|talk]]) 10:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


==Lead image==
There is no need to discuss what are good faith and appropriate edits on a talk page As editors we can '''[[WP:BB|be bold]]'''. ''Why'' I deleted info should be obvious - the links I deleted are way beyond the bounds of acedemia.
Why doesn't the image in the lead, currently the drawing from ''Punch'', illustrate the modern usage? [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] ([[User talk:Hyacinth|talk]]) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


==Meanings of "gay"==
I have seen other lists that have a similar slow creep of irrelevant links. For example:
This article is seriously flawed. It skips through the original meaning, and the bulk of the article is "gay means homosexual". Considering the length of usage of the "carefree" meaning, the article needs to be changed to reflect this. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/41.245.190.156|41.245.190.156]] ([[User talk:41.245.190.156|talk]]) 10:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*[[List of conservation topics]] - I have culled this one
*[[List of environment topics]] - this is good example since it is very bad i.e.. a huge number of extremely tenuously linked articles.
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental protection and restoration topics]] - deleted
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environment-theme lists of topics]] - deleted


:What would you prefer the article structure look like? [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] ([[User talk:Hyacinth|talk]]) 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is heading towards what is contained in [[List of occupations]] and there is no need for the overlap that is happening. A list is only useful if it has a tight focus. -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] <small>[[User_talk:Alan_Liefting|talk]]</small> 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


==History of Opression==
: As a look through the previous discussions on this Talk page will amply demonstrate, opinions on what is "obviously" academic or non-academic vary widely. I do agree that creeping overexpansion is a danger that Wikipedia lists face in general, but I don't see the links you mass-deleted as necessarily examples of that -- many seem to me like they are rather obviously academic fields. So, again, can you please explain what particular things you think do not belong in the list, and give some justification or cite sources that support your opinion? -- [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]]|[[User talk:Rbellin|Talk]] 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
: I think we should discuss the opression of gays in this article. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boy2boy|Boy2boy]] ([[User talk:Boy2boy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boy2boy|contribs]]) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The [[Gay]] article is more about the term (including Gay referring to homosexual people), [[Homosexuality]] (And [[Anti-LGBT]] disambiguation page) has more information about oppression of gays.) [[User:User0529|User0529]] ([[User talk:User0529|talk]]) 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Clearly there are examples of gays being oppressed, but a lot of the subjective feeling of "being oppressed" is due, Donald Black explains in ''Escape the Gay Straitjacket'', to gay men repressing their anger and not being able to stand up for themselves because of this, hence his use of the phrase "gay straitjacket" for the helplessness gay men feel.[[User:Andrenapier|Andrenapier]] ([[User talk:Andrenapier|talk]]) 11:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


== FYI ==
==uncited paragraph==
I've removed the following:


:The usage of the word "gay" changed mid 20th century and was adopted from the British argot (code language) [[Polari]]. The word "gay" used in context to connote "homosexual" allowed for extensive double entendre and innuendo. This practice continued even as late as the 1970s; in a television advertising campaign for the [[Bic Banana]] ink crayon, [[Charles Nelson Reilly]] sings, "the colors are so bright and gay!" The word "gay" here does double duty, referring both to the brightness of the ink, and as an obvious insider commentary on Reilly himself.
To all concerned, I've been doing some library research to try to be as fair-minded as possible about what constitutes an applied-art-and-science-type profession; I should have the substantive response I promised posted by Mon., 9/10/2007 (or early Tues., depending on your time zone). I appreciate the recent dialogue on the Talk page to help clarify what should or shouldn't "count" as a profession. I think the debate is healthy, as it will collaboratively help us produce the best possible product. Thanks for your patience. —Respectfully, [[User:Catdude|Catdude]] 02:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:As a courtesy update, I've fielded questions related to this discussion area to a couple of university research librarians and also to a couple of academic deans in university environments. It appears they do need 2-3 more days to come up with some research results, so please kindly bear with me while I await them. However, I can say that, at this point, in retrospect to my own research, the fields in dispute could probably all be listed as "craft-professions" as well as "emerging professions." There does seem to be plenty of evidence that there are people employed in all the disputed professions who do have a bachelor's degree or perhaps higher, with the bachelor's degree earned in the field of dispute or something closely allied to it. However, there is also that broader philosophical debate on what should/can count as an "academic discipline." I'll post something late Thursday (perhaps early Friday in your time zone) to put some finality to my research on this subject. My inclination (POV?) is that it would still make sense to recognize "personal service professions" in ''some'' way as an emerging academic discipline, albeit with a few asterisks as an editor has already provided (and maybe even a footnote as well). Relatedly, the Wikipedia community as a whole will have the ultimate chance to edit things and make changes as desired. Thanks again for your continued patience. —Respectfully, [[User:Catdude|Catdude]] 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


The assertion that the sexual meaning originated in Polari is uncited, and inconsistent with the more common claims of US origin. The 1970s ad may well have used double-entendre, but again it's uncited and its also possible that it simply continued the traditional meaning, which was certainly still commonplace in the UK in the 70s. We would need more evidence. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 23:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
::Some folks who are aiding my research are still putting just a few finishing touches on helping me; I hope to complete my findings in about a day or so. However, I do have some things to kindly share at this time:


==Structure of the article==
::1) In the fields that I listed in "personal service professions," a majority of the fields listed do not appear to have dedicated academic journals, although articles about the subjects can be found about them in other sources. For example, with concierge, the Cornell Hospitality Quarterly contains significant articles pertaining to concierge. However, a notable exception is with mortuary science; many journals in the field exist. (Please see http://www.kckcc.cc.ks.us/college-support-services/information-services/library/morgue/journals ). In the life-coaching area, there is the journal ''International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring'' (please see http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/ijebcm/vol2-no1-bookreview.html ).
Was wondering something...


Is this article about the word "gay" and its usage over time? Or is it about homosexuals and homosexuality? If it's the former, then the article needs to be rewritten as it focuses far too heavily on the gay=homosexual aspect. If it's the latter, then perhaps a separate "history of the word gay" article should be created? I would suggest the disambiguation page, but the "gay equals homosexual" take seems to dominate there too! [[User:Dr Rgne|Dr Rgne]] ([[User talk:Dr Rgne|talk]]) 09:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::2) Mortuary science has strong evidence of bachelor's degrees offered in the field. Travel and tourism has relatively strong evidence of this. The other fields I listed in "personal service professions" have strong evidence of many degree holders having closely-allied four-year or higher degrees (e.g., a professional working in nannying/butlery sometimes having a bachelor's degree in home economics; a life-coaching specialist frequently having a bachelor's or higher degree in psychology; a wardrobe-coordination specialist sometimes having a four-year degree in Fashion Merchandising or Textile Design).


::3) There does appear to be strong evidence of professional associations for most of the aforementioned personal-service-profession fields. For example, for Concierge, there is the Clef D'Or assocation in several countries (see the [[Concierge]] article for links); for nannies, there is the International Nanny Association ( http://www.nanny.org ). For the fields that I intentionally left out of the "personal services professions" list (such as welding, plumbing, and truck/lorry driving), there mostly don't seem to be the same types of professional associations ''which have an important "education emphasis" as a subcomponent'', as found in the fields that I ''did'' include in the list.


I think that people should except gays for how they treated that person before they found out they were gay. If they cant except you then they arent a true friend <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.108.137.141|208.108.137.141]] ([[User talk:208.108.137.141|talk]]) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I'll stop by shortly again to add anything else that is revealed to me which is significant. Thanks again for your patience. —[[User:Catdude|Catdude]] 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


== Gay as a noun ==
::: I appreciate the effort you're putting into this research, but I have to say that a lot of the things you're citing seem borderline irrelevant to me. Neither the existence of professional associations for various jobs, nor the presence in those jobs of people who studied somehow related topics while they were in college, supports the argument that these jobs are properly described as ''academic'' disciplines. The granting of bachelor's degrees is relevant, but seems to me to fall short of justification, as there are certainly some bachelor's degrees best described as vocational. And the absence of academic journals (alongside the fact that you haven't addressed the existence of learned societies, ''research'', or university departments) in these fields, all seem like conclusive evidence on the side of removing these fields to me. -- [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]]|[[User talk:Rbellin|Talk]] 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Gay as a noun can be used for a male or female person:
:::: Thanks, [[User:Rbellin|Rbellin]], for the educated feedback in regards to this issue. To cut to the chase in a way I think you'll like, I wouldn't be opposed to taking out the area of dispute, and tasking myself to seeing how it could form the genesis of a new list. (I know that Wikipedia can tend to also suffer from list overexpansion in regards to the number of lists out there, but I think that such a new list can evolve quickly into something appropriate and encyclopedic.) I will mention that mortuary science does seem to have an abundance of professional journals out there, and there is even a department of mortuary science in the University of Minnesota's medical college. Travel and tourism management arguably has some of the accoutrements of an applied academic discipline as well, as measured by professional associations, journal articles, and some other elements. The other fields I listed don't meet such standards as well. I'll likely leave it to other Wikipedians, such as you, to judge whether those two fields have merit as part of the list of academic disciplines. In the meantime, I'll work on the aforementioned new list, and will try to add "meat" to it to illustrate how the fields in the new list perhaps are "emerging professions" based on key elements, but may not meet the standards, among many people, of "academic disciplines" at this time. Thanks again for all the feedback and for trying to make this as relevant of a list as possible. —Regards, [[User:Catdude|Catdude]] 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


"Gay–noun
==the correct term is [[Indology]], not [[dharmic religions]]==
7. a homosexual person, esp. a male." -Dictionary.com
First of all the term [[dharmic religions]] is a very unusual term when compared to the alternative term [[Indian religions]]. The number of [[google scholar]] results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". So if we are to choose between the two then it should be [[Indian religions]]. Secondly the correct term of the ''academic field'' is [[Indology]], not [[Indian religions]], let alone the obscure neologism [[dharmic religions]]. See [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8]]. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:I've changed it to ''Indian religions'' because it clearly is the better term in the context. I don't know enough about ''Indology'' to justify making that change myself. --[[User:Mrwojo|Mrwojo]] 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


I just wanted to say that because in the article it implies that gay as a noun is always used for males only. That's not necessarily true, although it is sometimes. Lesbians can be properly called gays, too. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Frisky porcupine|Frisky porcupine]] ([[User talk:Frisky porcupine|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frisky porcupine|contribs]]) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Drawing==
Is drawing not an academic disciplines. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:The Tramp|The Tramp]] ([[User talk:The Tramp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/The Tramp|contribs]]) 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Computer & Video Games==
I believe that Computer & Video games should be listed as a recognized academic discipline (as, for example, film and radio are included). There are now several dedicated degree-level courses covering various facets of the discipline (e.g. tools & technology, software engineering, 3D art & animation, design, production management) and a growing body of academic literature and journals. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.69.23.39|82.69.23.39]] ([[User talk:82.69.23.39|talk]]) 26 December 2007</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->

== Philosophy of Mind==
Shouldn't the philosophy of mind be listed under metaphysics, rather than applied philosophy? Descartes was hardly doing applied philosophy. The closest applied thing I can think of is maybe [[Cognitive Science]] or [[Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science]], maybe? [[User:Llamabr|Llamabr]] ([[User talk:Llamabr|talk]]) 19:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:Certainly, and absolutely, and with support from the Stanford Enclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProAboMenPhy) --[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 08:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== Religion/spirituality/divinity; Hum/SocEc ==

I made a good-faith restoration of the subsection "Religious and spiritual leadership / Divinity" due to my feeling that this area represents a bona fide "application" of religion/spirituality, but I wasn't sure that it belonged where the "pure arts and sciences" are pretty much listed in the article. Additionally, Divinity/Applied Theology is taught at many prominent universities such as Harvard and Oxford, which is why I respectfully felt it had a place as a sub-list in the article. However, I do notice that some "applied arts/humanities" such as Architecture and Studio Art are listed in the Humanities section, when they are in fact more of an "application thing". Perhaps a new section for "Applied Arts" or some such thing could be used to house Architecture, Studio Art, Divinity, etc. (I know that you then have the challenge of deciding if, say, Art History should be "separated" from Studio Art, etc., but we all can probably find a "good way" to deal with this issue later on :) ).

After I got done making the addition of the new "[[Human ecology|Human ecology and allied social ecology]]" subsection (which was good-faith-removed by another editor), I admit that the section did seem to contain, well, "a lot" in it, and admittedly after all the work I did on that subsection, I was too tired to start wikification on it right away :) That Hum/SocEc subsection was honestly the very last field that I could think of which, IMHO, I felt was an "academic field" that would be good to slip into the article list. However, I will not restore the sub-list at this time, and I will "put on my thinking cap" as to how this sub-list, or some sort of "re-processing" of it, could better "mesh" with the article and thus contribute better to it.

Thanks, all, who have made positive suggestions/critiques to me (and others) in the quest to improve this article! —Best regards, [[User:Catdude|Catdude]] ([[User talk:Catdude|talk]]) 01:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== Protection ==

I have protected this List for 24 hours, to put a halt to a potential edit war. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 23:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== Military sciences ==

I have reverted the removal for several reasons.

Firstly what I have done is to change what was a seemingly random collection of existing and non-existent military articles into a list. This list is organised, and explains what each of the list items represent.

The deletion of my edits based on them being "expository" and therefore not appropriate, is somewhat hard to understand. A list is not supposed to be an accumulation of wikilinks alone! In a reference work it is supposed to also inform.

The particular problem with military sciences is that they are not a part of the more widely known spheres of research, development and study, and do not easily fall into the "ologies" that the other disciplines represent. A different taxonomic grouping was required.

I would really appreciate if editors discussed reverts of what was a substantial bit of time invested on my part as a matter of courtesy if not actual policy--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 23:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:Hi. This page is a bit of an exception to normal practices, because it is originally part of the set of [[Template:Contents pages (footer box)|Contents pages]], and is linked right at the top of [[Portal:Contents]] (which is the second link in the site's sidebar).
:Also, for sheer length considerations, it would become necessary to split it into subarticles if each section was transformed into exposition.
:For those reasons, I would strongly recommend that we leave it in pure list format. Some more sourcing for the lede wouldn't hurt though...
:[Tangentially/contextually: There have been many prior discussions about moving it (alone or as part of the whole Content's group) into Wikipedia or Portal namespace.]
:I Hope that helps explain the situation here :) See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]] for the preferred method of dispute resolution. Thanks. -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 04:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::Ok, fair enough. What I'll do is try to reduce the current instalment I made into something more linkish to look like the rest of the list. I would appreciate if it was left in place for now while I do a bit more figuring out, because Military Science as I explained above is a bit unusual as a subject--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 06:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::A few thoughts:
:::Were you planning on something other than a basic hierarchical-list? The whole page has a fairly consistent structure throughout, except for the block of prose you've added..
:::Maybe you could work on your proposed replacement in a sandbox? (Not that I want to contribute to your sandbox <s>addiction</s>[[User:Mrg3105#Sandboxes|collection]]!)
:::Maybe you could add the prose component at [[Military science]] instead? and then copy a concise list-summary-version to here and [[Topic outline of military science and technology]] (formerly "list of basic topics in ...").
:::Thanks. :) -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 02:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Actually I thought that the current list is a sandbox :) I think lists should not be bare wikilinks, but actually offer at least a rudimentary description of each entry, and a section introduction.
::::What happened with my sandboxes is that as I begun what was going to be primarily Eastern Front (WW2) period articles, I discovered that many peripheral articles were just not there. If you look at the Military science article introduction I wrote, you will see lots of redlinks, and you will see many in my to do list. The problem is that it is pointless to author and edit article that use terminology the reader will not understand, so I have had to expand the range of foundational articles I have had to write. Military science is one of them since it impacts on how one understands the behaviour of the belligerents.
::::Yes, I will copy the prose for the most part to the Military science article, but need to work on that article a bit more also. The other thing I need to incorporate is the [[Military art (Military science)]] article--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::See also the other pages in [[Template:Contents pages (footer box)]], particularly [[List of Dewey Decimal classes]]. They've been this way for years, and don't change much (glance through some random diffs from the years of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_academic_disciplines&action=history history]!). As Palaeovia explains below, they're meant more as a browsing instrument (hence the recurrent namespace-pagemove arguments, that I mentioned earlier (lists of lists are a thorny issue, but there are good reasons for keeping them in mainspace)).
:::::I'm going to revert to the last by Palaeovia, and copy a link for you to easily get your text out ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_academic_disciplines&action=edit&oldid=242641660&section=44 old diff of section #Military sciences]).
:::::This is actually a fairly high traffic page, being permanently 2 clicks away from anywhere. Feel free to update the actual sublist that you were editing, but please keep it in the same simple format as the rest of the page. Let us know if we can be of anymore help. Thanks again. -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 07:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::In support of [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]]'s suggestion above and the current orientation of this page as a simple list of wikilinks, I give here my view of the purposes of this list:

::::Firstly, the list presents a coherent and elegant overview of the world of academia, and its coverage by Wikipedia. ("Browse" function)

::::Secondly, the list directs the user efficiently to a Wikipedia article on an academic discipline, or sub-discipline, for further exposition. ("Index" function)

:::The proper place for exposition is the relevant articles (where any controversial issues can be critically examined), and not here.--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 02:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== Maybe eliminate indenting in categorizing engineering disciplines ==

Maybe it would be better not to suggest here that one type of engineering in a branch of any other.

I rearranged some of the items in the engineering categories. For sure, Automobile Engineering isn't a branch of Naval Engineering, as indicated by this page as I found it. I thought Automotive Engineering was a branch of Mechanical Engineering, but the [[Automobile Engineering]] article says that it is a branch of [[Vehicle Engineering]].

I moved the mention of Software Engineering to be a branch of Computer Engineering. The article on [[Computer Engineering]] says that software engineering is one of the "core knowledge areas of computer engineering".

Someone within a particular field may take exception to the notion that their profession is a "branch" of any other. I suggest putting the list of disciplines in alphabetical order and eliminating the indentation to avoid disputes over whose discipline is a branch of someone else's.
- [[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


::I prefer a hierarchical organization, however tentative, of an academic discipline, to an alphabetical list, since organizing human knowledge helps us to grasp the scope and depth (and gaps) of the current state of human kwowledge. It is a natural intellectual pursuit. And I would like to know how scholars in a field of knowledge view its structure.

::There is no single correct way to organize any field, and we should all acknowledge that, and seek reasonable compromise. However, a structured view is always preferable to a surrender to chaos.--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 07:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


==Top level grouping of academic disciplines==

The breaking up of "Professions and Applied sciences" in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_academic_disciplines&oldid=243232505 this version] into the current form is messy. I propose two options:

:1. Break up "Professions and Applied sciences" into "Professions", consisting of the well-established, credentialed professions (medicine, engineering, law, education(?), religious ministry(?)), and "Vocations" (such as beauty therapy).

:2. Revert to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_academic_disciplines&oldid=243232505 this version].

To avoid potential debates concerning the distinction between professions and vocations, I favor reverting. Any dissenting views?--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:If there is a place to make a distinction between professions and vocations, I believe it is elsewhere. Using labels is necessary when making a hierarchical list for the purpose of structure. Assigning a caste would not seem to be necessary when compiling a list of "academic disciplines".

:The page is too large for me to sort out, in a reasonable time frame, a preferred way to "fix" it from where it is now. Someone has done a lot of editing since the version proposed for reversion. They did it anonymously and without discussion. I am not going to take the time to figure out whether part of what they did is worth keeping. You apparently have.

:Your proposed reversion would erase some of the work I did, but I'm not necessarily opposed to that. If you think reverting it is best and the anonymous editor doesn't object here, have at it.

:Changing the overall structure of the "Academic disciplines" page is complicated by its size. If it was just a collection of major headings, I would find its structure to be more discernable and manageable.

:I favor breaking this page into several others and using this page as a launching point, with "see also" links in those pages, for example:
:*Academic disciplines
::*Applied sciences (academic disciplines)
::*Engineering (academic disciplines)
::*remainder of major headings

:*Applied sciences (academic disciplines)
::*list of applied science disciplines
::*See also: Engineering (academic disciplines)

:*Engineering (academic disciplines)
::*list of engineering disciplines
::*See also: Applied sciences (academic disciplines)

The parenthetical part of the page title is like that found in disambiguation pages. -[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


:::To avoid piling up of new edits, I've reverted to the version given above, and then replaced the subsequently edited sections with the latest versions. Your latest edits are preserved.

:::I've not found this page slow in loading, so do not favor breaking it up, as it then slows my access to the sections that I want.

:::Best regards--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I'd oppose breaking the page up, too. It's intended purpose (historically, anyway) is as a browsing mechanism, similar to the other pages in [[Template:Contents pages (footer box)]].
::::As a path for improvements, it would be nice to have everything sourced (confirmed as a course of study at an accredited institution, type thing). Perhaps working on that in a sandbox would be simplest? And more precisely defining our inclusion-criteria would help. -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 18:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==Criteria for inclusion of an academic discipline==

[''Partial copy of a previous post'':] As a path for improvements, it would be nice to have everything sourced (confirmed as a course of study at an accredited institution, type thing). Perhaps working on that in a sandbox would be simplest? And more precisely defining our inclusion-criteria would help. -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 18:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


:An inclusion criterion is partially defined at the start of the article: "An academic discipline, or field of study, is a branch of knowledge which is taught or researched at the college or university level."

:It links to the article on [[academia]], which says of an academic: "He or she is nearly always an advanced degree holder who does research."

:The title of this article says that it is a list of "academic disciplines" -- not a list of "available areas of instruction" nor "existing job titles". Nor is the article intended to provide an exhaustive list of _all_ academic disciplines, which the intro of the article suggests is impossible because there may be "no end to the amount of academic disciplines one could have."

:I suggest that, for the purposes of this article, an "academic discipline" be restricted to those areas of study in which a masters degree is available from at least five universities, each with a total enrollment in excess of 10,000 students. This should exclude most nontraditional studies from appearing in the list of more generally-recognized academic disciplines.

:This criterion would also allow removing the asterisks from the list, which according to the intro denote "a field whose academic status is debated." If one can point to five large universities which offer masters degrees in an academic discipline, then the debate is settled. -[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 22:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


::A preliminary thought worth pondering: "Christian Theology" or "Divinity" (as an intellectual discipline found in medieval European universities) probably qualifies under your proposed criterion. However, "Christian Ministry" (as a vocational training) would probably not, since most religious seminaries and Bible colleges are small. The relation of "Christian Ministry" to "Christian Theology" can be compared with that of "Pharmacy" to "Pharmacology", or "Clinical Psychology" to "Psychology".--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::[[California Institute of Technology]] is an example of small, world-class universities. Just a thought.--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I would be a victim of my own discrimination on a few fronts. I don't qualify as an "academic" if it requires having an advanced degree. The college where I went has a student body smaller than 10,000 students. My specialty, "thermal engineering", wouldn't qualify as an "academic discipline".

:::But the weeding which would result from raising the bar on what qualifies here as an "academic discipline" would bring some coherence to this page.

:::There are more-specialized lists for those who want to dig deeper in a particular discipline, such as [[List of engineering topics]], [[List of basic philosophy topics]], etc.

:::True: "most religious seminaries and Bible colleges are small". But are there not five large universities worldwide that award masters degrees in the field of interest? Whether the degree program is liberal or conservative is not included in my proposed criterion.

:::I suspect that the field of "Clinical Psychology" is less stable than that of "Psychology". Technology fields are more subject to the whim du jour. Was learning the intricacies of Windows 98 an "academic discipline"? My current use of Windows 98 is scoffed at by those who use what is lauded — today, but probably not in two years — as the "latest and greatest" version of Windows.

:::An interesting perspective on knowledge as opposed to temporary technical competence is presented in Asimov's story, _[[Profession_(short_story)|Profession]]_.

:::Large universities probably offer the same degrees as "small, world-class universities" if the subject is a generally-recognized "academic discipline". It may a huge accomplishment to obtain a "boutique degree" at a small, world-class university, but the field may not — yet — be a generally-recognized "academic discipline". -[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed a few universities with enrollment of over 10,000 in the US that offer Master of Divinity, Doctor of Ministry, and similar advanced degrees. I've found [[Liberty University]] (enrollment 14438) and the [[George W. Truett Theological Seminary]] of [[Baylor University]] (enrollment 13,886) so far.

I think that, nevertheless, the existence of the [[Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada]], [http://www.ats.edu/Accrediting/Pages/default.aspx its Commission on accrediting], and its "Degree Program Standards" ([http://www.ats.edu/Accrediting/Documents/08DegreeStandards.pdf pdf document]) serve perfectly well as the authority for including "Christian Ministry" as an academic discipline. This should be accepted as an alternative inclusion criterion.--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:My proposal was arbitrary, and I didn't intend to limit the scope to universities in the US. But I don't think that it is overly restrictive. I imagine that this page could become quite long if we found and included every discipline for which masters degrees are offered by five major universities worldwide.

:At what point does a blend of disciplines qualify as a discipline itself?

:Arguably, mechanical engineering is but one branch of applied physics with perhaps some other disciplines blended in. The discipline wasn't recognized as distinct until the 19th century according to the Wikipedia article on [[mechanical engineering]], and then probably for utility in building a market-driven set of competencies rather than uniqueness of the subject matter. The field is so diffuse today that it has fingers in everything from micromachines to interstellar satellites. Were it not for so many universities offering degrees by that name, one might be hard pressed to call it _an_ academic discipline.

:Not to put this in the same camp as the organizations that you mentioned, but the presence of an accreditation organization may or may not be sufficient to qualify a pursuit as an academic discipline:
::http://canadianmetaphysics.com/paccreditation.html

:So some criteria for accreditation organizations would seem to be needed if they are to be used in deciding what qualifies as an "academic discipline".

:The linked [http://www.ats.edu/Accrediting/Documents/08DegreeStandards.pdf pdf document] seems to be about the Master of Divinity degree. I didn't find the phrase "Christian Ministry" in the document. It occurs to me that the term is imprecise in that it doesn't necessarily indicate whether one is talking about teaching, counseling, or music.

:[[Divinity_(academic_discipline)|Divinity]] is one of the most established academic disciplines. The article on [[Yale]] says that it "was founded to train ministers." It still offers a [http://www.yale.edu/divinity/adm/MDIV.shtml Master of Divinity] degree. According to their [http://www.yale.edu/about/index.html website], "Approximately 11,250 students attend Yale." -[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 08:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::The suggested criteria sounds good as a starting point. It can always be adapted/improved later, as needed. Almost nothing is fixed in stone, around here :) -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 17:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I've used "Christian Ministry" as an all-inclusive stand-in for the vocational training for Christian clergy and workers found in seminaries and Bible colleges. It is indeed not a commonly accepted term. "Divinity" or "Christian Theology" is my term for the non-vocational intellectual study (from a believer's perspective) of Christian doctrine. "Religion" as an academic field includes the study of all aspects of Christianity from a non-believer's perspective.

:::"Christian Ministry" is vocationally oriented. And there are Doctors of Ministry. Likewise, there are multitudes of Doctors of Education, Doctors of Business Administration. Whether a subject qualifies as an academic discipline, in some marginal cases, depends on extrinsic, social factors, as much as intrinsic characters of the field of study. --[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I have applied the following, though they are not listed in the inclusion criteria:
::::*The item in the list must link to a relevant Wikipedia article.
::::*The linked Wikipedia article must contain some suggestion that the pursuit is an "academic discipline", as defined elsewhere in the inclusion criteria for this list.
::::That could save the effort to prove that the discipline is not listed in some external database. For me, "success" in checking to see that something _is_ where I am looking is usually more satisfying (and demonstrable) than the reverse. "Whatsit is on page 4" may be more convincing (and less subject to version tag) than "I didn't find it in 400 pages of text. If you look, you won't find it either — unless they 'upgrade' the text in the mean time."

::::Might we include these two additional criteria in the lead? Or maybe the lead can refer to an "inclusion criteria" section which precedes the list. That section could be a place for the inclusion criteria to grow. -[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I support the inclusion of these additional criteria. Highlighting the inclusion criteria in a seperate section preceding the list also seems an excellent idea. Let's see if the notion of "academic discipline" can be saved from being dumbed down here. Thanks for pruning the list.--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 23:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Why does this list contain links to nonexistent articles? ==

Links to nonexistent articles appear in my browser as red links. The link for thermal engineering was red until I created an article for it.

If a topic is truly an "academic discipline" and it is generally recognized as such, wouldn't it have an article mentioning something about pursuing or practicing that discipline?

As noted by elsewhere on this talk page (September 2007), the name of this article doesn't seem indicative of its content.

The article on [[air safety]] talks about certifying aircraft (machines), not academics (people). The organizations in the "Institutions" section seem to be regulatory bodies, not academic institutions.

"Postal administration" is listed as a "transportation" discipline. It is an important profession to countless people every day, but it is linked to the general [[Post office]] article, which does not contain the word "administration".

An effort to "cull" the article in September 2007 was resisted. That effort seemed to end with a demand for proof of a negative: that the topic was _not_ an academic discipline, which may be impossible to prove; and the effort to try is likely to offend those engaged in the discipline.

The current focus on what _is_ an academic discipline places the burden of proof on those who want their field to be listed here.

The following seems preferable to "Your profession is not an academic discipline because of thus and so.":
:"I didn't find an abundance of evidence confirming (insert topic here) as an academic discipline, so I removed it from this list."
If the criteria are clear, one may counter with evidence that it is adequately-recognized as such.

Can we:
#Come to some consensus on the criteria for an "academic discipline", and
#Remove some topics from this list?
-[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:Strongly agree. (I'm lacking time this week, and reinstalling my OS, but will try to keep an eye on this, and help out if possible). Thanks for your efforts :) -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::I agree fully with your proposed improvements. We should formulate our definition of an academic discipline in the article lead, and then remove subjects that probably don't qualify.

::Let's adopt your criterion and modify as needed. Do we want to explicitly justify every academic discipline in the list? (I don't see the need.) If we do, then we should include sources such as the [[List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States]] from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago as an inclusion criterion. This would greatly reduce the effort needed to justify all the traditional disciplines.--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 00:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I added text to mention the inclusion criteria and removed most items which aren't linked to articles.

:::I agree that explicitly justifying every academic discipline is too onerous. Perhaps the [[List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States]] can be an inclusion criterion — if it can be safeguarded from questionable expansion, such as:
::::http://www.magdalene-church-institute.org/institute/index.htm
:::::Doctor of Parapsychology (D.Psy.)

:::Providing some justification for deleting an item might be useful. -[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


The following are databases of online journals found in [[Academic journal]]. Perhaps we could evaluate the quality of the journals they include (whether junk journals are found there?). We could then justify the deletion of a subject (to be restored if later shown to meet the inclusion criterion), if it is not within the scope of an academic journal found in any of these databases.

* [http://journalseek.net/ JournalSeek - A Searchable Database of Online Scholarly Journals]
* [http://www.e-journals.org Links to the world's electronic journals]
* [http://www.bl.uk/collections/wider/eresources/ejournals.html Electronic journals available onsite at the British Library]
--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 05:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A better idea: This list of academic journals from [[ISI Web of Knowledge]] should contain only bona fide academic journals, and would serve well as a deletion criterion:
* The ''Thomson Scientific (TS) Research Services Group'' Master Journal List ([http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER browse Journal List], [http://scientific.thomson.com/mjl/ search Journal List by title])
--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 06:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:Concerning the first list: If a topic is not listed in any of the databases, it would seem to be a likely candidate for deletion — provided the scope of the database includes related disciplines. I don't know that I am qualified, nor have the time, to evaluate the quality of many journals.

:Concerning the [http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER Journal list], it seems to be for scientific disciplines. It is probably a reliable guide for the scientific disciplines.

:My procedure in trimming the engineering section wasn't so sophisticated. It was essentially a "smell test". I did a quick Google search using the words that I expected to see in the name of the masters degree. If the first page contained a couple hits that looked like legitimate masters degrees, I didn't delete the item. If no links stood out on the first page, I looked at a second page of hits. If it still looked unpromising, I deleted the item. Not as thorough as I might have been, but it got the first pass for the section "done" to the point that I am satisfied that it isn't overly bloated at this point.

:I am less familiar with items in other sections, so I am not as quick to be deleting things there. -[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 07:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::The ''Thomson Scientific (TS) Research Services Group'' Master Journal List ([http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER browse Journal List], [http://scientific.thomson.com/mjl/ search Journal List by title]) includes high quality academic journals in Arts and Humanities, Science, and Social Science (and Medicine, Engineering, too). Its journal selection processes is described [http://thomsonreuters.com/business_units/scientific/free/essays/journalselection/ here]. I think it is one of the best sources for finding quality academic journals.

::On the other hand, [http://journalseek.net/ Genamics Journal Search] contains "Sports Illustrated" and similar magazines [http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=category&query=sport.pro]. However it does contain a good collection of academic journals, too.

::I would propose the following as a criterion for deletion: If a subject is not within the scope of an academic journal that is listed in either the TS list (15458 titles) or the Genamics database (94215 titles), then it is tentatively deleted. If it is shown to satisfy the inclusion criterion, then it is to be restored.--[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 09:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::It is extremely unlikely that the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago will include [[Creation science]], [[Crystal healing]] or [[Astrology]] in the [[List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States]] in the future. I am in favor of including this list as an inclusion criterion, to forestall any frivolous challenge with regard to the traditional academic disciplines. --[[User:Palaeovia|<font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms">'''Palaeovia'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Palaeovia|<font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">talk</font>]]</sup> 15:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Trimmed list of engineering disciplines ==

Tried (unquoted) three-word search string in Google of the form "masters __ engineering". Removed items for which an abundance of masters programs were not found:
*Acoustical engineering
*Food engineering
*HVAC engineering
*Combat engineering
*Design engineering
*Thermal engineering
*Naval engineering

Eliminated items which redirect or are linked elsewhere:
*[[Aeronautical engineering]] redirects to [[Aerospace engineering]]
*[[Production engineering]] redirects to [[Industrial engineering]]
*Automotive systems engineering links to [[Automotive engineering]]

Removed items which do not have 'engineering' not in the of the target article:
*Artificial intelligence
*Robotics
*Ergonomics

Removed items which link to an article which stress is mostly about something other than the engineering aspects of the topic:
*Quality assurance engineering
-[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 05:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Several deletions on 2008-10-09 explained ==

The following have been deleted because either the target article or a quick Google search suggested that the item does not meet the inclusion criteria:

*Office systems management
:Target article is [[office]], which doesn't contain the phrase, "office systems management". The link provides no indication that there is a field of study known by the name used.

*Secretarial studies
:http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34812196_ITM
::Secretarial Science and Office Management subject has been omitted from the higher secondary-level curricula in general

*Toy and amusement design
:Links to the [[toy]] article, which doesn't seem to address the academic qualifications of designers.

*Personal styling
:Links to [[Personal stylist]], which says:
::Training is offered by a number of Image schools and can take up to an intense month to complete.
:The availability of additional instruction is not mentioned.

*Jewellery design
:The article for practitioners is [[Jewelry designer]], which doesn't mention academic study:
::Today's jewelry designers are often professionals with knowledge of Gemology, Metalsmithing and Rendering
:How did they gain that knowledge?

*Perfume design
:http://www.perfumeoflife.org/lofiversion/index.php/t2225.html
::There is no degree in perfumery as far as I know
:A profession which prefers to remain a secret art would seem to exclude itself from being considered an academic discipline.

*Professional portraiture
:This is a branch of photography, which is performed by a [[photographer]], the article for which does not mention academic study:
::A professional photographer uses photography to make a living.

*[[Wardrobe stylist]]
:From the linked article:
::at present there are no specific requirements for the position

I would expect the target article to:
#Contain the listed name of the discipline
#Discuss how one may study the discipline
-[[User:Ac44ck|Ac44ck]] ([[User talk:Ac44ck|talk]]) 17:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:23, 10 October 2008

WikiProject iconLGBT studies B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Possible Weasel words

Does "the words gay man and lesbian are the most recommended words" amount to use of weasel words within Wikipedia's meaning? Recommended by whom? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Early Usage of word Gay

I just want to add this info to the section about the usage of the word "Gay," but I'm not able to edit the page. Also, I wasn't sure where to put it, or how to word it. I thought it would be useful, so if someone can add it, that would be nice. Thanks. (to verify, you can check this website with the date & lyrics: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dfox/porterlyrics.html)

Here's the information"

Cole Porter's 1941 musical, "Let's Face It" explicitly uses the word "gay" in both a homosexual and a non-sexual sense. Lyrics for the song "Farming" repeatedly describe many celebrities engaging in rural activities because it makes them feel "glamorous and gay" (i.e. happy), and then includes the verse: "Don't inquire of Georgie Raft Why his cow has never calfed, Georgie's bull is beautiful, but he's gay!" im a gay and to be gay is to like boy if u r a boy and to like girls if u are a girl! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis poeske (talkcontribs) 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Since this usage is early, and totally unambiguous, and shows how the word was understood to mean both things, I thought it would be useful for this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindeerroom (talkcontribs) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay is a word used in many insulting ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.20.61 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't gayness redirect here?

TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can if you want it too. Create a redirect. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it can't. Don't believe me? Try to make the redirect yourself. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been used as an attack page in the past. East718 protected it because of this. You might want to ask User:East718 to redirect it. The page should be kept under protection. forestPIG 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoever protected this page from re-creation must have had a damn good reason why it can't redirect to this article. And I'd really wanna know what that reason is. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't fret too much about the gayness. I'm sure East718 will redirect it for you. forestPIG 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that much big of a deal anyway. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Why doesn't the image in the lead, currently the drawing from Punch, illustrate the modern usage? Hyacinth (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of "gay"

This article is seriously flawed. It skips through the original meaning, and the bulk of the article is "gay means homosexual". Considering the length of usage of the "carefree" meaning, the article needs to be changed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.190.156 (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you prefer the article structure look like? Hyacinth (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Opression

I think we should discuss the opression of gays in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy2boy (talkcontribs) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Gay article is more about the term (including Gay referring to homosexual people), Homosexuality (And Anti-LGBT disambiguation page) has more information about oppression of gays.) User0529 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there are examples of gays being oppressed, but a lot of the subjective feeling of "being oppressed" is due, Donald Black explains in Escape the Gay Straitjacket, to gay men repressing their anger and not being able to stand up for themselves because of this, hence his use of the phrase "gay straitjacket" for the helplessness gay men feel.Andrenapier (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uncited paragraph

I've removed the following:

The usage of the word "gay" changed mid 20th century and was adopted from the British argot (code language) Polari. The word "gay" used in context to connote "homosexual" allowed for extensive double entendre and innuendo. This practice continued even as late as the 1970s; in a television advertising campaign for the Bic Banana ink crayon, Charles Nelson Reilly sings, "the colors are so bright and gay!" The word "gay" here does double duty, referring both to the brightness of the ink, and as an obvious insider commentary on Reilly himself.

The assertion that the sexual meaning originated in Polari is uncited, and inconsistent with the more common claims of US origin. The 1970s ad may well have used double-entendre, but again it's uncited and its also possible that it simply continued the traditional meaning, which was certainly still commonplace in the UK in the 70s. We would need more evidence. Paul B (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the article

Was wondering something...

Is this article about the word "gay" and its usage over time? Or is it about homosexuals and homosexuality? If it's the former, then the article needs to be rewritten as it focuses far too heavily on the gay=homosexual aspect. If it's the latter, then perhaps a separate "history of the word gay" article should be created? I would suggest the disambiguation page, but the "gay equals homosexual" take seems to dominate there too! Dr Rgne (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think that people should except gays for how they treated that person before they found out they were gay. If they cant except you then they arent a true friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.137.141 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay as a noun

Gay as a noun can be used for a male or female person:

"Gay–noun 7. a homosexual person, esp. a male." -Dictionary.com

I just wanted to say that because in the article it implies that gay as a noun is always used for males only. That's not necessarily true, although it is sometimes. Lesbians can be properly called gays, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisky porcupine (talkcontribs) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]