Category talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 1

Ultimate POV article
So I was reading the Wiki POV article and I got linked to this.. ? wht ultimate in POVery.. for instance.. Intelligent Design asserts that God was involved in the original degsign of everything. Astro physical events leading eventually to Evolution (it would assert) was the plan of God. Einstein believed this. Heck.. anyone who believes in God and believes he had anything to do with making the universe believes in Intelligent Design.. what's that like 80% of all people? BUT.. the only way to proove it is to go back to the beginning of everything and watch it happen (impossible) or to meet God himself and talk about it (debatable). But the same goes for the opposite.. the I dunno, athiesm, viewpoint. Only there's is even harder to proove because you can't disproove non-existance.. or whatever. So... is this article just here as a joke or a slap in the face of anyone you think is "not scientific enough" or is this article taking a stance on the God issue or what? --DjSamwise 18:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A few more questions.. how do these topics all wind up in the same category? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo <- Crazy junk that happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Moon_base. yeah ok.. <-- ok seriously? hahahah... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_%28TV%29 <- Is the fact that a Newage TV show called LIME TV exists considered Psuedo Science? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay <- sexual lifestyle vs religious dedication <- what the crap? Science/Psuedo science? I vote niether. This page is messed up. --DjSamwise 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Category Existence
Look, I admit that a lot of this stuff is way out there, but the very existence of this category is perilously close to skeptic POV; I have softened the description line, hoping that helps a bit. --Gary D 04:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's not the place of Wikipedia to claim that, for example, homeopathy violates the scientific method. I might personally (indeed, I do) think that it's a load of absolute bunkum - but the absolute most that Wikipedia should say is that some named person has claimed that homeopathy is bunkum. I'm going to soften the description even more. --   ALargeElk | Talk 14:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Checking the history I see that Gary D had softened it and someone had then hardened it again. There is a difference between the article intro and the category. The article intro effectively says "this is what we believe pseudoscience means". The category effectively says "we believe these articles to be examples of pseudoscience", and must therefore, at the very least, contain the word "alleged" or something similar. --   ALargeElk | Talk 14:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Obviously, as the guy who softened it the first time, I support ALargeElk's position. --Gary D 18:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * In keeping with NPOV why not change the description to indicating that this category is for fields currently regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream science ? Then it will not contain both creationism and evolution just because supporters can be found on both sides. Having said that, I feel the category may be too broad. Do we add in everything in the "Alternative Medicine" project? Zuytdorp Survivor 03:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think your concern about category breadth may touch on why I don't like this category. Unlike the article Pseudoscience, where claims and counterclaims can be attributed and discussed, with a category of Pseudoscience it's as though WP comes down and puts its imprimatur on all these articles to say, "WP agrees that everything here fails to comport with the scientific method and is pseudoscience." That's why I liked the waffle language about "alleged to be"; that way the category was only setting up the possibility of contested claims, WP wasn't vouching for any of them, and the reader could go to the individual articles to see who was claiming something was pseudoscience. (I actually considered proposing changing the category title to "Alleged pseudoscience," but that seemed a bit much.) If we go to the "currently mainstream science" language in the description, we are inserting a broad, definite attribution across the board, to many places where it may not be justified. For instance, this category currently contains the broad article Supernatural. I don't think we want to be in the position of certifying that all of mainstream science thinks everything connected with the supernatural is pseudoscience. Hence, I would propose leaving the admittedly wafflish "alleged to be" language in the description. (What I'd really like to do is dump the category.) --Gary D 20:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I too would completely do away with this category completely. Redirecting the category to "Alleged pseudoscience" would remain a poor second choice.  The term "pseudoscience" tends to be used pejoratively about a study or practice, in the same way that the word "dictator" is used to describe certain national leaders.  When you call a subject "pseudoscience" you are making a positive claim about that subject.  You are proposing a theory about the subject, and unless you are providing falsifiable evidence about your proposal, you are yourself (within our definition of the term) acting pseudoscientifically. For the subject to be pseudoscience there must at least be a semblance or pretense of being scientific, and to the extent that the subject has individual adherents who sincerely attempt to apply (perhaps in futility) scientific methods those individuals do not deserve to be contemptuously called pseudoscientists.  The behaviour of the so-called scientists in this matter is reprehensible; as I read many of the related articles I often find them trying to disprove and spotlight claims that the proponents never made.  The cited section on the NPOV page is not much better than biased POV sophistry, beginning with the presumption that what "scientists" consider to be pseudoscientific is repugnant.  In a later section the author goes so far as to associate the holders of minority beliefs with flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.  I don't know if I have the stomach to go there to change that to a truly NPOV presentation. Eclecticology 12:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been deleted yet?
It looks like we have a consensus here. Why hasn't any action been taken? The article is OK, but the Category is POV, not to mention insulting. Why haven't any Wikipedians who support the existence of this category posted their opinion?

Specific proposal: rename the category to something like. --Smithfarm 16:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I just dicovered -- to my astonishment -- the existence of this category. Shall we make it Afd? Harald88 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience is an extremely POV term. While there are many things I would consider such, there are others, which I would consider to be borderline... for example, is acupuncture, "alternative", protoscience, pseudoscience or medical? There is good evidence for its anaesthetic qualities, but few Western doctors would agree with some of the other attached theories. However, within science, there are always competing theories, e.g. the Big Bang, while the most popular theory of the universe's origin is still not the sole one, and the Steady State, while of much less popularity is still accepted by some scientists. --MacRusgail 19:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is irreversibly POV. It however, could be remade into "disputed scientific theories", or something of that nature. [stargate70]

Quackery?
Now what about the Quackery category? Does that fit in here at all? Does it have any proponents (i.e. people who say "I'm a quack, and proud of it")? Or is it just an insult? --Smithfarm 16:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep this category
Smithfarm: please stop removing this categorization like you did for holistic science. There is clearly the need to mark non-scientific topics as non-scientific (or non-mainstream or whatever). Removing this category would be blatant POV. I also don't like the the name "Alternative scientific paradigms". Why not stick to "pseudoscience", a term that is widely in use and where we have an article for. Cacycle 22:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you at least agree that putting a derogatory label on something is POV? (Same as taking the derogatory label off is, as you state) Can you suggest a non-derogatory label? --Smithfarm 06:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How about "Widely challenged theories"?&mdash;Theo (Talk) 30 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)

Alternative approachs

 * I don't support deleting this category or giving it too silly a name ("Alternative paradigms" or whatever). The way I see it, you can look at the term "pseudoscience" as having one of two meanings: 1. An essentialist meaning: things are pseudoscience because they do not adhere to the scientific method. 2. A pragmatic meaning: Things are pseudoscience which the mainstream scientific community labels as pseudoscience.
 * Clearly the people who use the term to designate certain things as "pseudoscience" or not are implying an essentialist meaning -- that "pseudoscience" is a real category. The problem with this is that there is considerable debate by philosophers, historians, and even scientists at times about whether or not there is any clear demarcation criteria that seperates science from non-science. People throw "falsifiability" around as if it was an easy and straightforward term -- any small amount of prodding will show that it is a bit more complicated than that, though.
 * The second approach is one which doesn't assume to understand or validate the accusation of "pseudoscience", but rather is more of a sociological approach to the question. I think it works better for a source like Wikipedia. It tells people who generally tend to trust the "mainstream scientific community" that these things are considered problematic. It allows the people who support these practices to say, "well, the mainstream scientific community might be wrong." It clearly points to the power structure imbedded in this form of labeling (labels to not just magically appear out of nothing apply themselves, they are always applied by someone) which I think is important for a NPOV approach (avoiding the assumption of any one group's essentialist criterion).
 * How this can apply in practice here is difficult, though. "Considered psuedoscience" might be a bit more NPOV as a title, but the odds of it actually being used are low. The category page itself would of course indicate by whom it was considered. I think words like "allegedly" or "putatively" don't really get at the sociological approach that I think is necessary for NPOV. Perhaps if we just changed the category description to reflect that the label was being actively applied (and not just existing outside of time and space)? I don't know for sure. I'm very wary about deleting the category, though -- I think there should be a category for things which are purpored to be scientific practices but are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. I think that's a useful thing to think about and a useful categorization scheme. But I'm not sure what the best concise category name is for that. Thoughts on this? --Fastfission 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should see a category not as a label to discredit an opinion but way more pragmatically as a way to find articles by descending into the categorization tree. There are many people interesting in this topic and they will look for this specific category name. Therefore I would keep the current category name. We may extend the category text, but because we already have a detailed article on the topic I would then link to it for further details. Cacycle 20:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the people applying the label consider it pejorative, the people on the receiving end definitely do. We don't use racial epithets to refer to other people when we're in public places, even if we don't consider the epithets pejorative and use them on a daily basis in the privacy of our homes. Wikipedia, too, is a public place, and if a term is known to have pejorative connotations, I don't think it should be used as a category. I'm not the only one who thinks this -- see the the July 2004 debate above.


 * I'm willing to agree to any non-pejorative category label. This will preserve the "utility value" of this category. For example: "Non-mainstream scientific theories".


 * But, echoing several contributions in the July 2004 debate above, what I really think is that this category should be done away with completely as an inherently POV, "in-your-face" label. It's like having a category "Nonsense".


 * Now some have objected that the term "pseudoscience" has a clear definition. Evidently they haven't read Demarcation problem. But even if we say, for the purposes of argument, that pseudoscience is any branch of science that doesn't rigorously apply the scientific method, is that definition clear to all? To me and, I daresay, alot of other people, many of whom may be casual readers of the pages "branded" with this category (people who are interested in the topics in question), it will simply appear that Wikipedia itself is against anything that dares to question the dominant paradigm. Why else would it need to label something with a derogatory word? This appearance (referred to in the discussion above as Wikipedia giving an imprimatur) belies the fact that the category represents only a certain fraction of Wikipedians who are pushing their own, anti-New-Age agenda.


 * The term science itself can't be defined as something that rigorously applies the scientific method. Such a definition would relegate a significant portion of mainstream scientific work or research to being "non-scientific" or "pseudoscientific". I quote from Demarcation problem: After more than a century of active dialogue, the question of what marks the boundary of science remains fundamentally unsettled. It follows that it is a matter of opinion whether or not a given theory is pseudoscience. Opinions are fine. But they have no business "masquerading" as Wikipedia categories, which are supposed to be straightforward and uncontroversial.


 * (( Aside: I just noticed that String theory has not been placed in this category. Why not? Are any of you willing to go there and put the pseudoscience label on it? Why isn't there a "Non-science" category? ))


 * So, to sum up, let's ask ourselves why a label is necessary at all. The only reason I can think of is that mainstream science feels threatened by something. And so it has instituted a system akin to kosher in foods. Something is kosher because the religious authorities say it is. That's the only criterion. Something is scientific because mainstream science says it is. "String theory is OK, but homeopathy -- over my dead body!" --Smithfarm 21:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep the article. We have greater POV problems than this one, go and crusade against those.  WP:SPOV has certain virtues, and can be incorporated within NPOV.  Deleting or renaming the category shuld be done thru WP:CFD. Dunc|&#9786; 22:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I vote "keep," but still hold open the question of renaming. It is not too different from having a category like "racists" or "bigots." It is a not a self-assigned label and represents a purposefully derogative assignment of status. Put another way, it is a less extreme version than having a category like "race traitor" that Neo-Nazis would apply to whites in the Civil Rights Movement. Again, I'm not sure of the best way to deal with this aspect of things -- either we take a line which is completely within the POV of the mainstream scientific community (certainly not a standard we do on other articles, and certainly not NPOV), or we end up with something ridiculous (none of the alternatives proposed work for me). Or, perhaps, we just heavily edit the category description to emphasize that we are only using it because it is such a well known term for this. Hmm. I don't know for sure, I'll think about it a bit, though. (I don't think the label of pseudoscience is just a "matter of opinion", though -- I think it is a little more complex than that, and has to do with professionalization of disciplines and the internal content of the science itself, even though I think it is a sociological rather than a philosophical phenomena -- but that's not really the point, here). --Fastfission 00:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I want to point out that I don't think the term pseudoscience is necessarily always offensive to proponents of a subject labelled as such: the term does have a specific meaning and a specific relationship with the terms fringe science and protoscience. Still though, in response to the POV complexities and the above-mentioned problem of the Wikipedia "imprimatur," perhaps we could put an asterix in the title?  I think " Pseudoscience* " as the category title at the bottom of pages, with explanation on the category page would mitigate these problems.  (looks like this wouldn't be prevented by technical restrictions)--Nectarflowed (talk) 04:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What Nectarflowed said, seems to makes sense at first, adding something like an asterisk to the title, let's say "considered Pseudoscience". But then, I foud the category doesn't make sense, I mean see the terorism article. We don't have fuzzy categories here, and to put it in one pot for good science and another for bad science, is not really the idea of an open, free dictionary. We have the articles that should come to the point and say, "most people believe..." or something, see NPOV. I agree that some people might not find it offensive to let their field be called pseudoscience, but then its meaning is "something like science [but not science]" Let's just put them all in the science bag, after all most people who did "pseudosience" did some kind of research, etc. It's largely political considerations that some fields are called "pseudo-". Of course something like phrenology was not "real" it didn't show anything, but it was a (kind-of) scientific approach. So, let's forget about the category. Ben talk contr 12:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Balance
I'm going to add category:Belief to this category, since I think that some of the articles / subcategories fall into both partial science and belief realms. Hopefully, this will provide a balanced categorisation. Ian Cairns 20:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's a wise idea. -Willmcw 21:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

comments
Request made to move category to Category:Science of Questionable Validity at Categories_for_deletion

Requested Move
Category is misleading and has fueled a revert war on Aetherometry — Hackwrench 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 

Having presented the request, I vote 'For' Hackwrench 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Support or oppose what? What exactly is the proposal we are asked to vote on? Also, this "discussion" seems to have been going on for a year and a half now, and nothing seems to be have been done as a result. I see some people have quite cogently argued on this page that the category Pseudoscience is POV, that it is insulting, that its uses cannot be adequately justified since the Wikipedia editors do not have enough resources and knowledge to judge the scientific merits of non-mainstream scientific claims, etc. And what? Does this discussion have any procedural significance, or is it just meant as a venue for marginals to blow off steam and think they are accomplishing something? FrankZappo 05:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hackwrench, voting for deleting or renaming this category take place at Categories for deletion. We have a procedure. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had originally submitted this to Requests for move. The procedure there is to vote in the Talk page. Hackwrench 17:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Outcome
"The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)"

discussion archived at Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 10

Creationism
The creationism category includes articles which are pseudoscience such as Flood geology, and many other articles which aren't such as Theistic evolution. I strongly suggest that crationism should no longer be a sub-category of pseudoscience. ...dave souza 19:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Items don't need fall 100% within a category to be categorized there. The point of categories is not to define articles (or subcategories) but to provide readers with a navigational tool to related topics. -Willmcw 19:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As the discussion above shows, this is a contentious label and should not be applied lightly where it can't be justified. Oddly enough, parent categories tend to be less of a fuss as they don't appear at the foot of the page, but at the moment the categorising seems to be leading to arguments and confusion, hence my agreement with Fastfission's 13 June 2005 suggestion on the cat:creationism talk page. ....dave souza 23:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Though you've cross-posted this I suggest we only discuss it one place, Category talk:Creationism. -Willmcw 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Creationism doesn't belong here. It has too many believers to be included here. (Try including anything about Islamic beliefs and watch the fur fly) [stargate70]

A deductive justification for this category's existance
Without first ever reading this talk page(oops), I have posted a justification for this and similarly POVed categories at Category talk:Pseudophysics. Assuming that one agrees that we should categorize things as science and that there exists at least one uncontroversial(and therefore minimally exclusive) criteria met by science, I've shown there why there is necessarily reason for a 'similar-to-but-not-science' category to exist. It is impossible to NPOVly couch a POVed categorization, whether it be favorable or unfavorable. However, this doesn't imply that such categories are unuseful nor even controversial in their contents. Even with POV categories, it is still possible to maximize compromise and minimize edit wars with a reasoned category scheme. Anyways, I guess I'll read this talk page now. =P

--Intangir 06:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please post any comments to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience instead of here. --Intangir

Category Scheme Proposal
As an off-the-cuff proposal, I think that a good scheme would be


 * Natural Ontologies->Science+Pseudoscience+(Other reality-oriented beliefs)

Or better yet,


 * Natural Ontologies->Science+(Controversial Ontologies->Pseudoscience+fringe science+more)

Ontology might be a big word, but at least it means the right thing(unlike belief) and is quite value neutral(unlike a parent category which implied science or validity). The second suggestion allows for overly controversial categorizations to be compromised and marked merely as Controversial Ontologies. --Intangir 07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

History of category at WP:CFD
This category has been nominated for deletion or renaming several times. This section is a summary of that activity.


 * nominated for deletion at end of May 2005 ~ diff showing addition of template
 * decision to keep at start of June 2005 ~ diff showing removal of template
 * I've not found the archived discussion for this, otherwise I would have added that link instead of these User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 19:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * nominated for renaming in early December 2005 ~ decision was to not rename ~ archived discussion


 * nominated for deletion in late December 2005 ~ discussion not to delete ~ archived discussion

Defn
The defn of pseudoscience used in this cat includes and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. Of itself, this is wrong: there are quite a lot of PS theories (aetherometry being one obvious example) that are so wacky that they are totally ignored by the scientific community, and thus come in for no significant criticism from scientists. It seems to me that Pseudoscience does a better job of defining PS. William M. Connolley 19:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Hi, Dr. Connolley, this is Janusz. I dont see how definition in article Pseudoscience makes difference.  There it writes:


 * Classifying pseudoscience


 * Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:
 * by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
 * by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
 * by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
 * by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
 * by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
 * by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
 * by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
 * by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible; ::or
 * by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.


 * You cannot yourself make such determination when claims are very complex and is not obvious that they contradict empirical results. Just because is obvious they contradict some existing accepted theory and many people think this is wacko is not enough for jumping to saying they contradict experiment or are not reproducible or lie about prediction or violate Occam's principle or are not progressing toward evidence.  You as scientist must know this.  To make such classification in encyclopedia, you still have to support it with quotes from reputable existing sources.  Otherwise it is not place of encyclopedia to concern with it.  Somebody said Wikipedia is not soapbox, and this, in my view, should also hold for administrators.  To classify something in encyclopedia as science or as pseudoscience only because of strong opinion is soapbox, is not real scientific viewpoint.  Especially administrators who are scientists should give with behaviour model of difference between real science and soapbox.  Sincerely, Janusz.  Januszkarp 15:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Caroll's definition in his Skeptics' Dictionary is good and concise: "A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific."  Obviously, there are going to be things at the fringes due to demarcation issues and the degree of misrepresentation.  When something is at the fringes, Wikipedia quidelines say to omit it (just saw that -- gonna have to dig it up.) -Jim Butler 08:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, found this under WP:CG; more below. Jim Butler(talk) 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New tag: Template:CategorisationDisputedTopics
Given that this category remains contentious and there's no good rule of thumb for when to use it in disputed cases, I decided to be bold and create this tag (following Template:CategorisationDisputedPeople) and add it. I'll probably add Template:Cleancat later for particular issues (such as lingering confusion about the definition of pseudoscience). Thoughts? thx, Jim Butler(talk) 08:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with adding the tag, but surely the only time the category won't be disputed is when the "science" has no remaining adherents online. As a definition, the opening paragraph of Pseudoscience looks good. For a rule of thumb, the subject should have claims to be science and be described as not being science by a reliable source as required by WP:NOR. As WP:NPOV requires, this should be in the article. It should be noted that Biographies of living persons can be held to require a source attributing pseudoscience to that person, even though they're a proponent of a subject which itself is credibly described as pseudoscience..dave souza, talk 11:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This category is not only contentious with respect to deciding what belongs here, its name is inherently biased. Namely, it reflects scientific POV: it's the scientist's label for disciplines outside of mainstream science. I don't think anybody presumably practicing 'pseudoscience' would be happy with that term, and this will eventually have to change, much like 'nigger' changed to 'black', etc. Aquirata 11:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If those declining to abide by the scientific method don't like it, they don't have to call their ideas "science". ..dave souza, talk 14:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dave, good points above. Additional considerations:


 * Dispute over evidence. Some topics are more disputed than others among legitimate scientists. Acupuncture has more legitimate claim to dispute than baraminology.


 * Dispute over representation.
 * Among practitioners: Not all proponents of an alleged pseudoscience may agree on whether they want to call it scientific. Some proponents of Reiki say their system is scientific, but others explicitly disavow science and say Reiki is spiritual healing.  In that case, the pseudoscience tag applies, but only to the degree that congruence with science is claimed.
 * Between critics and proponents: I think that grey areas frequently have more to do with what is being claimed and less to do with the demarcation problem of science's boundaries. Again, with acupuncture, of course TCM's yin-yang theory isn't scientific.  But its originators didn't conceive of it as such, and many modern acupuncturists appreciate the clinically useful information that they believe people from another age and culture "encoded" in it.  Whether the meridians have objective existence isn't the issue; whether points on them work as predicted is.  Nonetheless, Carroll calls TCM a pseudoscience because it "confuse(s) metaphysical claims with empirical claims".  That isn't quite the same thing as his concise definition of pseudoscience a "set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific."


 * Dispute over breadth of definition. Agree that the WP definition in the first paragraph of pseudoscience is good, but not all popular usage (including among self-identified skeptics) is in accordance with it.  Sometimes the term seems to be used to indicate any field that makes objective claims which haven't been verified.  The underlying presumption here is apparently that any claim to achieving an objective result is implicitly scientific, whether or not the proponents of the system explicitly claim they're doing science.  Thus, has been debate over whether or not religion is pseudoscientific.  Some people are using the term "pseudoscientific" as nearly synonymous with "nonscientific".

I didn't mean to do a bunch of original research venting above, but rather to highlight why OTHER reliable sources may legitimately disagree over use of the label. In that case, if we're going to use the WP category, it certainly should be flagged somehow. Also see below; under WP:CG's criteria there are obviously going to be some grey areas. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 22:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If foo's inclusion is disputed, it should be discussed at talk:foo. Looking through the list, I can't see anything that doesn't warrant inclusion here. As it is, these tactics from certain individuals to pretend one's favourite pseudoscience isn't pseudoscience are are rather tiresome.&mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Dunc. As I said before elsewhere, if you dispute the inclusion of a topic in this cat, the correct place to raise the issue is at the article, not in the category. The people most interested in the inclusion of a given topic are editing that topic - they probably don't have this page on their watchlist. In addition, inclusion of the tag on this page is not useful to users - there's no indication of which articles are in dispute (and there's no way of indicating disputed inclusions in a category). So this is a very bad idea, since it doesn't help editors and it doesn't help readers. Guettarda 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On review, agree with Dunc and Guettarda: the categorisation is at an article level, and it's there that any dispute must be resolved. Categories are about helping people to find articles, and should not be taken as a judgement on a dispute. ..dave souza, talk 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dunc, spare me the ad hominem, don't be dense about grey area existing here (see the EBM discussion on acupuncture), and don't be a dick and remove the tag without a little discussion. Some of these issues are long-standing and non-trivial.  Guettarda, I agree that it would be good if there were a way to flag which categories were disputed, and have that show up both on the article and the category page.  Maybe there is, or we can create one.  Any idea what is meant when WP:CG says:  "you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed"?


 * I'm fine with the idea that the proposed template may not be the best way to address problems with this category, but it still does need attention. I created the template along the lines of Template:CategorisationDisputedPeople, which presumably was meant to help readers be aware of disputes.  I'm pretty sure that there are more than a couple fuzzy and contentious categories on WP.  I think this is still a useful and interesting category, and for the record am no apologist for creationism or many alt-med things.


 * Dunc et. al., I don't agree that debate over inclusion of foo in fuzzy categories depends only on foo; obviously it depends on the boundaries of the category as well. In practice, topics get put in the category because a reliable source has applied the label, irrespective of whether the reliable source is using the definition on the page, and irrespective of whether other reliable sources disagree.  Also see the "dispute" list I posted above to Dave.  I hope some editors perceive a little substance here and don't line up along hardcore pseudoskeptic lines.


 * I made this edit as a start: This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both allegedly claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method.  Am also adding Template:Cleancat until we reach consensus on clearer criteria for inclusion, and say explicitly what they are.  If consensus is that these concerns are insubstantial, fine, but let's extend the mutual courtesy of saying why.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm late... anyway the word alledgedly is one of those weasel word which we are instructed not to use. It will need to be reworded -- unsigned message from User:Jefffire, 11:45, 21 June 2006
 * Thanks for stopping by, and I find that after having slept on it I agree. It's too broad.  At tyhe time I added it, I felt that the cat was being used more broadly than its definition warranted.  But I agree a better solution is to keep the category precise and use it with due attention to WP:CG.  Removing; thx.  Note that there remains another "alleged" that was there before I edited it.  - thx, Jim Butler(talk) 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ROFL: "Dunc, spare me the ad hominem...and don't be a dick" &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad someone caught the irony. :-) I did have WP:DICK somewhat in mind.  Dunc's multiple reverts without an explanatory edit summary do flirt with dickishness, IMO, but it's not like I haven't done stuff like that too (hence tongue planted lightly in cheek).  Jim Butler(talk) 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Criteria from WP:CG
Here are some criteria on whether to include something in a category:


 * Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:
 * If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
 * If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
 * If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate. ....


 * Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. ....


 * Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed.

thx -Jim Butler(talk) 22:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Science is important (so is pseudoscience)
Pseudoscience helps explain science. This is extremely important. Just because something is categorized as pseudoscience, that doesn't mean it is altogether a pseudoscience. It can mean that it has pseudoscientific elements. This is basically what the pseudoscience article says, and it is what the cat is used for. Its an important issue. If there is an issue in a subject that says it or part of is is pseudoscience, then it should be mentioned and categorized as being part of that issue. Firstly, this is correct in encyclopedic terms. Secondly, it is correct in educational terms (for helping the understanding of related subjects such as science). Thirdly, it really is something that a reader will want to know straight away about a subject. If an article is written well, then it is simply a matter of the reader making up their own mind. There is also an issue (not sure if it is so important here) that the public in general are not good at recognizing pseudoscience when they see it (take a look at the pop psych section in bookshops). Wikipedia will allow them to see that it is at least an issue within certain subjects. Whether this last point is an issue for Wikipedia or not, the use of a pseudoscience cat will be both useful and clarifying. The only people benefiting from abolition of the cat are those promotors or advocates of the subject (those wishing to present a strongly biased or narrow view). The cat will still allow balance and a better inclusion of the science view. It is up to the rest of the editors to use the cat properly. KrishnaVindaloo 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks KV. I agree with a great deal of what you say.  I certainly don't want to abolish the cat, or dilute it into irrelevancy, or lend aid and comfort to those who deceptively claim to be scientific.  I do want to make sure that we're clear on the criteria for putting things in the category.


 * When you say, "If there is an issue in a subject that says it or part of is is pseudoscience, then it should be mentioned and categorized as being part of that issue", this is the heart of the matter. Of course we can mention PS in the article with NPOV wording and sourcing, but we have to be clear about the criteria for the category per WP:CG.  Some things are more self-evident and untroversial than others.  As I said above, in practice, topics get put in the PS category simply because a reliable source has applied the label, irrespective of whether the reliable source is using the definition on the cat page, and irrespective of whether other reliable sources disagree.  If we address this issue by (a) agreeing on criteria for inclusion, (b) clearly explaining those criteria with appropriate wording on the cat page and (c) follow WP:CG in categorizing indiviual articles, then I think the validity of the category will improve.  That's kinda my bottom line concern and I apologize in advance to other editors if I've gone on too much about it.  Thanks again, Jim Butler(talk) 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest point of this issue is found in Wikipedia policy here. Specifically, guideline #8 which states:

''Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.''

Too often when adding subjects to Pseudoscience, we have seen lots of contraversy. Many times, one person's view of "self-evident" is based purely on POV. The determiniation of whether something is pseudoscience can be highly subjective. Science is not always a black-or-white stage, where labelling is easy. This is because of one of the most objective facts: We do not know everything. Most of the world of science is neither black or white but rather some shade of gray. There are so few laws and so many theories. And just because something is accepted by science today, certainly does not stop it from being heralded as pseudoscience tomorrow.

In general, I think we have to show great care when placing a discipline in the pseudoscience category. The term has become a pejorative label ussed to attack beliefs that are completely divergent from another set of beliefs. But if they are both beliefs and neither are scientific laws, then which side gets to determine categorization? Levine2112 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting, Levine2112, and this raises an interesting issue: we can say in articles that "Jones says foo is pseudoscientific" if Jones is a reliable source and not a tiny minority viewpoint.  However, if an editor wants to place foo in Category:Pseudoscience, guideline 8 above from WP:CG suggests a higher threshold:  the editor would have to show something like scientific consensus that the topic is pseudoscientific.  That's not a hard standard to meet for egregious things like ID.  It may be tougher for, say, Reiki, but we can still use NPOV wording if someone reliable says Reiki is pseudoscientific, and we could still place it in a "healthcare modalities of unproven or disputed efficacy" category or something like that.  (Reiki, btw, just an example I got drawn into editing recently; I'm not a Reiki advocate and my view is that it's gotta rise or fall based on efficacy just like the rest of 'em).


 * Bottom line: if (e.g.) Robert Todd Carroll calls foo pseudoscientific, that alone isn't enough under WP standards to put foo in Category:Pseudoscience.  We should be able to show something along the lines of scientific consensus to that effect.  Thoughts? Jim Butler(talk) 23:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. KrishnaVindaloo, on your concerns about pedagogical completeness: it just occurred to me that a reader can still use "what links here", in the toolbox bar just under the "search" box, in order to see articles in which pseudoscience is wikilinked but which aren't placed in Category:Pseudoscience.  I'm still getting familiar with all the tools around here; this is probably a "duh" point for experienced folks.  -Jim Butler(talk) 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think scientific consensus is needed. What is important though is that if a subject is considerd PS then it should be mentioned if the subject is considered unfalsifiable, or falsified and still promoted, or full of obscurantisms, or anti-scienific. Basically wherever science or a reliable scientific source clarifies a pseudoscientific subject  or takes issue with a subject that they consider pseudoscientific, then it should be categorized as such.  Perhaps in this way, the notes of the category should say that there are issues of pseudoscience in the subject. KrishnaVindaloo 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KV -- It sounds like you're arguing that "if a reliable a source says foo is pseudoscientific, then foo should be placed in the category". Please read WP:CG, excerpts of which I posted just above, e.g. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.  I think that contradicts your "reliable source" criterion for categorizing.  While a reliable source is fine for mentioning pseudoscience in an article, WP:CG requires a significantly higher standard for categorization.  Do you disagree?  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is blatant Wikilawyering. You are not making a specific point, just plucking pieces of policy out of the air that you think supports your "position" (whatever that is).  If you have a problem with anything categorised here, say, and we'll discuss it on its talk page.  &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that the criteria for populating this category need clarification. What's so hard to understand about that, and why shouldn't it be discussed on the cat talk page?  If you think the criteria are clear, then say what they are.  Say whether or not you agree with KrishnaVindaloo's "reliable source" criterion.


 * Example - why was the entire Category:Alternative_medicine put in Category:Pseudoscience? I just removed it, and it's fine to discuss that on Category_talk:Alternative_medicine, but I still think we should firm up the criteria for this cat.  Why recapitulate a debate on every talk:foo page that can be at least partially addressed here?  Jim Butler(talk) 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Jim Butler here. There is always so much quibbling over individual disciplines being placed in the Pseudoscience category. Wouldn't it be much eachier to more rigorously define what is Pseudoscience... then we can see what is a pseudoscience. I will reiterate that which Jim Butler has stated: We must clarify the criteria for populating this category. The Alternative Medicine debacle is a perfect example of mainstream medicine POV gone awry. Just because something is an alternative medicine does not make it pseudoscience. Much of what is called "alternative medicine" is actually extremely scientifically based. Levine2112 02:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it is even easier that that. Take a look at a good book on pseudoscience (eg Science and Psudoscience in clinical psychology) or The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience.  The subjects are examined for pseudoscientific elements (eg alternative medicine).  There is nothing perjorative about it and it all adds knowledge.  Wikipedia takes science seriously as it is knowledge oriented.  If a notable or reliable source brings up the subject of pseudoscience then it should be added to that category.  There may be some subjects that are not completely suitable (eg quantum physics).  But then again, pseudoscience is an issue, so why not add the cat?  I'm sure there is no way we can set comprehensive criteria or rules about this category.  As usual it is a matter of getting reasonable editors together to be as neutral as possible about it.  So finding criteria as guidelines is great and clarifying the pseudoscience art is important, but it is also a case by case issue. There will indeed be quibbling over which discrete subjects will go into the cat.  But you can guarantee it will be mostly from those with vested or promotional interests in those subjects. Those editors with a more neutral inclination will be able to recognize any significant view of pseudoscience and recognize its significance for that category.  KrishnaVindaloo 07:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * None of this relevant here. The NPOV policy already covers these issues and WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable. Please read: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Giving"equal validity" and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Pseudoscience.


 * As long as majority of the scientific community says a particular belief is pseudoscience, then WP:NPOV allows for it's categorization as such, period. FeloniousMonk 18:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CG requires higher standards for categorization
Hi KV; this is in response to your post just above on 07:27, 21 June 2006. Again, please read WP:CG, excerpts of which I posted above, e.g. ''Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.'' A reliable source is fine for citing pseudoscience in an article, but WP's guidelines for using the category are stricter. This makes sense. By analogy, a notable scholar may say that the US government has elements of fascism, but we still wouldn't put it under category:fascism. Note that the reader can still use "what links here" (under the "search" box at the left) to find out more about pseudoscience even when the cat isn't used.

The wording on the cat page is actually pretty good if we apply WP:CG: This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method.  The phrase "scientific community" suggests consensus, or at least a solid majority view. (There also has to be reliable evidence that a field's proponents say their field is scientific.) That's what needs to be sourced in order to use the cat, not just one source saying "X is a pseudoscience". It's a higher standard than you suggest, but it's compatible with the cat page wording and with WP category guidelines. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC


 * OK, well the line is certainly inaccurate and misleading. Plenty of pseudoscientific subjects are full of proponents who swear blind that their mojometers or whatever are not science.  But they use scientific and pseudoscientific terms all over their promotional booklets, they put the word "neuro" in every sentence, they call themselves Dr. and they claim to do stuff that legitimate medical practitioners would be struck off for saying.


 * So it should read: pertaining to subjects that are made to seem scientific or scientifically supported but do not adhere to the scientific method, and are considered pseudoscientific by experts.


 * The fact remains, we can list the characteristics of pseudoscience and that will be useful for deciding inclusion. But it really is a matter of sensible application, rather than hard and fast rules. Pseudoscience is becoming more prevalent in undergrad science courses as a way to understand science, especially as there are new pseudos popping up all the time in science and fringe psychotherapy.  As a category it is an increasingly important issue. I would treat the pseudoscience cat as a kind of book in itself.  A book on pseudoscience will give a good number of pseudosciences proper mention. So really, just take a look at some good books on pseudoscience, and understand the subject to a good degree before trying to apply the cat.  From what I have seen of the application of the cat by editors here, it has been pretty well applied already.  KrishnaVindaloo 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KV. I do agree with your point that something can be pseudoscientific as long as its proponents portray it as scientific even if they try to avoid explicitly saying "this is science".  I think the definition allows for inclusion of such things by its use of the phrase "claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method."


 * You propose: "So it should read:  pertaining to subjects that are made to seem scientific or scientifically supported but do not adhere to the scientific method, and are considered pseudoscientific by experts." Ummm... I don't think that a good encyclopedic definition would include a criterion to the effect that "experts know it when they see it".  That's just circular reasoning and argument by authority, isn't it?  And by definition not very scientific.  One of the primary criteria for the scientific method is intersubjective verifiability.  If pseudoscience is a valid category, its definition ought to be stated plainly.  I understand that the term pseudoscience, like "cult" etc., is popularly used in different ways.  That fact only underscores the need for NPOV language and reliable sourcing, and even more stringent use of the cat.


 * I think there is value in your idea of listing everything that has been said to have elements of pseudoscience. However, doing so with the WP cat is plainly not consistent what WP:CG says about NPOV.  You haven't been able to refute that point; you've only restated your opinion that it should be otherwise.  I do think your proposal can and should be pursued someplace on the internet, and as I said above it still can be achieved to some extent on WP by using "what links here".  But not with overbroad use of the cat.


 * In practical terms, I think that Category:Alternative_medicine, which I recently removed, certainly didn't belong here. Acupuncture and chiropractic have been proposed and deleted in the past, and I agree with that.  Both arguably have elements of pseudoscience, but also legitimate elements of science.  Even Jarvis, writing for the very-likely-biased NCAHF, acknowledges that such a mix exists for chiropractic.  Similar points are made in the entry for acupuncture.  That means both topics fail WP:CG's "self-evident and uncontroversial" test.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 20:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Sure, my "definition" certainly needs tweaking heavilly:) But the main reason for categories is to help the reader browse similar articles.  Someone reading a pseudoscientific subject (eg, QiGong (a kind of shamanism)) will want to know what is meant by pseudoscientific, and to compare and contrast various pseudoscientific subjects.  There is variety there.  I would also want to know what parts of acupuncture are pseudoscientific, and the same with chiropractic.  This is all the more important as pseudoscience helps to clarify the scientifically supported aspects of a subject if they exist. There are definitely subjects that have been labeled as a pseudoscience by collections of scientists.  But there will always be resistence against calling something pseudoscience per se.  More commonly, subjects are called pseudoscientific, or containing pseudoscientific elements.  The latter is by far the more NPOV and useful for the reader (though will also encounter resistance). Really its just a matter of finding subjects that have reliable views saying it is pseudoscientific in whatever way, and adding it to the cat so that readers can compare and understand pseudoscientific subjects better. If I see quantum physics in the cat, for example, I do a doubletake and have a look at the article, and low and behold, someone views a part of quantum physics as pseudoscientific, then I have learned something. KrishnaVindaloo 04:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the what links here button essentially accomplish the same thing? It's basically an indexing function, which is what it sounds like you want.  I look forward to your thoughts on this issue.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Concerning perjorative use of the term pseudoscience. It generally doesn't happen in encyclopedias. In fact even when it happens in conversation it is usually informed by reference to an expert who has deemed a subject pseudoscientific (eg Dianetics). The literature on pseudoscientific subjects is generally written by scientists or science minded experts who wish to clear up some misconceptions. These will be by far the most reliable sources anyway. So perhaps a key element to deciding whether to categorize a subject in the pseudoscience cat would be "where a subject requires clarification". Eg, Dianetics seems scientific, but there is a lot of pseudoscientific elements to it. So it needs the clarification. Neurolinguistic programming certainly pretends to be science, but the pseudoscientific elements have been well displayed on the article. But really, wherever there are pseudoscientific elements, they need clarity. Comparison is very important here and will allow the reader to get a good idea of what pseudoscience is (there are many elements, and there are questions of degree that can be seen in the article as long as the reader is allowed to browse that cat).KrishnaVindaloo 05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia isn't your typical encyclopedia! ;-)  Pejorative or not, it's still an implicit NPOV violation to use the cat if it's disputed.  That's what WP:CG says, anyway.  Are you proposing a rewrite of WP:CG?
 * Quantum physics is an excellent example of something that has been said by some to have pseudoscientific elements (I'm thinking of Feynman wondering how some theories could possibly be falsifiable), but clearly doesn't belong in the cat. Why?  Because the categorization would be fiercely disputed, and not just by passionate "believers".    cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 17:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The assertion that its an implicit NPOV violation if the cat is disputed is nonsense. If someone from the Discovery Institute came here, of course they'd state that ID is good science. Its not, so what we must do is state in the article, with cites, that the DI's position is that ID is good science. But one person dissenting, or even a few? See NPOV#Undue weight. If we allowed anyone with a pet project to dissent, we might as well let the lunatics run the asylum. If the scientific community regards something as pseudoscience, it is. If eventually someone comes along with proofs and the scientific community accepts the subject as science, then we remove the psucat and edit the article to say something like "Long regarded as pseudoscience, ScienceMan's groundbreaking work in the 2020's proved that..." One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KC - you commented "The assertion that its an implicit NPOV violation if the cat is disputed is nonsense." Yet that's actually what WP:CG says; see the relevant excerpts; I'm not making this stuff up.  But of course undue weight still applies, and that is exactly what resolves the issue.  In order to cause an NPOV violation, the dispute needs to be a legitimate one.  That means within the scientific community, including significant minority POV's (the real kind, from scientists publishing in the same refereed journals, not in their own would-be peer-reviewed journals).  I don't mean dispute between scientific consensus and advocates within the pseudoscience community.  Creationism is thus safely within the cat.  Quantum physics, which another editor suggested could be in the cat because some say it has pseudoscientific elements, should not be.  Some of the so-called alt-med stuff for which there is EBM-level evidence IMO shouldn't be either.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like we're more or less on the same page, then. EBM is tricky; there have been many cases of improper procedure, faulty and/or biased reports, etc. I will have to disagree with you on that one. We note that there is EBM support, note also there are no actual studies. Until actual, double blind studies with a reasonable size group, full follow up, etc. are done then it is still completely anecdotal and we should report that accurately. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm - what definition of pseudoscience are you using, KC? "Unproven" isn't synonymous with PS although some use it that way.  For EBM, I have never heard of a case where there is support but no studies.  But the solution is simple:  follow WP:NPOV and WP:V and say who says what, and why.  Use of the cat, unfortunately, doesn't allow any such qualification. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to bear in mind that WP:CG is (a) only a guideline, not policy, and (b) like all guidelines and policy, should not be interpreted as a legal document - ie, focus more on the general sense of the wording, don't try to interpret it too narrowly. Anything that can be described as pseudoscience will be "controversial" inasmuch as it will have practioners who claim it is "real". But in many cases it's pretty clear whether the subject can be reasonably descibed as pseudoscience or not. If there is general agreement among the editors of the article that the topic is pseudoscience, then it is "uncontroversial". If there is major disagreement as to whether the subject can be described as pseudoscience, as per policy (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV) then the subject shouldn't be in this category. But that's something for the editors of the article to decide. Guettarda 15:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am on the same page as Jim Butler. Even if all the Wikipedia editors of an article agree that something is pseudoscience, it cannot be called this or categorized as this; this would be original research by committee. We would need to see that this is also the reasonably unified view of the scientific community. It would be good to be clear about this standard and to ensure that it is applied in all cases, not solely to leave it up to the editors of the various articles, especially as this seems to be a category that is applied pretty arbitrarily (meaning without checking that there is any objective back-up for the use).Hgilbert 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it "OR by committee"? Wikipedia editors are supposed to evaluate sources, determine which ones are credible and which ones are not, and this should be a collaborative process.  How you can characterise that as "OR by committee" is baffling.  Guettarda 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Guettarda - Hgilbert's point (as I took it) is that it's OR to overinterpret what scientists are or are not saying. Just because something is not proven isn't the same as saying it's pseudoscientific.  But more important is the fact that things can be a mix of scientific and pseudoscientific, yet the cat tag is on or off, no middle ground.  "Inconsistent with such principles and method" can mean that something isn't falsifiable, or that it's overpromoted, or that its underlying theory is nonscientific even if in practice it (sometimes) verifiably works.  So the main issue IMO has to do with applying the tag to partial cases -- please see the example of "being partially in the kitchen" at fuzzy logic.  That is what I think WP:CG is getting at.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert, extremely well-made point about "OR by committee". Even though there is no scientific consensus that foo is proven, that alone doesn't mean scientific consensus exists that foo is bogus, unworthy of research, misrepresented as having scientific foundation, or inherently untestable. "Unproven" is not synonymous with "pseudoscientific". I think that use of this cat at least requires scientific consensus. Such consensus is demonstrable for things like so-called intelligent design. If it's also demonstrable for alt-med and other things, great, let's use the cat.

Or at least let's be clear on what the cat means. Look at the range of definitions that come up Googling for "pseudoscience definition". They're in the same ballpark, but some are broader than others. It's a bit like defining pornography, or a cult, or a hate group. Definitions in popular usage vary. Even if we agree upon a single definition, we need to make sure that sources we cite are using the term in the same way.

Pseudoscience is a useful concept, and I have no problem at all discussing it in articles, especially when we follow WP:NPOV and WP:V and say who says what, and why. But applying the category requires great caution, because even with a specific definition, populating the cat is still fuzzy: something can be partly pseudoscientific and partly not. (Check out the example of Bob being "partially in the kitchen" in the fuzzy logic article.) If the criteria from WP:CG are saying anything, surely they're saying:  don't use the cat unless it clearly applies, because it's an on/off condition:  there's no way to "partially" apply or qualify a cat, which creates an NPOV problem. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 08:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain how evaluating sources is "OR by committee". Are you advocating uncritically reporting what every source states, regardless of whether it is credible or not?  Guettarda 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I hope my comments above were clear.  I'm also saying that any nuance of "who says what and why", and of stuff being "partially" pseudoscientific, is totally lost by the on/off nature of being put in a category.  A majority of editors can't just say "we know it when we see it".  We've gotta have clear criteria and use the cat carefully.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest applying the following criteria for including an article in the category: the topic must be documented as verifiably pseudoscience (preferably in the article), including citations &mdash; this to prevent editors' arbitrary usage of this category (original research) &mdash; and its being categorized pseudoscience must be essentially uncontroversial (both amongst our editors and in the world at large) &mdash; thus respecting the NPOV policy that is (justly) strongly emphasized for category usage. Hgilbert 14:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How is this less OR than what I discussed? Guettarda 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If editors can decide something is categorizable as pseudoscience without needing to provide any citations to back this up - which I understood you to have suggested - then that is OR by committee or individuals. I am suggesting two more stringent standards: 1) that some reasonably qualified and citable individual in the academic or professional community has used the term or its essential equivalent, i.e. made clear that the subject in question is not merely an unproven scientific idea (viz. general relativity in its early years), or a wholly improbable suggestion (viz. string theory), or a philosophical speculation (viz. Wheeler's multiple world scenario), but a systematic falsification of scientific process or method (which is what the term pseudoscience implies). It is obviously not original research if you can cite someone on the question.


 * And, two, that any demonstrable diversity of opinion in the scientific, academic or professional community about the possible validity of the field (more than a couple of lone voices of little repute) is sufficient to torpedo the use of this label. In such a case, the diversity of opinion - even if one-sided - should be accurately represented within the article, and people should be allowed to form their own opinion. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs)


 * It's less OR to the extent that it doesn't involve overinterpreting consensus, e.g. inferring that because scientists don't accept something as proven, that means they think it's "unscientific" in other senses, like being unfalsifiable, lacking plausible mechanistic basis, or not being worthy of study. I'm not saying that's what you were proposing, but I do think we need to do more than amalgamate the consensus of "skeptical" groups if we are to apply the cat.  I agree with Hgilbert that WP:CG is setting a high bar and doesn't just let editors by majority override the NPOV considerations it raises.  Jim Butler(talk) 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I must disagree on a few points. Firsty and most importantly, the opinions of editors on whether there is a controversy must have no bearing on the inclusion of the category. Secondly, since being a pseudoscience or not is chiefly a scientific matter, I propose that only legitimate scientific opinions be counted on the matter (that sounds terrible, but let me explain). The reason being that almost every pseudoscience does not regard itself as a pseudoscience. Thus Creationism, for instance, could be argued to be non-includable, even though almost every scientists on the planet thinks otherwise.


 * My counter proposal is that the only criterion be that the subject is verifiably considered scientifically highly dubious by the scientific community, and directly described as a pseudoscience by a reliable source. Jefffire 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeffire, I agree with your first point on editorial opinion not being a criterion for controversy; we all must meet WP:V. On your second:  what about cases where one reliable source says foo is pseudoscientific, and another disagrees?  Or cases where foo is "partly" scientific, cf. fuzzy logic?  Isn't WP:CG saying such cases shouldn't go in a cat, since a cat is either on or off with no way to qualify partial or conditional cases?  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your second criterion, that the field has been described as pseudoscience by a verifiable source, corresponds precisely to my first, except that I would also urge that a citation be provided in the article to document this.


 * As far as your first criterion goes: 1) I am concerned that editors have had and will have quite different views as to the scientific community's consensus. How is the latter objectively determined? 2) It is generally Wiki-policy that when there is a range of legitimate editorial opinion, this presumably reflects a range of opinions in the actual world. I appreciate what you are aiming at here, and am not trying to keep genuinely pseudoscientific subjects out of the list, but cannot see quite how we will assess the state of genuinely contested fields, several of which I see on this list. Hgilbert 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting somewhere. Jefffire, I believe your counter proposal is very reasonable.  I believe we will always have a problem with the term "consensus".  But as long as a reliable source or sources consider a subject to be dubious, and it is directly stated to be pseudoscience or pseudoscientific, then the cat should apply.  The problem with relying on saying "the view of the scientific community" in general is that is similar to consensus. There are a great many new subjects that are said to be pseudoscientific and new ones cropping up all the time.  Of course, not many scientists will have passed comment on such fringe practices.  Most credible scientists just go, "yeh.. right....and pigs can fly!" and leave the subjects alone because they are obviously dubious.  Therefore, as long as a reliable scientific view states a subject's dubiousness, and mentions the term pseudoscience, then that is very good reason to place it in the category. If there is also a reliable scientific view that states it is not dubious, or not pseudoscientific, then that changes things and balance is an issue.  Otherwise, simple reliable factual statements are fine. KrishnaVindaloo 05:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi KV -- I agree that new pseudosciences crop up all the time, but we do have to go with WP:V which, sometimes frustratingly, calls for verifiability, not truth. We don't need to fret about underpopulating the cat because simply NPOV wording, including on lack of legitimate scientific support, should suffice.  Regarding your statement "If there is also a reliable scientific view that states it is not dubious, or not pseudoscientific, then that changes things and balance is an issue":  in such cases, are you saying it's better not to use the cat?  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the question of what we do if there is a difference of opinions within scientific sources, then what we do is take notability and reliability into account. If, for example. Nature said that X was a pseudoscience, but Science said it wasn't, then frankly I'm not sure what we should do, but such a case is unlikely to come up. However if Answers says Y is a pseudoscience (evolution in this case) but Cell disagrees, then obviously Cell wins out (although we will probably have a lot more references than that. Conversley if 'Cell says creationism is a pseudoscience, but Answers disagrees' then Cell wins out. Obviously this works on a case by case basis, so there will be no easy route. Hope that makes sense. Jefffire 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeff, yes, weight certainly an issue. Usually journals in the physical and life articles don't take stances on whether something is pseudoscientific.  That designation is usually applied in other contexts, e.g. in the civic and political arenas regarding education and healthcare.  Very often the term is used by local "skeptical" groups patterning themselves after CSICOP and the like.  So we need to be clear on who is saying what.  Which, I reiterate, is easily done when prose in articles follows WP policy, and is almost impossible with categories.  So the bar has to be set pretty high.  More below under your "Pseudoscience is not the same as wrong" comment.  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 16:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim. I believe the cat is very important. I believe we are thrashing out pretty much how to use it here.  Obviously we are working towards verifiability rather than truth. I believe it is quite easy to identify what should be in the cat.  Beyond that it is simply a matter of justifying it. Eg A subject can be in the cat because a significant and reliable source brings up the issue of pseudoscience and the subject has been described as dubious. Wikipedia is not calling the subject false in this case. This is an encyclopedia and not a sounding board or piece of research. The purpose of categories is to help the reader search similar subjects (subjects considered by some verifiable sources to be pseudoscientific).  A reader is not going to find a set of subjects that state at the top "Blahblahology is a bogus pseudoscience and is false".  A properly worded article will not make a conclusion one way or another, and the reader will be able to make up their own mind.  Remember that some subjects at the bottom of the page will have many categories . eg, science, psychology, pseudoscience, history etc.  So if pseudoscience is a significant issue in one subject, then one can browse it with similar subjects.  Its all very reasonable. Inclusion is simply a matter of reasonably determining that a view is verifiable (and it would really help if the categorizers checked the refs themselves) and then allowing readers to browse subjects with the issue of pseudoscience. They can then compare various subjects and will be even better informed about the first subject they came to. In fact, when done right, this may reduce conflict and increase the likelihood of the subjects in question being written more neutrally. KrishnaVindaloo 03:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi KV -- there are NPOV problems, because by putting something in a cat, Wikipedia is in effect saying it "is" in that cat, not maybe, not kind of, not has elements of, but "is". (Please see my comments about what could happen with other categories under Jeff's "Pseudoscience is not the same as wrong" comment, below.)  WP:CG says that's an NPOV problem.  Earlier I pointed out that a reader can use what links here in order to brosw similar subjects.  Do you have a comment on that?  Cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no NPOV problems with this category. But there is your allegation that there are NPOV problems with this category, and it is caused by you not fully understanding the NPOV policy. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Giving"equal validity" and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ Pseudoscience. WP:NPOV trumps WP:CG, and as long as majority of the scientific community says a particular belief is pseudoscience, then WP:NPOV allows for it's categorization as such, period. You've been raising this misbegotten notion and objection long enough, it's time to get up to speed on policy here and move on. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's nice that you believe it's important. We need to settle whether it is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, however (see below). A subject cannot be categorized because of a single author's comments. The category must be uncontroversial and unproblematic with regards to the NPOV policy. These are essential parts of Wikipedia's standard for applying a category. A further part is that the category should be a matter of fact, not opinion. I think this is highly problematic. But I think it unlikely that I'll achieve consensus on this. So, if the category is going to be used anyway, I propose a very clear set of three guidelines:

Three guidelines for use of this category: a proposal
I suggest the following three guidelines be applied strictly. Only fields that meet all three qualify as being categorized here.
 * 1) First test, someone citable must call a field pseudoscience or the equivalent ("unscientific balderdash" might be reasonably assumed to be the equivalent).
 * 2) Second test, there must be scientific unanimity about the subject; minimal cognitive dissonance. Otherwise, a more differentiated approach is required within the article itself, citing evidence or opinions on both sides.
 * 3) Third test: there must be demonstrable methodological weaknesses in the field in question: proponents refusal to test objectively or to recognize the results of these tests, un-disprovable hypotheses, or something similar.

The first test ensures that the category is not verifiable, not original research. The second ensures that use of the category follows the NPOV guideline. The third ensures that the category is accurately and uniformly applied; that it is a little less an echoing of opinion and a little more factually based.

I'd like to hear people's responses to this.Hgilbert 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Reasonably good, but the wording of "scientific unanimity" could be abused by editors wishing to remove their pet pseudoscience from the category, and the third test is bordering on OR and I suspect it could be similarily abused. I propose a wording of "clear majority in mainstream scientific opinion" to avoid abuse, and the absence of the third test. Jefffire 13:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly support Jeffire's version. Nice work, kudos to both of you - clarification will hopefully reduce the amount of warring going on. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither proposal is necessary. Nor will one stand if they run counter to existing policy that covers articles going into this category, which is already covered by WP:NPOV and Neutral point of view/FAQ. FeloniousMonk 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are excellent references. As is WP:CG, which as it is specifically written for categories must be seen to be yet more applicable to the current discussion. Let's not cherry-pick our guidelines. Recall that this is indeed a fractious category; most categories could be found in a sufficiently detailed Dewey Decimal System list, or are purely discrete lists (i.e. albums by Nicholaus Harnoncourt, or people born in years ending in 0). This is a cat of a different stripe, and we should be careful upon whom we let it loose. Hgilbert 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its a reasonable attempt at guidelines, but it goes too far. The third test is not a good idea though, as it will probably lead to what could be described as OR (original research).  It is only a part of what can be described as pseudoscience also.  There are many factors.  Remember that the best people to judge whether a method is good or not will be the scientist claiming pseudoscience, or if there is an opposition, the scientist claiming not pseudoscience.  Other factors can include many factors that are very relevant to the clarification power of Wikipedia.  EG, left/right brain simplicities are pseudoscientific as they are easy to swallow (yin/yang and new age), misleading, and are used widely by pseudoscientists to get people to buy into all kinds of further dubious products. Wikipedia can represent the scientific views that clearly want to clarify such things for the sake of the public at large.


 * Unanimity is not possible in any pseudoscience. But the idea of both sides is a very good idea, if there is argument over whether something is is pseudoscience or not according to reliable scientist's statements.  In this matter, it is not a question of whether there is controversy that a subject is pseudoscience or not, but whether there is a significant issue of pseudoscience or not (which Wikipedia needs to clarify according to NPOV policy, because science is a major part of modern knowledge).  If there is an argument, then clearly pseudoscience is an issue, and the various sides will be able to refer to good old science in order to clarify the article, in which case it is perfect for the pseudoscience cat. So again, 1 is there a reliable view that a subject is pseudoscience?  2 it would help if there is reliable explanation for why it is pseudoscience.  In both cases, good research is highly recommended. In this way, the pseudoscience cat will encourage good research and will improve Wikipedia as a major source of modern knowledge.  KrishnaVindaloo 06:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If this is the standard we want to use, then the category should be more clearly named: fields where contentions of pseudoscience have been made, rather than pseudoscience per se. The latter claims that it's a settled question, not just an active issue. Hgilbert 07:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is never a settled question in pseudoscience. Yet there are many subjects where there are significant views stating a subject is pseudoscience.  Therefore, pseudoscience is fine, or at the very most the cat could be something like "Pseudoscientific Subjects".  KrishnaVindaloo 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)  But really, it is a matter of case by case. For example, quantum physics may have an element of pseudoscience in the fact that someone says it is unsupported scientifically.  But that will be its only characteristic.  There are many other characteristics that are important.  Such as, unwillingness to test, mantra of holism, bias towards confirmation rather than falsification, uncritical promotion, use of common mind myths, and so on.  A subject such as quantum physics will have none of the latter.  So:


 * 1 Inclusion into the cat should start with the fact that a reliable source has stated that it is pseudoscientific, even if a reliable source says it is not pseudoscientific.
 * 2 Removal from the cat should only be based upon a reasonable lack of those other elements of pseudoscinece (those elements are at least partially listed in the psuedoscience article).

In this case, pseudoscience is a perfectly good label. Any good book on pseudoscience will use that term, and will use it to clarify the difference between science and pseudoscience. So indeed, and inclusion or an exclusion will be based upon the context of the literature that states that a subject is pseudoscience. KrishnaVindaloo 08:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Assertions and opinions
I have been rereading the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines and discovered that there is a section on Pseudoscience there (you probably all know this).

I quote from this section: when writing about pseudoscience from a neutral point of view, "we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false" (my emphasis). Are we not asserting that a field is false by labelling it pseudoscience? The whole tenor of this and other sections (e.g. "when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence") is not to declare (their example) that Hitler is evil, for example, even if historians generally concur in this; it is an opinion, not a fact (for Wikipedia purposes, anyhow).

It seems to me that with this category we are clearly promoting the opinion that something is pseudoscience as if this were objective fact, whereas it's clearly an opinionated judgment, though perhaps often a well-deserved one. The NPOV guidelines emphasize presenting all opinions solely by attribution, i.e. "William J. Williams, the editor of the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, says that the fried potato model of gravitational repulsion is pseudoscience." The pseudoscience category clearly contravenes this policy by raising opinion to the appearance of objective fact. Hgilbert 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience is not the same as wrong. Jefffire 13:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but putting foo into a category does in effect state that it is true that foo is in that category. So what to do about things that arguably have elements of pseudoscience, but in other ways are scientific?  If your answer is to just put them in the cat anyway, consider the repercussions if that same logic were used to populate, say, category:cults or category:fascism.  The US government has been argued to have some fascist elements, so by the same logic it should go in category:fascism.  Can you acknowledge the NPOV problem here?  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's specious reasoning that been raised and considered many, many times here before and always ultimately rejected.


 * From WP:NPOV:
 * "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
 * "Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article."
 * "But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."


 * This policy covers when a particular belief is categorized pseudoscience. Please become more familiar with the policy before raising objections here again. FeloniousMonk 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did read those passages, FM. I assume you've read WP:CG, which discusses NPOV in the context of categorization.  These points particularly apply.
 * You're right that in many cases categorization is unambiguous when we're talking tiny minority views (within the scientific community). But there is a grey area for other alt-med stuff, like acupuncture and chiropractic, which (unlike "baramins" and the like) have been the subject of serious research, provide testable hypotheses, show some evidence of efficacy, while also (in the minds of some) having some pseudoscientific elements.  I've never seen good evidence that scientific consensus exists that all alt-med stuff is pseudoscientific (unless stuff, by fiat, is conveniently defined out of alt-med as soon as any good evidence appears for it).
 * How would you reconcile the issue? Doesn't WP:CG set a higher bar for using category:pseudoscience than for mentioning pseudoscience in an article?  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 18:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you need to read the NPOV policy. It clearly states at the "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." WP:CG is trumped by WP:NPOV, no matter what WP:CG may say. The NPOV policy specifically deals with Pseudoscience. There's no ambiguity there. What part of  NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" is not clear? You're flogging a dead horse. Time for you to find a more constructive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, fine. Just looking for clarity, no ulterior motives here.  If consensus here is You say above that "As long as (a) majority of the scientific community says a particular belief is pseudoscience, then WP:NPOV allows for it's categorization as such", as you say above, I'm fine with that .  If that is true, then I trust you can point me toward the guideline where this is stated.  It doesn't appear that consenus on this page at the present time supports that view.  The key phrase from the NPOV FAQ supporting your position is that equal validity "does not stop us from describing the majority views as such".  Personally, it's not clear to me that that applies to categorization, although it does arguably follow from "making necessary assumptions", and it's not completely inconsistent with WP:CG either.  However, since my original post on 28 June 2006, I've decided that don't agree with your reasoning that your position is "non-negotiable" simply because you infer it from language on the NPOV FAQ.  It is the principle of NPOV itself that is non-negotiable, not every statement on the pages describing how ti apply NPOV.  User:Hgilbert is correct that WP:CG is also an attempt to apply NPOV to categorization.  Deciding how to apply NPOV and balance it with WP:V and WP:OR is not always trivial.


 * If you're comfortable with the implications of a majority-view threshold applying to other categorizations besides this one, even where significant as opposed to tiny minorities might object, then go ahead please say so. If not, you might explain why pseudoscience should be an exception.  Given the caveats already stated in WP:CG, I'm not sure that it's really NPOV to categorize things per the views of a simple majority.  But I'll leave that for another day, and probably another editor as well.


 * To be clear, then, a consequence of what you are saying is this In any case: the burden of evidence lies with those who want to apply category:pseudoscience to a topic, and they must provide a reliable, published source demonstrating that a majority of the scientific community say it is pseudoscience.  This follows from what the equally non-negotiable WP:V says about burden of evidence, and verifiability not truth.  Right?  That's going to That might let some less-famous pseudosciences slip through the category cracks, unfortunately, but I suppose we can still snag them with appropriate wording in the article.  That's actually the more NPOV way to go.


 * (I'd add that we should also take care to make sure that our sources are using pseudoscience in essentially the same sense as we are on the cat page, given that in popular usage the definition of "pseudoscience" varies a little bit. For example, answers.com uses the American Heritage Dictionary definition "A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation."  That definition is broader than ours, and Carroll's at skepdic.com, which include the element of being misrepresented as science.)


 * OK then. If what you're saying represents consensus previously reached on this issue, I'm fine with you should be able to verify that.  Thanks, and as a supporter of the NCSE and like-minded groups, I do appreciate the work that has gone into this topic.  I imagine that dealing with a constant barrage of denseness in this area has worn thin the nerves of many editors.  It certainly hasn't been my intention to exacerbate that.  Cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 02:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC) edited: I don't agree with FM's reading of NPOV as it applies to categories. - Jim Butler(talk) 06:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That text is not at the link you supplied. It is now at: Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's at the FAQ subpage, which is linked to the NPOV page. Seeing the lack of understanding of how the NPOV applies here, I suggest starting at the main page. FeloniousMonk 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you not say that calling a subject pseudoscience is implying various things about the subject, one of which is that the claims made there are wrong? (Philosophical question: can something be methodologically pseudoscience and yet quite valid in content.)Hgilbert 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not say that. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying something is pseudoscience says that it is claimed to be science, but does not meet or comply with the requirements of science, and is not science. It may be right, but it is outwith the bounds or capabilities of science to determine if it is right. See the Kitzmiller opinion for a similar statement. ...dave souza, talk 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghost_hunting
I feel this qualifies for definition as a pseudoscience. Ghost_hunting is a growing phenomenon practiced by many part-time paranormal researchers "in the name of science". These folks subscribe to the methodology and protocols used by other part-time paranormal researchers before them: lights-out investigation, EMF detectors to measure "spirits", IR thermometers to measure "cold spots" in ambient air temperature, video to capture "orbs" and audio to capture "electronic voice phenomenona" (i.e. spirit voices).

Due to the popularity of a hit TV show Ghost_Hunters, many casual viewers are convinced they are seeing proof of the afterlife (or at least the paranormal) on TV. The TV show carries no disclaimer. The investigators on TV (The_Atlantic_Paranormal_Society) claim they are skeptics following "scientific procedure" while informing the audience of the nature of 'demons' and 'entities' found in 'hauntings'.

What is the criteria for nominating these pages to carry a pseudoscience tag? I invite examination and comment on these wiki entries. LuckyLouie 17:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, LL, and for the spirit of inviting discussion on an area that isn't as clear as is sometimes presumed. Ghost hunting certainly sounds like a pseudoscience from the way you describe it.  From the discussion above, you may surmise that there isn't consensus as to how to populate this category.  Personally, I'm dubious about the use of it altogether because popular usage of the term varies (just google "pseudoscience definition").
 * I can't tell you what the threshold for inclusion in the cat should be any more than I can tell you when a small religious movement should be categorized as a cult. In general, I think it's more NPOV just to present facts and opinions in the article and cite them (e.g., say there is no scientific evidence that ghosts exist, so there is no scientific agreement on how to verify their presence or absense -- something like that).  Again, I personally would call "ghost hunting" a pseudoscience unhesitantly, but that doesn't mean my opinion should govern categorization.  Other editors appear less shy about using that sort of criterion.  ;-)  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:cleancat
Several editors have raised concerns about the POVishness of this category and how to populate it. The template is intended to attract and further discussion. Please stop removing it. Removing it is contrary to pursuing consensus.

Above, FM quoted from the NPOV FAQ:


 * "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
 * "Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article."
 * "But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

FM asserted that this passage covered categorization, and that since NPOV is non-negotiable it trumps the caveats that WP:CG raises about POVishness of categories.

I don't agree with FM's interpretation. As I said above, it is the principle of NPOV itself that is non-negotiable, not every statement on the pages describing how to apply NPOV. User:Hgilbert is correct that WP:CG is an attempt to apply NPOV specifically to categorization. Deciding how to apply NPOV and balance it with WP:V and WP:OR is not trivial.

Under NPOV, we present majority and minority views in proportion to one another. We do not endorse one POv to the exclusion of others. Sometimes using a category can violate both NPOV and WP:V if there isn't good evidence that using the category is consistent with scientific or popular consensus. See also Categorization_of_people. It is certainly misleading to readers to categorize some alternative mediicne topics as pseudoscience when scientists, using strict protocols of evidence-based medicine find evidence for them. (See acupuncture and discussion on talk:acupressure.) Better, IMO, to just use NPOV and present the different arguments in the articles.

It's evident from this talk page that there is not yet consensus on how to populate this cat. Some editors have nonetheless argued that it's already been decided somehow. If there is a policy or guideline I've missed, please point it out. In the meantime please stop POVishly removing the dispute template. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with User: Jim Butler. User:Guettarda, User:FeloniousMonk, User:Duncharris are edit warring in order to assert their POV. This is wrong. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course User: Jim Butler, now at 4RR, is doing no such thing, right? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually three, Jim. You're counting my changing the template right after the second revert.  Always good to be aware of 3RR and good wikiquette, for sure.  I hope you realize that the reason for my reverts was a strong belief that the template-dispute tag was helpful, and that removing it is contrary to WP principles of consensus-building.  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The NPOV policy on pseudoscience is clear, unambiguous and not optional:


 * Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ says:
 * "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?" (note that the policy points to this very category in defining pseudoscience) ... "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."


 * Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ says:
 * "But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. . . . Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."


 * Neutral point of view says:
 * "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals."


 * Neutral point of view says:
 * "NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."


 * In other words, as long as scientists say a topic is pseudoscience, it uncontroversially qualifies for this category. Period.


 * So which parts of the NPOV policy are what you disputing as "FM's interpretation"? That the policy say we're not to describe pseudoscience as on par with science; but to represent the scientific view as the majority view and the pseudoscientific view as the minority view? Or that NPOV applies to categories? Or that NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable? FeloniousMonk 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "As long as scientists say a topic is pseudoscience". Which scientists? Any scientists? Many of the topics categorized here have very mixed reviews (see Talk:Pseudoscience for some very productive recent discussions in this regard). How many have provided clear evidence of scientific consensus? I think the category could be cleaned up using the list on Pseudoscience as a guide; only those fields that are clearly and undisputedly pseudoscientific should be classified as such (see guidelines on classification WP:CG and especially WP:categorization of people, which is expressly extended to other sensitive classifications!!) In any case, to represent the category in its current state as POV-neutral and/or undisputed is wildly far from any reasonable (sublunar) mark. Hgilbert 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to FeloniousMonk regarding Template:cleancat
Of course NPOV applies to categories. You're just interpreting its application differently than I am, and imo wrongly. I'll explain why. If what you say really represented consensus on WP, then it would be reflected all over the place on policy and guideline pages. But it's not. Did the editors who wrote WP:CG just happen to miss the boat on your purported consensus? The passages you quote above explicitly say how to write articles that describe disputes fairly. They don't say anything about categorizing borderline-pseudoscientific topics. They certainly don't say that undue weight means we get to use categories to advance the majority POV over significant minority POV's. Or, as WP:NPOV says:  "It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

You're misinterpreting NPOV's non-negotiability. Non-negotiabilty refers to the policy itself, not every sentence on the policy pages that explain NPOV. NPOV doesn't give a green light to put anything that has a whiff of "foo-ness" into "category:foo", especially if there is dispute. That's the exact opposite of explaining disputes fairly. That's not what undue weight is about. WP:CG describes applying NPOV to categorization: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

Just to be clear about non-negotiability, let's look at the second paragraph from WP:NPOV, immediately following Jimbo Wales's ""absolute and non-negotiable" quote:


 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Verifiability and No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.

Read that last sentence again. NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR are policies, or principles, that have pages explaining how to apply them. Those pages may be edited to that end. But the pages explaining the policies are not identical to the policies themselves. That's an absurdly literalistic interpretation. Do you really believe Jimbo meant that "everything that editors will henceforth write on NPOV policy pages is absolute and non-negotiable"? Come on. He meant that the policies themselves are non-negotiable, and that they're meant to be applied intelligently, according to the many situations that will arise in compiling Wikpedia. That involves discussion among editors. (And that, friend FM, was what I had in mind by putting Template:cleancat on the page. Would you mind restoring it?  Really, discussion is a good thing for consensus in the long haul.  Your removing the template for that stated reason that it might "weaken" the cat, an outcome you'd prefer to avoid, is pure POV-pushing.  Kindly stop suppressing discussion!)

In any case, if this cat is going to be retained, then it should be populated with greater care. That means paying due attention to NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Topics with legitimate scientific dispute should be omitted, per NPOV. (It's misleading to readers to categorize as pseudoscience things for which scientific evidence exists, e.g. at the EBM level.) And WP:V presents an interesting hurdle:  how do you propose to document the scientific consensus that foo is pseudoscientific? Just assume that skeptical advocacy groups, or popular skeptical magazines, speak for all scientists? Sure, that's a good one. Penn and Teller's Bullshit!, for example, "debunked" global warming. Yeah, they definitely are in tune with scientific consensus. Please explain how you would deal with WP:V here, which is just as non-negotiable as NPOV.

OK, I trust that answers the questions you posed. To be clear: Q. So which parts of the NPOV policy are what you disputing as "FM's interpretation"? A.  Your idea that the pages, as opposed to the policy, are non-negotiable. Also your notion that undue weight means that it's OK to advance majority POV's by using categories. Q. That the policy say we're not to describe pseudoscience as on par with science; but to represent the scientific view as the majority view and the pseudoscientific view as the minority view? A. Yes, we get to present POV's, characterize debates, etc. But using categories in disputed cases is against NPOV. Q. Or that NPOV applies to categories? NPOV does apply to categories. WP:CG has some good ideas on how to do so! Q. Or that NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable?  A.  Precisely. The principle itself, not every word explaining how to apply it! Thanks, --Jim Butler(talk) 08:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. - there is nothing sinister or unencyclopedic in my desire to see this category less populated. You can call it "weakening" the category if you think that's a bad thing, but isn't it natural for there to be debate about how narrow or wide an encyclopedic category should be?  Isn't that a classic NPOV issue, something reasonable people can differ about?  Debates like this are appropriate and healthy on WP.  See Categorization_of_people, which has proven "helpful for other "delicate" categorization issues."


 * It is inappropriate to remove Template:cleancat in order to stifle debate and thus preserve the status quo. I'm concerned that the "consensus" that FM asserts here resembles the undesirable scenario described in WP:CON:
 * It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.


 * The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of well-meaning editors with a knowledge of Wikipedia's basic policies to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent the railroading of articles by a dedicated few. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.


 * I'm glad to entertain the idea that I'm mistaken, or that my views simply aren't shared by most editors. A good way to find out is to invite more editors to comment, which is what I intended by adding the dispute-template.  FM, your recent actions aren't very encouraging in this regard.  Nor are Dunc's: see Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08_Acupuncture.  To the extent sysops fail to uphold WP:DR, this site suffers.  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 09:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Restored Template:cleancat; editors please also see discussion at Talk:Pseudoscience. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 06:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know about the cleancat template, but I've been willing to discuss the categorization all along. From what I remember things went quiet after discussions on how to include a subject. Here are a few summarizations:


 * Pseudoscientific subjects are never completely pseudoscientific. There are degrees and levels, and there are always some scientific aspects.


 * Books on pseudoscientific subjects by scientists, look at the pseudoscientific aspects, and they mention a wide range of pseudoscientific subjects. The term pseudoscience is not used in a derogatory way.


 * Pseudoscientific subjects are never identified on the lack of scientific support alone. There are many aspects.


 * Many pseudoscientific subjects are not full of claims that they are scientific. They may have scientific sounding jargon, but proponents actually state they are not doing theory or science etc.


 * In which case, the present opening description of the pseudoscience category cannot be used to include or exclude subjects from the category. NPOV policy makes it clear that original research is not allowed. We are not to classify according to our judgment of consensus either.  If a subject has pseudoscientific elements according to reliable sources, and it is notable, then it can be included in the cat. Wikipedia must state how science has recieved pseudoscientific ideas. Comparison of related subjects is necessary for explanation. Therefore, it is purely up to reliable sources that state a subject is pseudoscientific to be included in the cat. Defending subjects from the pseudoscience categorization is not the priority of Wikipedia. The priority is explanation. Core NPOV policy is very clear and science is there to explain pseudoscientific ideas, with categorization being an important method of reducing redundancy, increasing explanation power, in order to help the reader understand science, and psuedoscientific issues and subjects. KrishnaVindaloo 07:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * KV, I admire your spirit of willingness to engage discussion. I wish it could be so that we weren't talking past each other.  I see that you've reiterated your conerns above.  I've done my best to respond to them in the past.  Unfortunately, it appears you haven't responded to the questions I've repeatedly asked in response to your points, i.e. your opinion on (1) WP:CG's qualifications of NPOV, and (2) the adequacy of other methods of indexing.  I don't have anything to add if we can't get beyond that.  Thanks and best wishes, Jim Butler(talk) 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is uncontroversial that a subject is pseudoscientific when there are reliable sources saying that there are pseudoscientific elements in a subject. Stating that some of a subject is supported by science does not controvert the former. Here it again I have to reiterate the nature of pseudoscientific subjects. It involves far more than just verification/refutation. Activities, promotions, and attitudes can be pseudoscientific. Some people say that a subject is pseudoscience. But that needs clarification because Wikipedia is here to show the sum knowledge about a subject. All authors on the nature of pseudoscience agree that a subject is never all pseudoscience. They all talk of its pseudoscientific elements. So that needs to be said. If a subject has pseudoscientific elements then it can be added to the category if it is notably pseudoscientific (if it is quite well known). There should be no tussling for verifying research or disqualifying research. It is irellevant and OR. If there is a view that a notable subject is pseudoscientific then it can be added to the category. The primary reason for using categories according to the category recommendations, is so that readers can browse related subjects and understand the subject better. This is all the more important because pseudoscience is an issue that science and social science can help to explain. It is all useful. KrishnaVindaloo 06:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Description

 * This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics and the scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method. 

By this vague definition, any scientific theory can be considered a pseudoscience. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. In the vast majority of areas of science, disagreements within the scientific community do no result in the everyone claiming that what their rivals are doing is not science. For example, there is currently disagreement among biologists about how much neutral drift matters for speciation. Neither side is claiming the other side is being pseudoscientific. JoshuaZ 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Nonetheless, the description is too vague to refer only to pseudoscience. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's acceptably specific, but there are a lot of shades of grey and a category doesn't depict that very well. Also, people still use the term in different ways:  just Google "pseudoscience definition OR define" and you'll see what I mean.  It's cool to include these views, but I think the category namespace is unsuitable, cf. below.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Following the above - A proper description for the cat
Hi FeloniousMonk and all. I wish to come to some sort of conclusion on this. The above recommendations above, from Wikipedia NPOV policy on pseudoscience lead to the following description:


 * Category:pseudoscience


 * This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are alleged by reliable scientific sources to be pseudoscientific.

This is an NPOV based description. This can replace the current one in the opening of the article:

There will be some editors who do not wish their interest to be categorized as pseudoscience because they believe it to be demeaning. And there will be editors that wish to categorize a subject so as to help the reader understand pseudoscience. So it would be an advantage to say why something is considered pseudoscientific within the article. It is not a matter of doing original research to determine whether a subject is in fact scientifically supported, or doing original research to determine whether the whole scientific community has decided a subject is pseudoscientific. We need to avoid POV warring at all costs. However, stating why a source says a subject is pseudoscientific will help all parties come to terms with the categorization. Pseudoscientific attributes are not at all limited to scientific method, or whether someone states that a subject is scientific. It is simply a matter of helping the reader to browse subjects that have been called pseudoscientific by reliable scientific sources in order for the reader to compare those pseudoscientific subjects. KrishnaVindaloo 06:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KV. Actually, that seems like something of a POV-based description.  A little like putting anyone in category:fascists as long as some reliable historian said so.  I'd prefer to keep the cat tighter, for obvious examples like "creation science" and such, and use lists (as on pseudoscience and "what links here" for the more borderline stuff, like alt-med things that have some scientific backing.  What about lists like those on pseudoscience, and "what links here"?  Those suffice for the browsing purposes you mention without invoking the POV problems WP:CG points out.  Can you clarify your take on this?  Forgive me if you've already answered and I missed it. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good example I think. Looking at the fascists cat, I do see a number of people categorized as such, and I suppose that indeed historians categorize them as such. But most probably (I guess), a significant amount (or even a "majority"?) of histtorical sources is supposed to allege that. IOW, this should hardly be something to discuss here: it's a question in general about categories if we should act on a notable opinion, a significant opinion or a majority opinion to categorize something as such. The simplest and most workable approach would be to choose either "notable" or "significant" (probably the last). Harald88 21:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Its really very simple. Wikipedia takes a stance on science over pseudoscience. This is in NPOV policy. It is a core statement. If a view is to be included, it has to be from a reliable source, with a proper citation, page numbers etc. Wikipedians should not decide on what is consensus in the scientific community. That would be Original Research. Wikipedia should not say that a subject is pseudoscience only if the proponents claim their subject is scientific. Claiming scientificness is not strictly an attribute of pseudoscience. It is also not just about scientific principles not being followed. There are many attributes of pseudoscientific subjects, and many indicators. It is not up to Wikipedians to determine these. Again, that would be Original Research. All that needs to be achieved is that good reliable references be found, and that the author's explanation be given. It is up to the reliable source to decide if a subject is pseudoscientific or not. Inclusion based upon reliable sources is the only Wikipedia way to include a subject into a category. Otherwise just about all of the subjects can be removed from the category. Again, I reiterate: NPOV core policy places science over pseudoscience in terms of explaining how theories and subjects are recieved. The priority is not to defend pseudoscientific subjects. The priority is explanation. The category will help explanation by helping the reader to compare explanations. If you want to be strict about things, stick to core NPOV policy and lets get the POV recommendations out of the description. KrishnaVindaloo 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To quote from the above: "Wikipedians should not decide on what is consensus in the scientific community. That would be Original Research." Indeed. And that is what this category tends to do. There is clear consensus that certain people are fascists; for others, there is discussion on both sides of the issue. It would be a violation of NPOV and/or OR to include the latter in a category FASCISTS.


 * We could have a category DISPUTED SCIENCE for disputed cases and just use PSEUDOSCIENCE for the cases for which there are not two strong sides, primarily where there is no mainstream support for a field. This is my strong suggestion as a resolution of the conflict; we are struggling with depicting something only using black and white, when grays exist in the world as well. (I realize that some people prefer thinking using black and white only. I am suggesting that this precludes accurate thinking, however.) Hgilbert 13:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please lets understand and explain the nature of pseudoscientific issues and subjects. To do so, we need to say that subjects are pseudoscientific, not "a pseudoscience". The phrase "a pseudoscience" is too general. Reliable literature on pseudoscientific subjects states that a subject is pseudoscientific, and then talks about why it is pseudoscientific. This involves the validity of its methods, if some of their methods have been validated, how strong or shaky those validations are, the attitudes and actions of the proponents, the inclusion of other pseudoscientific subjects into the field, the statements and actions of promoters etc. Thus, to help the reader browse relating to pseudoscientific subjects, a category can be included if it helps the reader to do so. We are here to help the reader. Nobody at all should be even trying to say whether a subject is a pseudoscience or not. Lets keep agendas out of this. Explanation of pseudoscientific issues and elements is the objective. KrishnaVindaloo 04:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been excellent discussion of this at Talk:Pseudoscience. Echoing my suggestions there, maybe a good compromise would be to turn category:pseudoscience into a list, with an appropriately NPOV title like "alleged pseudosciences", citing what the specific critics say and why, and then referring readers to the individual topic pages for more information. That's much more informative: Intelligent design is shot through with just about every pseudoscientific fallacy one can imagine, and we can cite that. Chiropractic has certain pseudoscientific elements, but no way is in the same ballpark as ID. This way, KV, we get to include all the stuff you want to, but per NPOV we present it as opinion, not assert it as fact. We also don't overreach, and assume that skeptical critics like Shermer and Caroll necessarily represent scientific consensus in every case, because they don't meet WP:RS for that. Of course, we still give the views of scientists, including that most of this stuff is without evidentiary support, or that the underlying theory is prescientific as in acupuncture's traditional theory.

IOW, I'm not POVishly suggesting we delete this stuff from WP. I'm just saying, echoing WP:CG and Categorization_of_people, that the category namespace isn't adequate to present it. That's because categories appear without annotation: nothing about who says it, or why they say it, or what aspects they're referring to. So we just change the form in which we present it, using a different WP style, with proper titling and citation. Check out the advantages of lists at WP:CLS. Maybe this is a decent compromise. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Jim Butler. I believe you consider skeptics to be a negative word. Scientific skepticism is core science. It is a core scientific attitude and drives and motivates falsification which is core to science.  Pseudoskepticism is wrong. But skepticism is scientific, whereas lack of skepticism is pseudoscientific. If anything, proper skepticism is something to be emphasized in the category, and skeptics are to be considered reliable sources, especially when their main title is professor (as many are, and it takes a great deal of skepticism to become any kind of science prof in the first place). I sincerely hope that some people here will start reading some literature on pseudoscience. As it is, the pseudoscience article needs a lot of fundamental work, especially regarding the nuances of how pseudoscience is viewed nowadays. A list is not a good alternative to an article on pseudoscience. KrishnaVindaloo 08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi KV - I fear I've been misunderstood, so I'll try and be clear. (1) I don't want to replace the article pseudoscience with a list.  I'm suggesting changing category:pseudoscience into an annotated list instead of keeping it as a category, because of the NPOV issues unique to the category namespace (cf. WP:CG).  I'm all for including notable skeptics' ideas on WP, with proper citation and annotation.  (2)  I don't think that "skeptics" is a negative word.  However, the word "pseudoscience" does have negative connotations, and some "skeptics" have tended to use it more for political than scientific ends.  Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon, and deserves commentary, but the term must be sourced and not put in the collective mouth of a group of scientists who have not used it.  It suffices just to cite what they say, per Wp:npov.
 * I'd add that the mere fact that a person self-identifies as a "skeptic" doesn't necessarily mean that person is skilled in understanding and applying the scientific method. I've met some who basically parrot skeptical articles without evidencing much critical thought at all, and vociferously opine on subjects that they've failed to study beyond reading a Skeptical Enquirer article.  I certainly agree that skepticism is a fundamental attitude in science.  I believe applying it properly requires balance and nuance, and that reasonable people can disagree over grey areas, which WP's category namespace isn't well-suited to depict.  best, Jim Butler(talk) 05:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just read WP:Categorization of people, which explicitly says that it is also a guideline for other category issues (not limited to people). There are a number of issues there we need to address:
 * For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness.
 * Always check after saving an article whether the categorization strikes you as offensive or indelicate. (Note: though if objectively true, it may still be included.)


 * This category is not only being applied to "unquestioned examples", for example when there is a field with some "pseudoscientific elements", but some practically valuable elements, the above criterion would seem to advise excluding it from the category (and making a list, as Jim suggests). If the article about the field indicates two sides of this issue (for example, some scientific work that speaks for the field's validity, other that speaks against it), then it is an inappropriate categorization; the field is not a "representative and unquestioned example" of pseudoscience. Hgilbert 10:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good find! :-) Harald88 18:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed; imo, it all boils down to applying NPOV to the various WP namespaces, and categories are unique in that they lack annotation so should be used w/ care. We can keep the information, just in a different form that complies with WP's content-guiding policies, i.e. NPOV (present, don't assert; and how to handle grey areas), WP:V (cite sources, don't extrapolate critics' view to all scientists) and WP:OR (grey areas again: who determines the threshold?).  I think it would be much better as an annotated list, citing sources, with an NPOV title like "alleged pseudosciences".  But if we keep the cat, I agree it should be depopulated per the category guidelines cited above.  I think topics like intelligent design which has been widely criticized by scientists, or flat-earthism which is clearly fringe, would be obvious examples of topics to retain in the category.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... it's not that simple. Fringe is not pseudo, that would be a miscategorization (but I could not find your flat earth theory link). And what about evolution? I see no way how to falsify that theory either, nor is it even suggested in the article about it that it can be falsified - a clear pointer to pseudoscience! Putting one competing belief in that cat and the other not due to one-sided application of criteria may be regarded POV as well. Harald88 13:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Harald88 - agree, fringe doesn't necessarily equal pseudo, but when they coincide, surely the categorization would be pretty uncontroversial? The modern idea that the earth is flat (fixed link above, also see Flat Earth Society is an archetypal example of both fringe and pseudo.


 * On ID, as with other topics related to science, we do have to report what scientific consensus is. Certainly, scientific consensus agrees on evolution, whatever you or I may argue about it.  ID is one of the few areas for which one can document scientific consensus in opposition.  (See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.)  Basically, my point is that if there are notable sources saying a topic is pseudoscientific AND clear scientific consensus opposing it (not just lack of evidentiary support, but outright opposition based on extant evidence), then using the cat should be OK.  Let's be honest, if we're talking about a spectrum of pseudoscience as the cat currently defines it, ID is on the far end.  However, to the extent that WP doesn't like controversial cats (cf. guidelines linked above, and the fact that the term is cited on WP:WTA), you make a valid point.


 * So, It may be better just to use an annotated list for all of it. Pejorative-sounding categories aren't very encyclopedically "professional", imo (I doubt Brittanica has such a cat).  I think facts and arguments are better conveyed without a jeering tone.  Some evidently disagree, but I'd prefer WP not be such an venue.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I overlooked a part of the discussion: what do you mean exactly with an "annotated list for all of it"? Harald88 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant using a list instead of a category to handle this information: i.e., include sources and summarize their arguments.  And I think you're right.  This category is inherently POV and should go.  More below.  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

VFD List of non-mainstream theories underway
Please come and vote :) Count Iblis 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of pages to help the reader, simple solution
I believe Category:pseudoscience is useful and appropriate, but right now it is being described and talked about in a way that is completely misleading, and as such needs a re-description, or even non-description. I will show you how categories are normally used: It is normal to have a category such as "air sports"

Pages in that category include "Per Lindstrand" and "Lindstrand Technologies". These are not air sports. But they involve air sports.

Or in the case of Environmental Science:. There is Noise Mitigation and Thermal Pollution. Those are not environmental sciences, but are involved with environmental science. They are related, and help the reader to browse and understand the area involved.

Or under the science subcategory of Scientific Literature:, you have the page "literature review". A literature review is not scientific literature, per se, but contains some scientific literature, and other literature.

Again, with sports in Europe, there is an entry: Sport policies of the European Union. Sports policies are not sports. But they are involved with sports.

Indeed, the PS cat itself has Energy vampire, which is not a pseudoscience, but has pseudoscientific issues. Michael Shermer, is not a pseudoscience. New Age is not a pseudoscience etc.

There are a multitude of other examples in the categories of Wikipedia. The same is true of the pseudoscience category. It is full of pages relating to pseudoscientific ideas and activities, as per Wikipedia guidelines, how science has recieved those ideas and activities. It should have more issues relating to pseudoscience though, rather than just fields associated with it.

Note: we have a Category:Pseudoscience, not Category:Pseudosciences. The present description of the cat is inappropriate, because it confers the latter. All it needs to say is, something like pages relating to the subject of pseudoscience.

As to the objection about perjoratives, Wikipedia has an automatic way of refusing to use the perjorative use of the term pseudoscience; Pseudoscientific topics are to be explained in terms of how science has recieved them. No article will end up with the conclusion: "its just a bunch of old pseudoscience" or "astrologers are just a load of fluffy pseudos". That will always be refused by good editors. The inclusion must be by reliable sources, and it must be done in a way that shows how science has recieved those ideas. Therefore, categorization is entirely appropriate, especially as pseudoscience well explained by science is a core recommendation of Wikipedia.

So all we need do now, to make the category a set of links that help the reader browse pages involved with pseudoscientific issues, is keep the pseudoscientific subjects as they are, and place the related issues in the category. Such as:

confirmation bias granfaloon obscurantism abracadabra alpha waves argument from design Barnum effect begging the question chakra confabulation control study double-blind test dowsing false analogy false dilemma false memory intuitive healer karma large group awareness training program law of truly large numbers nocebo placebo pentagram repressed memory selection bias selective thinking self-deception subconscious subjective validation true-believer syndrome

etc. These, in addition to the subjects that are already there, will help the reader understand the subject of pseudoscience, and help them browse related pages.

Also, I see no problem at all with including subjects once considered pseudosientific, as long as it is clear on the article that they were once considered so.

The description can simply read: "This category is to help the reader browse pages related to the issues involved with pseudoscience, and to help readers see how science has received pseudoscientific ideas and activities". So lets stop talking about the category as if it is some kind of Wikipedia approved list of pseudosciences. It is far from that already, and will be even more neutral when we supply the reader with proper explanations about pseudoscientific subjects in the article (and dump the prescriptive description from the cat). So lets focus on helping the reader browse pages that relate to pseudoscience. KrishnaVindaloo 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Kenosis. You wrote on your last edit summary: (Integrate the main relevant point by KrishnaVindaloo. KV, your last complete rewrite was entirely unwarranted, and very close to vandalism of many earlier editors' contributions)


 * Thanks for integrating my main point (it actually needs more clarification though - ie, this is not a list of pseudosciences). I beg to differ on your statement that the rest was unwarranted. Discussion here and on related articles has been going round in circles and editors have been repeating erroneous notions about pseudoscience in order to remove facts from their own articles. The current description of the cat is misleading and is causing conflict. It is both unrepresentative and inaccurate. It is also unhelpful to the reader (as a lot of subjects in the cat have nothing to do with consensus or claims to science). People are still not discussing the description and it is in dire need of discussion. I am trying do provoke more discussion on this point. Please discuss. KrishnaVindaloo 04:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree with this, it makes many distinctions not supported by WP:NPOV and Kenosis was right to not implement it. Category:Pseudoscience is a meta-cat covering PS related topics, not just those identified as PS. Also, there's no provision here at the project for dodging terms those in a particular group object to. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here KrishnaVindaloo, just closely adhere to existing policy. FeloniousMonk 04:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input FM. Could you please point out the distinctions in my description that you mention? I believe my lines there were consistent with categorization recommendations. Sure we are on the same page. But I cannot see anything in WP:NPOV about pseudoscientists claiming that their subjects are scientific. That is a distinction that is not in WP:NPOV. There is also a confusing point about scientific community. So how about simply linking to WP:NPOV, and linking to rules on categories instead? The only clarifications that needs to be there are the ones such as identified by Kenosis in my contribution: Wikipedia takes no stance, and this is not a list of pseudosciences. I am all for reducing conflict and increasing explanatory value - issues relating to pseudoscience. KrishnaVindaloo 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be on to something. The problem you are having is the word pseudoscience.  When that pops up on the bottom of a page, you might as well be saying quack quack.  If you're trying to allow for examples of pseudoscientific behavior for your users that's one thing, but when you slap that at the bottom of the page, we editors might as well throw away our pencils, because we're not going to get anything done till it comes off.  It creates assumptions that WP thinks this is PS.  Now, if you put baffoonery at the bottom of a page, you're still going to have a problem.  If you put it on a list and wikilink it, nobody will probably care.  Just my 2 cents.  Thanks for listening. --Dematt 04:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dematt. If I stand on the promotional soapbox, it might see the word as; quack quack. Look at those who are not soapboxing though. Those who write about confirmation bias or Rob Carroll will not have any problem with the category. The reason being: they are not on a soapbox. This medium is also hyperlinked. Just as with that list of alleged pseudoscientific subjects on the pseudoscience article, you don't need a ref if there is already one on the linked article. Here, you click on the pseudoscience cat link, and think to yourself - "Is Michael Shermer really a pseudoscience?". I think we should stick to reasonable objections, such as those relating to the present description of the category. If we get on with adding the real issues to the cat, and getting the description into shape, that will reduce conflict here and elsewhere for the long term.KrishnaVindaloo 04:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Friend KV, honestly, you seem quite impervious to the arguments others have been raising. "Pseudoscience" is widely held to be a pejorative term, just as "cult" is.  WP:CG and WP:Categorization of people state plainly that we must be careful with use of cat's because of NPOV problems.  Why not just link from a list, cf. below, rather than use a cat?  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Misbegotten notions and wikilawyering. This category is wholly supported by Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. WP:NPOV trumps WP:Categorization of people. Your long-running campaign here against this cat is becoming disruptive, particularly now that you've taken to misquoting policy and guidelines. FeloniousMonk 05:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I explained the fallacy behind your notion that NPOV trumps itself above, and (continuing an unfortunate pattern) you didn't reply. Your history of reverting without discussing, deleting dispute templates, making gratuitous attacks on editors' motives and ignoring substantive points raised is wholly unbefitting a sysop.  Consider the possibility that not all pseudosciences are "created equal", so more nuance is needed than the category namespace provides.  I'm not suggesting deleting the opinions that various topics are PS, just presenting them differently.  It seems some editors agree with me, so the only thing that is being disrupted is the status quo you wish to preserve.  It is good to solicit wider contributions from editors.  If we disagree over NPOV, that's natural, but we should be discussing on the merits with cool heads.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Jim Butler. I have considered all of those objections, and have answered accordingly: WP:NPOV states that pseudoscience must be explained in a way that science has recieved it. That requires mentioning the term pseudoscience. Whenever the term is mentioned in an article, it can be added to the category to help the reader browse similar articles (its in the article already anyhow). The term is not to be used perjoratively: You cannot write "this is a load of old pseudoscience". It has to be done in a way that helps the reader browse the issues. When a reliable source is presented, there is always an explicit or implied explanation in context. KrishnaVindaloo 05:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Further clarification: WP:NPOV policy allows the use of the word pseudoscience as long as it is not used perjoratively. The same is true of the category. If the term is only used perjoratively (unhelpful to the reader), then it should not be categorized as such. If it is used in the context of explanation of how science has recieved pseudoscience, then it can be added (to help the reader). KrishnaVindaloo 05:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Mentioning" is less POVishly done with a list than a cat, per WP:CG. The term has inherently pejorative connotations in popular usage.  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I searched the CG page and there is no mention of "mentioning". The line on NPOV states that a subject should be added if uncontroversial. If a subject contains the issue of pseudoscience, then it is uncontroversial that it belongs in the pseudoscience category, because the pseudoscience category is for issues relating to pseudoscience. KrishnaVindaloo 06:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) As I mentioned before, I see no problem with adding subjects once considered pseudoscientific, as long as there is a reasonable mention it was once considered so in the article in question, and as long as it is not done to further a promotional personal agenda. KrishnaVindaloo 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I made a small adjustment to the description. Here is something I feel I need some other agreement on though: "Note that some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community."

I would like to add: "and some fields may be ones that were previously considered pseudoscience". KrishnaVindaloo 08:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC). Actually, scratch that provisionally. I am pretty happy with the present description of the category, as it accurately describes the category as it stands. It could be changed if the category changes to include subjs once considered PS. KrishnaVindaloo 09:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

List_of_pseudoscientific_theories
Just stumbled across List_of_pseudoscientific_theories; I think this has excellent potential to replace this cat if it's sourced and given more NPOV wording, as is currently being done with the short list at pseudoscience: ''The following is a list of theories and fields of endeavor that critics have characterized as pseudoscientific, and which a significant portion of the scientific community faults as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another. Note that some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community; see the individual articles for more information.'' cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the ideological driven attempts to kill this category continue apace. No, a list cannot replace this cat, doing so would create a form of POV fork. WP:NPOV applies to categories as well as articles. Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ applies to categories too. FeloniousMonk 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree FM, it would be a sort of POV fork. In addition, pseudoscience is not at all restricted to theories. It also involves activities of those promoting pseudoscientific subjects. Which is why we have subjects such as confirmation bias in the category. KrishnaVindaloo 05:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Accusations of "wikilawyering" and "personal agendas" are ad hominem and not befitting good Wikiquette or good logic. WP:CG explains the NPOV problems unique to the category namespace, as cat's appear without annotations.  See Dematt's comments above.  You can't be ignorant of this issue, as it's been raised before, yet you remain silent on it.  Also, what is your reasoning behind saying a list is a POV fork?  I don't see that objection mentioned at WP:CLS.  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 05:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Accusations of "wikilawyering" and "personal agendas" are not ad hominem if they are based in fact, and as they decribe with great precision your activities here, they are quite apropos to the disussion. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your claim conflicts with Assuming Good Faith. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously that list cannot replace this category - not does the category cover a broader subject area than the list, but the trend is to replace lists with categories, not the other way around. Categories are easier to maintain than lists.  Guettarda 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is that obvious, Guettarda? Lists and cats are just different ways of presenting information, cf. WP:CLS.  More silence on [WP:CG]]?  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Subjects can be considered pseudoscientific purely because of the nature of the activities and thinking of the proponents. Theories or no theories may be irrelevant. So adding to a list of theories, and not including in the category would remove scientific POV. Its a kind of POV fork. KrishnaVindaloo 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying something is PS is an opinion, not a fact. The unfortunate and POVish trend has been to categorize as PS that which critics have called PS, even if the only demonstrable scientific consensus is that there's no evidence either way.  Under WP:NPOV, WP doesn't assert arguments; it presents them.  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * DO you propose to go for deletion of the list? Obviously we now have a doubling of that list with this category, it's not good to have both. Harald88 07:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I agree that the list title is an NPOV violation: Alleged pseudoscience could be OK. Harald88 07:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, "alleged pseudosciences" would be better if the list were kept. Jim Butler(talk) 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I think the idea of the list of PS theories is fine as there are indeed pseudoscientific theories. Its just that it certainly does not in any way cover all the issues related to pseudoscience. The cat is useful, links on the article change, a list is hard to maintain. The present titles are fine and within Wikipedia NPOV policy. If the word pseudoscientific or pseudoscience are presented on the NPOV article, and the recommendations given as they are, then the term can be used in titles, on the articles, and as a category. I repeat, the cat is not called Category:Pseudosciences, and it is to contain many issues relating to pseudoscience. KrishnaVindaloo 07:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Also, Alleged pseudoscience is quite against NPOV wording. It is also inaccurate. The term pseudoscience is used as it is used in reliable books and articles on pseudoscience. It is about issues of pseudoscience within various areas. KrishnaVindaloo 07:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea that a field is PS is still an opinion, not a fact. What if category:terrorists were rewritten per your recent rewrite of this cat?  Of course I'm not suggesting this, per WP:POINT; just pretend for a moment:
 * Wikipedia takes no stance on whether a person is a terrorist or or not. This category is to enable readers to browse pages that involve terrorist ideas and activities, that contain issues that clarify terrorist ideas and activities, and to help understand how terrorist ideas and activities are received by civilized societies. It is completely up to the reader to decide whether subjects such as Hamas, the Contras or George Bush etc, are terrorists, or not.
 * Then, continuing our thought experiment, we'd populate that list with everyone whom every notable commentator ever suggested had to do with terrorism. Arafat, Sharon, Truman, Reagan -- all of them go in, as long as someone said so.  Now please read WP:CG and WP:Categorization of people again and tell me if there might be some NPOV problems with that approach!  Would you seriously keep arguing "there is no problem.  It is all just to inform the readers?"  :-) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim Butler. I believe you are making false comparisons. Look at Category:terrorism rather than Category:terrorists. It involves articles that help the reader understand terrorism, including items such as Rainbow Warrior and Terrorism, and anything that helps the reader. The reader is left to make up their own minds on Rainbow Warrior, IRA etc. Actually, one great thing about categories is the fact that they are not annotated, and categories offer variations in levels of things, and explanatory articles. If it were annotated it would involve no end of conflict, and people writing things such as: Pseudoscience; Primal Scream Therapy (but Richard Fenyman says its really good for cleaning the sinuses), or MRT Mojo Replacement Therapy (but Jimmy Hendrix used it to recover from hangovers) etc. Categories leave it up to the reader to decide. Similar to an appendix in a book on pseudoscience. It will involve all kinds of activities and concepts explaining those activities. KrishnaVindaloo 09:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, and see what other editors think. WP:CG is clear that because categories appear without annotations, they can present POV problems.  I don't think pseudoscience is an exception to this.  The type of annotation I'm referring to is:  who makes the criticism, what aspects do they criticize, and why.  More information, not less, is helpful to letting the reader decide.  Of course we wouldn't include something like Feynman's joke, even though it is funny.  Slapping labels on things without qualification is not desirable, IMO.  Not all things labelled pseudoscientific are equally in violation of the scientific method.  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The solution is easy, once again. Rely on the linked article to help the reader. The primary purpose of categories is to help the reader browse related articles. Pseudoscience is more about the issue of pseudoscience rather than large bodies of experts categorizing whole fields as "a pseudoscience". If there is an issue in an article that helps the reader understand PS, then it can be added.  The decision is partly up to the common sense of editors, but the main idea is really very clear: Helping the reader understand stuff about pseudoscience. The better things are explained, the more the reader will understand stuff about PS, and science.KrishnaVindaloo 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you read NPOV_tutorial? It says The key recommendation for addressing such POV/NPOV issues comes from Categorization of people (while indeed, people articles appear to be the most sensitive to POV/NPOV categorisation disputes):...  The latter elaborates:  Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization.  I think such an approach is wise with pseudoscience.  Either way, the information gets out there.  Annocation of lists offers readers more information.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not that bad of an idea. It would be a much appreciated alternative on the chiropractic page.  It would keep the word pseudoscience off the bottom of the page and thus the revert wars from firing up again.  You could Name the list "Interesting anomlies in Pseudoscience" or something similar, and include the pages that are borderline and controversial and have an objective reason for not calling themselves pseudoscience.  Put the link to the list on your category:Pseudoscience page and it will look like it is part of the category.  The only people that will know will be you. --Dematt 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tagging
There is clearly dispute over this category, cf. above, and not just involving a couple of editors. What's with editors removing dispute tags without consensus? At this point I'd suggest the NPOV tag is the most appropriate one given comments above. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

....Um - or some sort of tag, e.g. back to Template:cleancat? I'm not the only one who has these concerns, and isn't tagging a proper form of WP:DR?
 * Personally i don't have any objection to the cleancat template; seems to me to make sense. A significant number of other editors plainly disagree with me on this issue, and I choose not to fight them on the issue of cleancat.  But an NPOV issue presents itself article by article (or included category by included category).  I've removed some of the questionable ones that don't fit reasonable definitions of pseudoscience myself. ... Kenosis 18:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate your input. I agree that there are important concerns article by article, and the more explanation within articles, the better.  Just slapping the PS label on without explanation is not desirable.  I don't see anything that this cat accomplishes that a list couldn't also accomplish, and without the POV problems.  I also doubt that there will be consensus to delete this cat anytime soon, and that being the case, I agree that it should be described and populated with caution.


 * As for editors removing dispute tags, well .... such behavior basically avoids peer review and discourages argumentation on the merits. Given the subject matter, could that possibly be more ironic?  ;-)  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the points we disagree on, then. I think there is a balance between failing to identify pseudoscience for the readers on the one extreme, and compulsive skepticism on the other.  I'm willing to pitch in occasionally to help weed out the cheap shots that arrive in this category which don't reasonably fit the definition of pseudoscience as put forward by Carroll and other published writers, and as summarized in the article on pseudoscience. ... Kenosis 22:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; what you say points in the direction of possible compromise, i.e. keeping the cat being careful with populating it. I haven't seen a good argument as to why WP:CG doesn't apply as much to this cat as any other.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV_tutorial
I just noticed this passage regarding NPOV and categories: NPOV_tutorial. It specifically cautions about overuse of categories, saying "The key recommendation for addressing such POV/NPOV issues comes from Categorization_of_people". That page says:
 * Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization.

This is the same idea as presented in WP:CG, which says:
 * Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. ....
 * Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed.

These cautions apply to all categories, and I doubt category:pseudoscience is an exception.

That's why I advocate caution with populating category:pseudoscience, and to focus on populating List_of_pseudoscientific_theories instead. Because lists can be sourced and annotated (see WP:LIST), the threshold for inclusion of a topic is lower for a list than for a category. All of this follows from the guidelines linked from the NPOV FAQ. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is not one of those instances, then I don't know what is. It is obvious that WP is not interested in forcing categories on controversial pages. If we want to include a controversial subject, we must at least allow the option to be put on an appropriately identified list that does not label it at the bottom of the page.  It can be linked to the category and someone who is interested in pseudoscience can still see it, but it does not push it on an artlicle's page. --Dematt 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I support removing controversial articles from the category. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Harald88 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, read the section on pseudoscience in NPOV, and note that the categorization section of NPOV says it should include essential categories. If something is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community that would seem to me to be essential. Furthermore, everyone claims that their own personal pseudoscience is not a pseudoscience, tha above claim seems like an excuse therefore to just let every wacko remove his personal hobby. JoshuaZ 21:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Similarly, if some group is considered a sect by the mainstream religions then that would seem essential. And for obvious reasons, the problem is the same. Harald88 21:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, nobody is suggesting that the subject cannot be put on the appropriate pseudoscience list if it belongs there; only that the label won't end up on the bottom of controversial articles' pages. That's where you are getting the resistance.  I don't mind if someone wants to illustrate the pseudoscientific elements of the early years of pharmacology, but don't push it on the bottom of my pharmacology article.  WP realizes that there is a need for this distinction.  Let's use it. That is not going to get Astrology off the pseudoscience category list:) --Dematt 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Having it not on the page makes the page a POV fork. JoshuaZ 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's true, then WP's NPOV FAQ endorses POV forks. Please read the quote above from the guideline that the NPOV FAQ links to.  The problem is the nature of the category namespace, which appears without any sort of annotation.  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 00:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the same specious argument used a pretext to arrange a particular outcome that flies in the face of policy pseudoscience apologists here have been using. As pointed out before supporting cites for including a subject in this category are easily handled at the subject's article as they have been all along at this project. Claiming that categories are unable to accomodate cites as justification for killing off a category is laughable. FeloniousMonk 04:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please say what specifically you find specious about WP's category guidelines, which editors have put a lot into. All you've said about WP:CG's clear caveats is that "NPOV trumps it", a point I think I've adequately refuted (see below for a concise version:  the same NPOV FAQ that you cite also refers to WP:Categorization of people, which echoes WP:CG).  There are obvious problems with just slapping the label on a page.  As I've said before, I'm not advocating removing the information from WP, just saying it's better presented as a list than a cat.  Lists are in the same ballpark as cats, but can be annotated.  As I mentioned on your talk page, I can live with the cat if it's populated cautiously, per WP guidelines.  Any response beyond calling what I say specious and ignorant?  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussions here and below ultimately stem from the respective limitations of categories and lists, and that the best solution is to modify the mediawiki software so that lists and categories can be merged into a unified structure that allows for annotation and sourcing, as well as bidirectional navigation and automatic indexing. Everybody in the current discussion seems to agree that an index of pseudosciences should exist, and the disagreement stems from the form that index should take – category or list? I'm willing to work on this project from the development side (I've modified the mediawiki software extensively in the past for my previous employer for their own internal use, though I haven't committed any of those modifications back to the project) but I need to have a better idea of what people think would work. This issue of list vs. category isn't exclusive to the pseudoscience debate, and so it needs to be discussed in a more appropriate forum. The village pump? The WP pages on categorization?

Also, would some of the pro-category debators please outline their position clearly and concisely, so that I can understand their position better and thus know what features are desired? I don't plan on arguing for the deletion of the category any longer (and will shortly be removing my vote from the deletion review for the pseudoscientists category) and really just want to understand your position, since I honestly believe that a list is superior in this case. Is it bidirectional navigation that you see as being important, or does that not matter? Is it auto-indexing? What is it about a category, as opposed to a list, that you feel is so vital in the case of pseudoscience? --Wclark 05:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! Excellent points raised here.  Strongly support pursuing the possibility of allowing annotation of categories while retaining their strength of bidirectional navigation.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Wclark. The category is truly NPOV. PS is not really about categorizing whole fields as PS. It shows fields or areas of the field where there are PS aspects, theory, practice and extra activities. It is not annotated so it is left completely up to the reader to read the articles and decide whatever they like about it, for example:


 * How pseudoscientific do I think this subject is, if at all?
 * Which is the most pseudoscientific?
 * Which is the most interesting
 * Which are fraudulent, and which are just misguided?
 * Which are more new age, and which more sci sounding?


 * Its all up to the reader and the articles. Annotations on the list will have to be very summary, and most likely will seem conclusive, and that will always seem POV. A straight un-annotated cat is the easiest solution. All that needs to be done is to show any objector that there are variations in PSness, and that it is not a list of pseudosciences. That should be reasonable for any reasonable editor to accept. Wikipedia does not conclude that any subject is a PS, and editors get to explain how science has received pseudoscientific developments. KrishnaVindaloo 06:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be the case for the pseudoscience category (although some people still view it as a listing of pseudosciences), but I actually came to this debate from the pseudoscientist category, which I nominated for deletion (and which is currently undergoing deletion review after the consensus to delete it). Although it's arguable that the pseudoscientists category isn't really a listing of pseudoscientists, it's clearly a tougher case.  While I respect your position, I don't think that it's ultimately tenable, since too many readers understand category inclusion to imply that the item included is an example of the type of thing represented by the category.  If WP were more tightly regulated and there were enforceable guidelines as to how categories could be used, then I think your position would make the most sense – but since anybody can edit WP and many people view categories as  descriptive labels, they're going to end up getting used that way.  Given that they will be used that way, I think annotation of entries is better than no annotation.  --Wclark 06:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We really have to handle this from a position of the "informed" rather than arguing from ignorance. From a scientific perspective, being perjorative is not at all the objective. It is just a relative relegation, and a necessary one, just as a refuting research paper is a relegation of established theory. It is also a clarification. The literature on PS is about PS issues. Not about classing fields as pseudoscience. We must also give the reader a bit more respect. A reader is not going to think invisibility, for example, has the same level of PSness as Dianetics or Buddha therapy or psysiognomy. And they will see straight away that there it is not a list of pseudosciences. The reader isn't stupid. They will not consider that confirmation bias is a pseudoscience. They are here to read, after all. KrishnaVindaloo 06:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to DROP LIST AND CATEGORY
I would like to propose that the list of pseudosciences be eliminated from the pseudoscience article and replaced with a more precise and accurate way of dealing with the matter. We need a method that can be defended from suppression and deletism. Thus far we waste too much time.

I would also propose that we stop using the Pseudoscience category. It is too loaded to make it defensible under all circumstances. We've got better things to do than constantly defending a category.

Disclaimer:
 * I still believe pseudoscience exists, can be defined, and must be pointed out and written about here at Wikipedia. OTOH, no amount of editing by believers in pseudoscience should be allowed to dominate the POV of the article. It describes a scientific and skeptical POV. That POV exists in the real world, therefore it should be described here at Wikipedia, using its own article. Those pro-pseudoscience editors should have no say in defining the POV, or suppressing it. Their job is to properly present the verifiable objections that exist. The article must of course include that aspect as a verifiable minority viewpoint.

In principle, if a dubious idea in the scientific or health care arena (quackery, metaphysics, health fraud, pseudoscience, anti-science, etc.) exists, then it should be possible to find the necessary documentation for inclusion in the appropriate article describing the subject. The necessary demands must of course be met: verifiability, reliable sources, etc. Then - and this is very important - it should be called by its right name. It just doesn't work to place it under the wrong heading.

Another point to remember is a guiding principle of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy - verifiability, not truth. The object of the accusation of dubiousness will naturally object and claim it's not true. That is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If it's verifiable, then it must not be deleted or suppressed.

Now back to the immediate subject - pseudoscience. If it is a pseudoscientific profession, idea, method, or simply an element in the profession, then it should be identified specifically for what it is, not painted too broadly or imprecisely. It should be mentioned in a very short paragraph with appropriate wikilinking. The paragraph should describe, based on proper and reliable references, precisely why it is considered to be pseudoscientific.

Now if this process is done properly, the same paragraph, possibly slightly modified, but with the same documentation, should be included in the particular article.

If it's homeopathy, then a short paragraph describing what the reliable sources say about why it's pseudoscientific should be placed on both the pseudoscience article and the homeopathy article.

If it's chiropractic, then the paragraph should describe which elements of chiropractic are pseudoscientific, and then the parapraph(s) should be placed in the appropriate article(s): vertebral subluxation, innate intelligence, chiropractic, etc.

The idea here is to eliminate the use of the Pseudoscience category tag at the bottom of articles. It can be very unfair, and will always be contested (which is what we need to eliminate), when a category tag is applied to a whole article, when only a small part of the subject is properly categorized as pseudoscience.

In the end, all pseudoscientific matters should be identified and documented in the relevant articles, and the pseudoscience article should contain a short paragraph on each one. In the end, we should have a system that is defensible against all attacks because each paragraph is so NPOV, and well sourced with multiple good references.

As it is, the Category page only lists each tagged article, with no qualifiers, arguments, documentation, or references. It makes an accusation without backing it up. That's what needs to be done in each article and on the Pseudoscience article. That article can much more effectively replace the Category page. -- Fyslee 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good grief, no. You are proposing duplicating information becasue the cat is difficult to maintain? Find something easier to maintain, then. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a bad idea to me. Categories are much easier to maintain, and they are easier to NPOV than a list.  Inclusion in a category means that the editors of that particular topic can convincingly connect the topic with pseudoscience.  A list, on the other hand, is more likely to have POV problems, since it is the sole province of the list-makers.  Inclusion in cat:pseudoscience is neutral - if you want to know the connection, you have to read the article.  Inclusion in a list reduces it to a couple of words - it's much harder to make a neutral statement of the issue in a couple words.  Guettarda 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, the "list-makers" are us, as editors. They are not a different group than the people editing the articles, and so I don't see how a list would be any more POV than the articles.  By bringing together all of the pseudoscience-relevant discussion in one place, I would think it would actually be less POV than the individual, specialized article pages.  Please explain your position on this in more detail.
 * Secondly, a list may only allow a "couple of words" of annotation (plus references, links to other supporting articles, etc.) – but a category inclusion provides zero words. How is that better?  --Wclark 04:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with both KC and Guettarda -- this is a bad idea. Betwen this and Jossi re the DRV on List of Pseudoscientists I'm sensing that some editors are deciding that because something  is toooo haaaarrd we should just ditch it and walk away.  Bullocks.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see little merit to the assertion that something as broad as the wiki should drop a category on pseudoscience. Disagreement about a category on pseudoscientists is far more understandable to me, because that involves typing people into a class or category. Pseudoscience, however, is concept-based and important to separating what in the world is "science" from that which holds itself out as science but without proper justification.  We're in the [unpaid] business of communicating and organizing information for people.  If this category isn't legitimate, objective (WP:NPOV), verifiable (WP:NPOV) information on the whole, then what is? Maybe we should just stick to categories for stuff like plants and vegetables, domestic animals and the like?  And even there, there's always someone willing to put an NPOV tag on it, say because pit bulls aren't domesticated enough for some folks.  Sure pseudoscience is a very controversial subject area, but it is rightly presented to the readers despite the controversy, inexactness and confusion about it. .... Kenosis 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the pseudoscientists category is different than the pseudoscience category, but for other reasons. I don't think it's any clearer which theories should be considered pseudoscience and which should not (than it is which individuals are pseudoscientists and which are not), since there's not even any consensus on what the proper boundaries or methodology of science are (see the demarcation problem for details).  However, the pseudoscience category is different than the pseudoscientists one because it doesn't necessarily imply that the members of the category are examples of pseudoscience.  It simply implies that they're related to the topic.  (To that end, a list might still be preferable, since it would allow us to specify which items were included because they are examples of pseudoscience, and which are merely included because of some other connection.)  If the category were pseudosciences rather than pseudoscience, then the implication would be that the items were themselves pseudosciences.  It's a subtle distinction, but one which I think is important nonetheless – although so many readers assume that if A is in category B, then A is an example of B, it might be a lost cause.  In that case, I would agree that the category should be replaced by a list (or better yet, if it were feasible, the category code in the mediawiki software should be modified to allow for annotation of the entries).  --Wclark 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to be the only person to agree with Fyslee, but for the record I agree that this is a necessarily bad category: a value judgement rather than an objective categorization. Many musicians might agree that there is really, objectively bad music, but a category "bad music" would have intrinsic problems. So with pseudoscience; everyone agrees that it exists, but that doesn't mean that it is possible to make an objective categorization of what belongs there...it is a necessarily fuzzy concept (as it is based upon an ill-defined philosophical distinction). At the moment, this seems a bit of a lost cause, however.


 * Adding the category pseudoscience to an article certainly implies more than that a topic is "related to" pseudoscience. Hgilbert 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Music is not science, it is art. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To spell out to you what he argued: Would you defend creating a category bad music? If not, why not? And then, why do you defend a category pseudoscience? Harald88 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the why not part, even if I don't agree with it: Sciences have precise definitions, whereas arts do not.  Hence, pseudoscience can be objectively determined by a set of clear and consistent criterea, whereas bad art cannot.  The fallacy in the argument is that science isn't as clearly defined as that.  See the demarcation problem for just one issue involving the boundaries of what is and what is not science.  --Wclark 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The existence of a few (rare) problematic cases is not a reason to throw out the category. For example, we have Category:Founding Fathers of the United States and one could argue about whether or not certain people should be included. But the vast majority of people are clear cut cases. JoshuaZ 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do like that analogy. keep in mind, though, everyone wants to be a Founding Father.  What about the category:Husbands Who Abused Their Wives?  I imagine you will always have trouble with that category.  It might be necessary to differentiate verbal and physical abuse at least.  Then it might not be a bad idea to note whether they apologized and if they ever did it again.  Then we could really draw our own educated conclusions about the Husband in question. :) --Dematt 20:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent analogy. KV's argument, applied here, would go: "No, annotation is pointless; let the readers decide for themselves.  The people talking about spousal abuse are purely objective."  IOW, stick on the label first, and clarify the questions later.  This isn't NPOV:  it asserts rather than presents the argument.  As editors, we've gotta take into account the reality of common usage, which is certainly pejorative.  To call something a pseudoscience is to say that its proponents are, intentionally or not, engaging in misrepresentation.  That's a "heavy" allegation, obviously contentious.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Jim Butler. Please don't misrepresent me. Read the description of the category again. It is very clear what the category pseudoscience is about. Pseudoscience is not just about the intentions or mistakes of proponents. There are many issues involved. The category pseudoscience helps the reader. It is a helpful category and the only people who suffer from the application of the category are those editors who wish to dismiss the very question of pseudoscience from their vested interests. To argue that the word is perjorative in common usage will ultimately lead to the word itself being removed from Wikipedia altogether. That is unreasonable and a complete non-starter as an argument. In the context of Wikipedia (when following Wikipedia recommendations), the term pseudoscience is used as neutrally as possible.


 * E.G Perjorative usage: Chiropractors are a bunch of pseudoscientific charlatans. Category description: This category contains subjects that are complete pseudoscience. Verifiable and reliable scientific sources state these subjects to be a load of old pseudoscience. Peer-reviewed scientific articles are written for scientists to vent their spleen at idiots and liars who sell snakeoil, and at the idiots who buy the stuff.


 * Correct usage: Professor Smith (year, pageNo) states that "Chiropractic manipulations receive some contested support via controlled studies. Chiropractic remains pseudoscientific due to the continued widespread use of other unvalidated treatments within chiropractic, and the pseudoscientific beliefs and attitudes of chiropractic's adherents)".


 * Context is extremely imporant here. The context of the category pseudoscience is very neutral and helpful as can be seen by reading the category description and by looking down the list of items in the PS category. The PS category as it stands helps the reader understand how science receives subjects relating to pseudoscience. It is handled according to NPOV policy. KrishnaVindaloo 06:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We are making a judgement based on the science involved via the judgement of the scientific community. It's a sociological definition, and one that works, evidently, as so many people are trying to subvert NPOV to have their pet pseudoscientific ideas removed. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 00:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a sociological definition, and with the same problems that cult has: pejorative connotations, varying meanings among users, boundary issues, and Fyslee's observation that the term is often better applied to elements of a field than the entire field itself.  None of these mean that we need to scrub description of pseudoscience from WP, but they do suggest this category needs to be used with great care, if at all, as I mentioned just above.
 * The "scientific community" usually doesn't label things as pseudoscience. Certain individuals (some of them scientists, but often not:  Randi, Shermer, Carroll) and advocacy groups do.  Scientists generally comment on evidence or lack thereof.  Critics take that plus their own judgement and apply the tag, and then claim to be speaking for scientists at large.  It is rare that scientists proclaim, en masse, that a topic is pseudoscientific (creationism, and perhaps some climate change junk science, are some modern examples).  Doubt about evidence, or absence of evidence, is not sufficient for WP to slap the label on categorically and be done with it.  That's why lists, which can be annotated, are better than categories.  We can say why says exactly what, and why.
 * BTW, given that Fyslee's Quackbuster blog has some of the most devastating criticisms of pseudoscience out there, I wonder what his "pet" pseudoscience is? :-)  Fyslee is simply able to discriminate between his own POV and NPOV (much easier said than done as we've all found).  That's good both for WP content and good faith.  Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 02:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. This category has stood for a very long time and withstood a number of challenges and nothing new has been introduced here to change any of that. FeloniousMonk 02:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I may not have spoken assertively enough to convey my view above. The assertion that this category doesn't belong on the wiki is irresponsible to the mission of WP.  The public needs this info, no matter how debatable it is. ... Kenosis 02:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, I think it's clear that there won't be consensus for dropping the cat soon. (Cats always land on their feet when dropped, I've heard, and this one would soon spring back into action anyway.)  What you say above may point the way to a good compromise, i.e. retaining the cat but populating carefully.  thanks much, Jim Butler(talk) 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you think it's not acceptible for the public to get this info in the form of a list, rather than a category. The benefits of a list (annotation, source references, etc.) has been made clear, but I still don't see what the benefit of a category would be, and why this benefit would outweigh those of a list.  --Wclark 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wclark: Either you inadvertently missed my point, or you're using an automated translator to/from a different language. ... Kenosis 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already been explained here and elsewhere many, many times in the last few weeks. What's missing here is not absence of understanding but an dogmatic unwillingness to abide by existing policies. The constant objections and suggestions that fly in the face of long-standing policies and conventions are becoming disruptive and need to stop and free these pages so other matter are able to be discussed. FeloniousMonk 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FM, I don't think those sorts of declarations are very helpful either to good faith or substantive discussion. Many of the editors who express disagreement with you over the use of the category (and who may or may not agree with your views on pseudoscience in general) have earned the respect of fellow Wikipedians and have made substantive contributions.  It is not appropriate to "categorically" paint them all with the same brush (again, ironically, given what we're debating).


 * IMO, the point you make about NPOV's "making necessary assumptions" is a good one in that it can be taken as allowing use of the category. On the other hand, the term "pseudoscience" itself is more sociological than scientific, as even the very skeptical editor Dunc points out.  I believe your argument about NPOV trumping WP:CG is mistaken.  NPOV policy pages in one section say we must identify majority scientific views "as such", but elsewhere say specifically to be careful about populating categories for the same reasons as WP:CG cites.  So it's not a matter of NPOV contradicting category guidelines, or contradicting itself.  It's a matter of figuring out how to apply NPOV to categorization, including whether notable skeptical POV truly represents scientific consensus, as well as the fairness of slapping the tag on an entire field with just some PS aspects, per Fyslee.


 * Reasonable and knowledgeable editors can and do disagree over this stuff. I'd appreciate it if you stopped saying that the expression of such disagreement is ignorant and disruptive.  That's an unselfish suggestion, btw.  To the extent one keeps "shouting", one undermines one's credibility.  It's like the story of the scientist who annotated his lecture notes "speak loudly here — uncertain of facts".  ;-)  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Kenosis wrote: "The public needs this info, no matter how debatable it is. ..."


 * Indeed! I'm not proposing anything that would eliminate or water down the information. I'm only proposing doing it in a better documented way, with another format that's easier to defend. In fact, the list would actually still exist, but it would be in the TOC! That's even more prominent a spot, and people could use it to hop to the relevant paragraph where all the gory details are placed. -- Fyslee 05:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When reading some of these arguments, I still have to remind myself about the nature of PS subjects. When you consider the sci community, you can only consider the members who are acquainted with the PS subject in question. The subjects that those researchers look at tend to have many aspects or characteristics of PS, including theoretical issues, verification issues, and the activities and attitudes of the proponents. I do get the feeling that some editors here have not accepted certain real facts about policy, and about the nature of PS subjects. Policy: PS is to be covered as per scientific view. Nature: PS is often inextricable from the field as there are so many aspects that can be considered PS. We need to explain reliable views, and leave it up to the reader to make their own conclusions. Mentioning the term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific is a necessity. If those who write about confirmation bias, for example, can accept the category label on the related article, then so should all other article editors who edit articles with verifiable and clarifying PS issues. KrishnaVindaloo 06:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV would clearly demand that this category, if retained, only be used for clearcut and verifiable cases. I agree that an annotated list might be a viable option for explaining less clearcut cases; there could be room for detailing areas of disputed, evidence on both sides -- footnotes are great space-savers that still allow ample detail to be present for the interested. Those who claim that the category is a scientific one are flying in the face of reality; the authors who have written about pseudoscience, from Kuhn and Popper to Williams, write as philosophers, though often ones with scientific training as well. It is a pseudoscientific category at the moment; vaguely defined, poorly evidenced, not accessible to serious scientific research. Hgilbert 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearcut: Is there a question or issue about PS in the article according to reliable and verifiable sources? If so there is a clearcut reason for placing it into the category. It is NEVER clearcut that a subject is pseudoscience or a pseudoscience. Even the astrology article does not conclude that astrology is a pseudoscience. When a subject holds a useful set of information on how science has recieved pseudoscientific developments, then it can be added. It is clear that there is something to help the reader understand how science has received PS notions and activities. We help the reader by informing the reader. We inform them about subjects pertaining to pseudoscience by adding those subjects to the category. KrishnaVindaloo 07:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Selection Bias/psychological/sociological aspects etc
Hi all. Things are improving. The cat now has more useful categories that explain the nature of PS (eg, Confirmation Bias, Granfalloon etc) and of course, this reduces conflict long term as it clearly shows the pseudoscience category is not a set of pseudosciences. There are most likely a lot of other psychological and sociological factors that will help the reader, so I'll keep on delving for more, and any help will be great. KrishnaVindaloo 05:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Actually there are also a set of very useful psych factors surrounding cognitive dissonance. Not sure which ones are more appropriate for the cat. I have a paper that examined chiropractic students and found that before their course they were fairly neutral towards science, but as they progressed through the course they became more anti-science. There are psych issues and sociological issues there in the paper, but I believe there may also be economic aspects. This is interesting as PS tends to create interesting effects on medical spending. Opportunity costs for example, can be incurred when sufferers forgo the proper treatment in preference for a PS one. Well, just a few more ideas anyway. Good research is needed as per usual. Oh, and there may also be some legal and ethical issues, in relation to supply of unverified treatments, advertisements for those treatments (trades descriptions etc). KrishnaVindaloo 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)