`  ::: I'd just as soon see the new name stick and the questionable material get deleted.  Frankly, the old title was the product of a lot of wikilawyering by editors explicitly interested in circumventing the 'questionable science' clause by claiming that so long as the article specifies that it's about 'characterizing' then normal rules about undue weight can be suspended.  it's a bit like starting a page called 'list of politicians who have been characterized as a-holes', if you follow my drift.  The new name is better than the old in that sense - it's not trying to edge its way past arbcom rulings, at any rate - and changing the focus of the article would mean we can delete all defensive rationalizations that are currently a required part of the text (e.g., 90% of the introduction is an explanation of why this page is not violating the arbcom ruling).  it would make for a better page overall.   `