`  Askolnick, thanks for the detailed reply.  I'm going to respond with a comment about civil language first, and then go on to your arguments.  I'm not picking on you at all, but I think that, given the frayed tempers here, we all need to try to be as polite as possible.  So with that in mind, could I ask you to be a bit cautious about saying things like ``believers in ghosts and ghoulies, and other things-that-go-bump-in-the-night``?  When you say things like that, you know you're going to irritate Davkal, and that just makes it more likely he'll respond in the same tone.  We already know that's not going to get us anywhere.  Word choices like ``snipe`` instead of ``criticize`` are also likely to inflame passions; or commenting that Josephson's mind has been turned to rock.  This might not be uncivil in the letter of the policy, but I hope you'll agree that it is really rhetoric more than it is argument  if we truly are going to be rational about this, we'll have to discount the tone and connotations of those terms anyway.  I do understand that a negative term can serve as a compressed signal of a criticism that would take longer to spell out politely; concision is important, but (because of the history of these edits) politeness is at least as important.  I will make similar comments, if appropriate, after posts by others, too, unless you all tell me I'm overdoing it.  I'd encourage everyone to police each other for this kind of civility slip too  if I find you and Karl suggesting politer wording to each other, I'll know we've crossed an important civility hurdle.  It's a bit trickier for you two to correct Davkal's usage, and for him to correct yours, so please be very cautious (and polite!) if you try that.  Let's back up and look at why we care about the term ``parapsychologist``.  The two alternatives are ``advocate for paranormal beliefs `` and ``parapsychologist``.  I think the value (to those who support Josephson) of the distinction is that the former term leaves open to the reader the possibility that Josephson is a full-time professional physicist who, in his private life, happens to believe in the paranormal.  The latter term has the implication that parapsychology is Josephson's fulltime interest, which (in at least some readers' minds) will give him a little more authority.  I think all your points above are well-taken; the FoP paper is more synthesis than research, after all.  But the Mind-Matter Unit does seem to be Josephson's full time job.  I know he can always be described as a physicist, because of his past work, but I can't see any evidence that he still does mainstream physics research.  It appears that whatever he does on a daily basis is done under the aegis of the Mind-Matter Unit.  I think, for the purposes of the general reader of this article, that calling him a parapsychologist is a bit closer to representing that state of affairs accurately than just saying he is an advocate of the paranormal.  Some caveats: * if we can find another term that describes his work better than parapsychologist, we can use that instead * if we can find evidence of what actually goes on day-to-day in the Mind-Matter Unit, then that may change the description.  For example, if a statement exists somewhere saying that the job of the Unit is for media education on possible scientific explanations for the paranormal, that would imply a description like ``advocate`` or ``media analyst`` or some such phrase.  What do you think?  And Davkal, Karl, I will check your talk pages if you decide to respond there.   `