Talk:Ghost/Archive 7

"Skepticism" now under "history"
moved the paragraph. While this may be a way forward, the current arrangement is still very awkward. We now have "History -> Modern period", and under "Modern period" first "Spiritism" and then "Skepticism". What is even worse is that the "pseudoscience" part is now represented upside down. A ghost story or belief in ghosts is not "pseudoscience", it is a story, or a belief. The actual pseudoscience (geomagnetism, infrasound, etc.) is now presented as if it was part of the rational skepticism out to debunk pseudoscience. This needs to be fixed. --dab (𒁳) 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Spiritism section, with its claims of pseudoscientific investigation of ectoplasm and spirit mediums, is the natural place to follow up with the majority view on those subjects. The infrasound stuff is admittedly up for grabs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ectoplasm and spirit mediums doesn't need to be "followed up" by criticism, this should be stated in the same paragraph. This is very difficult to get right. We should perhaps begin by fixing Spiritism and Spiritualism, currently two articles which both say they are identical in scope, but Spiritualism is labelled as a religion while Spiritism is cast in terms of the "study of phenomena". A religion cannot be pseudoscience because it doesn't pretend to be science. This means that mediumship, if taken as a belief, is not pseudoscience. Proposed mechanisms such as ectoplasm are clearly pseudoscience. The magnetism/infrasound stuff is in the same category as ectoplasm, i.e. the attempt to reduce ghost sightings, by definition non-corporeal, to a material explanation.
 * I think we will need to lose the National Science Foundation quote, as what the NSF terms "beliefs in pseudoscience" does not concern pseudoscience at all. They correctly define pseudoscience as  "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility", but then they go on to include clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling.  Why these items should be presented as "scientific" and by whom is not made clear. I would argue that clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling, as long as they are not bolstered by pseudoscience of the ectoplasm/geomagnetism sort are not pseudoscience at all but items of folk religion, and the NSF could just as easily have gone on to include belief in angels, or God, the only thing that stopped them was their cultural bias, knowing that they wouldn't get away with labelling theism as pseudoscience in a majority theistic society. --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, deconstructing the concept of pseudoscience isn't that helpful, but I respect your desire to get this article right. My view is that the article, especially the Spiritist section, touches on claims sourced to people like David Fontana and the Society for Psychical Research, and the opinions of the NSF per those subjects is very relevant. I've long been a fan of your work here and believe you have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, but I respectfully submit that it sounds like you are dreaming of an article entitled "Ghost (belief)" or "Ghost (legend)" rather than Ghost. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I say, I think this is rather difficult, and I am trying to find the best solution by discussion, I do not have a fixed idea in mind. What I do have in mind is "Ghost (belief, legend, tradition, archetype)", a.k.a. "Ghost". The Society for Psychical Research is obviously of historical interest, and I really fail to see why the NSF in particular should be relevant to that. For some reason, it appears, people feel they need to counter-punch against spiritism much more than against, say, classical mythology. We don't need a dedicated section explaining that there isn't really a physical river known as Styx where the dead are ferried across, and that the NSF has denounced belief in classical mythology in stern words. So why should we need dedicated sections to "debunk" 19th century spiritualist movements? And if "debunking" is felt to be necessary, why in a separate "skepticism" section and not worked into the relevant portion of the article? If you feel Fontana or other works cited are less than encyclopedic, feel free to either tag them with verify credibility or just remove them. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * looking into the background of David Fontana, I expect he is going to be one of the more quotable paranormal researchers. --dab (𒁳) 15:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * well, if you ask me, we could probably dispense with the headings in the 'Modern Period' section and wrap the skepticism into the other material. essentially, we'd talk about all the funky things people have done in the 19th & 20th centuries to try to 'prove' that ghosts exist, close with a couple of sentences which say that all of that boils down to misconstructed pseudoscience, and drop the remaining material as superfluous.  that is, unless you want to move the geomagnetic stuff up as a kind of ultra-modern form of pseudoscience...  -- Ludwigs 2  17:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good in principle. I tend to favor integration rather than relegating the scientific skepticism to a "criticism ghetto". Also, if memory serves, the geo and infrasound stuff sources back to the Society for Psychical Research, so it could possibly be moved to parapsychology, ghost hunting, paranormal, or some other relevant article. As far as the NSF not being relevant, I don't agree, but some wider opinion on that matter would be useful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't think the NSF is 'not relevant' - I rather like the NSF (and not just because they've given me money - lol). I do think they just get misused a bit by WP editors.  Would scientists as a rule generally hold that ghosts don't exist?  probably yes.  would the NSF say that there's no empirical evidence for the existence of ghosts? almost certainly, though I don't know if they 'have'' said that explicitly.  would the NSF decry the belief in ghosts as pseudoscientific claptrap? doubtful - the NSF isn't given to indulging in speculation or social judgements of that nature.  The NSF is going to very carefully distinguish pseudoscience as 'research modalities that fail to meet rigorous scientific standards', and isn't going to extend the scientific criticism to the related non-scientific belief structures.  Ectoplasometry (assuming there is such a thing) is pseudoscience; seances and ouija boards aren't (unless someone tries to elevate them to the status of scientific proof).  let me try a revision in a bit, and feel free to revise or revert if you dislike it.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NSF issues aside for the moment, I found the Persinger infasound/geomagnetic stuff actually sources to the BBC here and here, so it may have relevance to this article after all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Context of NSF statement

 * These comments are a continuation of discussions above....

Just to make sure we know what is being referred to by the NSF statement.... Here is the actual sentence they use before their reference 29:


 * "Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29]"

Then comes our statement, based on that and their ref 29:


 * The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as belief in ghosts and spirits, to be "pseudoscientific beliefs". 

Have I summarized that source wrongly? If not, then what's the problem? I consider the NSF to be a more reliable source than an editor's opinion. I see their statement as a pretty good summation of items that can be termed pseudoscientific beliefs. Any belief, including religious ones, that make falsifiable statements, are potentially pseudoscientific beliefs. Even if we could philosophically pick their opinion apart, they are a reliable source that should still be cited, and our disagreements with them would just be uncitable OR that shouldn't influence how we construct the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't think this is a question of whether you've summarized the source incorrectly. I do think you are giving too much emphasis to what strikes me as a casual use of the word 'pseudoscience'.  strictly speaking, 'pseudoscientific belief' could only mean a belief derived from improper scientific claims: a belief in Deadly Orgone Radiation, for instance, would be pseudoscientific, because the scientific claims and research that look for orgone are clearly pseudoscience.  However, it is not at all clear to me that most people's conceptions of ghosts owes anything to the pseudoscientific attempts to identify ghosts.  Your analysis is far to broad - for instance, it would cast any belief in God as pseudoscientific, as well as any belief in life, or social structures, or identities.  is that what you meant to do?  -- Ludwigs 2  06:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just quoting from the NSF's yearly document about pseudoscience, and that's a pretty notable source. What I mean about it is rather irrelevant. I must bow to the source. I suspect they understand the matter better than any of us. We just need to avoid OR in this matter, and using such a RS is a good way. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OR is a tricky thing: you know that as well as I do. My concern here is that this quote is being used out of proportion to support a position that the NSF would not itself support, and one that is not explicitly outlined in this document.  please note that this is not a 'yearly document about pseudoscience' but a yearly document about 'public attitudes and understanding about Science and Technology' - it is concerned with media and education, not with scientific standards, and doesn't try to outline standards for or definitions of pseudoscience.  I don't doubt that the NSF would consider the idea of ghosts 'flawed' at best, and would consider most research into the topic pseudoscientific, but I doubt they would go so far as to condemn the very idea (given the utter lack of evidence surrounding the issue), and they certainly wouldn't support language that outright refutes conventional religious and personal beliefs.  I don't dispute the quote, I'm just leery of over-reading it, if you see what I mean.  -- Ludwigs 2  08:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that "... hold at least one pseudoscientific belief...[29]" is pretty clear language. Otherwise you're correct that it isn't the document, but the section Belief in Pseudoscience which they include each year. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And Einstein once said that 'God does not play dice with the universe', which does not make him an opponent of legalized gambling. I hope you're not suggesting that we take a fundamentalist interpretation of NSF texts?


 * Look, if you really want to make this case, then I would expect to see some secondary sources which suggest that the NSF is actively engaged in researching and refuting paranormal beliefs. what you have here is a single primary source, and there are limits to how far that can be stretched. Clearly there's evidence that the NSF and scientists in general don't take it as far as you're suggesting they do: even with the uber-case of creationism, scientists were (for the most part) careful to distinguish creationism as a pseudoscientific theory from Christian religious beliefs more broadly put, despite the fact that they could have debunked the entire faith using the kind of logic you've used above.  right? -- Ludwigs 2  16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ludwigs2 above, this is a very casual usage of the term "pseudoscience". The NSF is a United States government agency and was doing a survey of US demographics. This is notable exclusively in the context of "belief in ghosts in the USA", and of very limited relevance to the topic of "ghosts" in general. We already have a statement that "about 32% of Americans 'believe in the existence of ghosts'." If people insist, we can put the reference to the NFS next to that, and mention that the NFS lists this item in the class of "pseudoscientific beliefs". What we cannot do is use this survey in an argument on the nature of pseudoscience.
 * The reference cited does not, as claimed above, invoke any "scientific consensus" against "the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead". I do not believe there can be any "scientific consensus against the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead" any more that there can be a "scientific consensus against  the claimed ability of people to communicate with God". There can only be a scientific consensus against specific proposals of underlying mechanisms that allow such communication. There is a world of difference between the two. The word "consensus" doesn't even occur in the source, so this is a clear case of misattribution. The only thing the source can be used for is the inclusion of "communication with the dead" under the class of "paranormal phenomena" (while, for some reason, nobody seems to be inclined to include prayer under 'paranormal phenomena'). I am not objecting to the NFS source for what it is, I am objecting  to the misguided and tendentious use it is being made of in this article. --dab (𒁳) 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in full agreement with Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann. In a nutshell, a sentence fragment, such as "pseudoscientific beliefs such as X", is not equivalent to the proposition, "all instances of X are pseudoscientific." For instance, suppose that the NSF had said the following: "Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans own at least one farm animal; e.g., they have a goose." This statement does not mean that all geese live on farms; it simply demonstrates the use of a descriptor ("farm") to indicate a degree of semantic coherency among the items it describes. Presumably, the NSF somehow, and to some degree, associates paranormal beliefs with pseudoscientific methods. But they probably do not mean that all believers are by definition pseudoscientists. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The comments above led to the creation of the following RfC... Brangifer

RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts
I'm closing this RfC as National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs." Editors should keep in mind that the NSF position on this is meaningful, notable, reliable and scientific. This does not mean that other verifiable and widely, reliably published outlooks cannot be cited, so long as WP:UNDUE has sway. Likewise any assertions as to current scientific consensus. The consensus may be wrong (research on how people come up with notions about ghosts may not be deeply understood), but en.Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Please weigh in on whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".

2. Also please discuss whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the comments above this RfC laid the foundations for its creation. Some comments below refer to comments above, so read them too. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The NSF is clearly a reliable source for such claims, and their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus unless a significant number of other scientific organisations disagree. Verbal  chat  17:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Coming here from RSN. Verbal states it perfectly, and all I can do is repeat: The NSF is clearly a reliable source for such claims, and their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus unless a significant number of other scientific organisations disagree. THF (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Yes, the NSF is a reliable source on this. The distinction between pseudoscientific beliefs and mystical beliefs is not hard and fast--a belief in the supernatural, in the absence of a scientific framework and standards to weigh evidence, is both. Ghosts are just one example. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I'll stick my oar in here to say I'm not convinced by arguments above that equate belief in ghosts to belief in God as a black and white proposition. Admittedly, it could be argued (by us) that a belief can't be a science, and therefore can't be a psuedoscience, yet the NSF report very clearly characterizes belief in ghosts and haunted houses as "pseudoscientific" so that's what I feel the article should reflect. I also think the NSF report is a very reliable source for scientific consensus as it applies to pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree that the NSF is a reliable source regarding concepts presented as science, in terms of whether they actually represent science or pseudoscience. While the sentence quoted above, taken out of context, raises questions about whether the present issue (of ghosts as psuedoscience) is being given undue weight for that source, a more complete reading of the cited text and the prior versions (e.g. 2002) make it clear that each of the claims (including belief in haunted houses and ghosts) is considered pseudoscientific. The text repeatedly refers to these claims as pseudoscientific.  -- Scray (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The text of http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3 is quite clear that it considers belief in ghosts to be one of the ten definitive pseudoscientific beliefs, and the NSF is a reliable source for this purpose (identifying what is a pseudoscience).
 * To answer Cosmic Latte's goose argument, the equivalent statement would not mean that all geese live on farms, but it would mean that a goose is a farm animal, even if one happened to be in a zoo, the same way that man is a two legged animal, even if some men happen to have lost one or both of their legs. That does not make someone who believes in ghosts a pseudoscientist, but that's just because people who hold pseudoscientific beliefs are no more pseudoscientists than people who hold scientific beliefs are necessarily scientists; they can be astronauts or hairdressers. But a belief in ghosts is clearly considered a pseudoscientific belief.
 * In response to DBachmann's comment about ability versus mechanisms, that is also not correct. There can absolutely be a scientific consensus that some things are not achievable by any mechanisms, for example travel faster than the speed of light. Communication with the dead seems to be one of these.
 * Finally, in response to Lugwigs2, please note that belief in God is not mentioned in that document, so bringing it up is an irrelevant distraction to this specific question. The concept of God is much more complex than belief in ghosts; for one thing, most religious systems claim to be beyond not only measurement but even logic, so it's not clear that it's theoretically falsifiable. --GRuban (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To that last point (about God) I think it's important to note that NSF specifically addresses beliefs presented as science. Any source presenting evidence for God as science would fall within the domain of the NSF and other reputable scientific bodies.    -- Scray (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That's why normal religious and metaphysical beliefs don't qualify for inclusion in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, but some of their applications do. For example, the subsection about Religious and spiritual beliefs includes Scientology's Dianetics, and Fundamentalist Christianity's Flood geology, and should also include Christian Science. Other beliefs that are included elsewhere in the List are Vitalism, chiropractic's Vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, and Applied kinesiology, as well as TCM's Meridian (Chinese medicine) and acupuncture points. These are all falsifiable beliefs being presented by professions as biological facts, and thus they are pseudoscientific. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The NSF report is unequivocally reliable for stating that belief in ghosts falls under the rubric of pseudoscience. Likewise, absent any report of similar reliability, this conclusion should be presented as scientific consensus; period; full stop. At the risk of furthering the very digression I would like to avoid - Brangifer, part of the above is quite a bit off topic, and even as an atheist I feel the urge to argue it (not strongly enough to actually do so, mind you, just the urge). - 2/0 (cont.) 10:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC) My distracting comment removed per 2over0's comment. Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. no it isn't? A discussion isn't just about repeating your point as if it somehow became better the more you repeated it. It is also about trying to grasp what the other side is saying. The entire point is that ghosts by definition are not part of  "the physical, testable universe" as Brangifer puts it. I would really deplore it if this now degenerated into your average online debate on naive concepts of atheism vs theism. As Scray acutely observes, the NFS   specifically addresses "beliefs presented as science". When they say "belief in ghosts" under a heading of "pseudoscience", they implicitly mean "belief in ghosts presented as science". The NFS is not to blame if some people attach too much weight on a literal exegesis of their report. Belief  in ghosts presented as science is pseudoscience (that's what the NFS states as a matter of course, and what I propose is a very obvious and undisputed point). Belief in ghosts as long as it is not presented as science cannot be pseudoscience, as the NFS is very well aware, does imply in its definition of pseudoscience, and expects its readers to realize as a matter of course.


 * if people insist on constructing a definition of "pseudoscience" based on the casual wording on the NFS report that flies in the face of the very definition of pseudoscience presented in the same report, this is a huge WP:REDFLAG, and will require excellent, published, peer-reviewed references addressing the definition of pseudoscience directly. So much time can be wasted on Wikipedia because some editors think they can present an isolated soundbite and then play at WP:IDHT. --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, dab. We're not allowed to do our own analysis of sources and decide they're self-contradictory. That's called Original research. We have to wait for another reliable source to say that. By the way, the NSF report is an excellent, etc., reference addressing the definition of pseudoscience directly; that's exactly what we've all been asked here to weigh in on.--GRuban (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by dab's invocation of WP:REDFLAG. My reading of that guideline suggests that fringe theories require exceptional evidence.  Refutation of pseudoscience by the NSF is certainly not a fringe theory; on the other hand, the existence of ghosts is.  Thus, I'm not sure whether this guideline is being used to support the NSF's characterization (which would be appropriate) or to refute it.  Similarly, the invocation of WP:IDHT seems to be a non-sequitur, since I see no evidence for a consensus against the point 2/0 is making. -- Scray (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. [edit conflict] Well, pardon my jumping in, but if we're going to analyze the sources, it's better (I would think) that we do it on the talk page than that we do it in the article. The article seems to want to assume something like the following: A) The NSF includes a belief in ghosts in a list of surveyed beliefs. B) The NSF, in passing, refers to this list as a group of "pseudoscientific beliefs". C) The NSF may be taken as a valid representative of scientific consensus. Therefore, D) The scientific consensus is that a belief in ghosts is pseudoscientific. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that A, B, C, and even D are true. The problem is that, by the time we come to D, we've done too much work. More precisely, we have made "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source", and we therefore have have violated a key part of WP:PSTS. Of course the NSF is a reliable source. We should be able to hold it in high enough esteem to suppose that, if the NSF wanted to say, "The scientific consensus is that a belief in ghosts is pseudoscientific", then the NSF would come right out and say this. But that's not what they said in the source provided. What they "said" about ghosts is fragmentary: Ghosts show up in a list, and the list shows up in discussion. If dab's argument is "original research", it is because he has taken the extra effort to show that the article's own original research--in addition merely to being original research--is flawed, insofar as the article has put together a dubious semantic puzzle from the pieces it has cut out of the NSF source. The dubiousness, he says, is in inferring that the NSF intended a simple equation--an axiomatic subject complement--of ghost-belief to pseudoscience. My A-D-C-D argument about WP:PSTS acquires the phrase, "in passing" from the arguments that dab and Ludwigs2 have set forth. But whether or not that phrase is warranted, the basic PSTS problem remains. If the scientific consensus is indeed that any belief--even a religiously based belief or a private conviction following some personal experience--in ghosts is pseudoscience, then surely somebody would have said so in a reliable, secondary source. As it stands, even the primary source doesn't explicitly go this far (i.e., as far as A, B, C, therefore D). Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The splitting into parts A-D is a straw man. That the NSF is a reliable source is a criterion for using the source, not part of the analysis of the source.  It is clear from that source that the NSF includes beliefs in ghosts/haunting as pseudoscientific.  This is not WP:OR.  -- Scray (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That the NSF is a reliable source is implicit in its mere inclusion in the article. The OR (subtle as it may be) lies in the article's invocation of "scientific consensus". While there may be nothing wrong with the facts of this invocation, there is something disproportionate in the emphasis. The source, while incidentally reflective of scientific consensus, is not directly about that consensus--it's about popular beliefs, which (according to the source) contrast with other popular beliefs (i.e., popular respect for science contrasts with popular acceptance of pseudoscience). The NSF is not trying to set forth its own view (i.e., the scientific consensus) about what qualifies as pseudoscience; it's suggesting that the public has views that contrast with the public's other views. Speaking of contrast, if we interpret the source as making a blanket classification of ghost-belief as pseudoscience, then we force the source to contradict itself. The source states, "Pseudoscience has been defined as 'claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility'". The source also refers to "pseudoscientific beliefs" held by the public. However, if we read "pseudoscientific beliefs" as having the same definitional force as the quote in the preceding sentence, then we pit one definition against another. The average believer in ghosts does not present his beliefs as science (does he?). A child who is afraid of ghosts does not attempt to justify his fear by scientific methods that he has yet to learn about! The source defines pseudoscience, and then refers to "pseudoscientific beliefs" that do not meet their own definition of pseudoscience, because these beliefs are not presented as science. I can think of only one reasonable explanation for the paradox: The NSF means different things by "pseudoscience" and "pseudoscientific beliefs". By the former, it means "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility". The latter, however, has to be shorthand for something like, "beliefs [by some people] in claims that have been presented [mostly by other people] so that that they appear to be scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility". The article is putting into scientists' mouths some fairly bold words that not only treat this shorthand as though it were longhand for something else, but which also contradict the longhand definition that the scientists already provide. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I might suggest something like the following as a sort of compromise, though:


 * Current version: "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers beliefs in an ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as in ghosts and spirits more generally, to be pseudoscientific."


 * Suggested alternative: "The National Science Foundation considers beliefs in an ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as in ghosts and spirits more generally, to be consistent with pseudoscientific conclusions, and to contrast with the public's respect for scientific methods."


 * How about something like that? Besides, it might even allow a scientific method wikilink to sneak itself in. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The current version is far superior from an encyclopaedic viewpoint, gives the correct view of the scientific community, and is  supported by the sources. Verbal  chat  17:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But, the alternative version is a horse's leg--and, in the preceding discussion, I've attempted to say why. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. [outdent] I agree with Verbal here. Of the two options listed above, the one labeled "Current version" is superior. The second engages in WP:WEASEL words so that it's more wordy with less said in the process. DreamGuy (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Which words are the weasel words? WP:WEASEL cautions against excessively vague phrasing, not against lengthy albeit meticulously accurate prose. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I need to point out that this RfC is badly formed, for the following reasons:
 * no one in the discussion (that I've seen) disagrees that the NSF is a reliable source for the given statement, which is a matter that is directly attributable.
 * no one in the discussion disagrees that the NSF is (in general) a good source for representing the scientific community.
 * The actual dispute point is over whether this NSF citation should be taken as a general statement that indicates the scientific community opposes pseudoscientific research (which everyone agrees with), or whether it should be extended to suggest that the NSF is actively engaged in efforts to refute or debunk paranormal beliefs broadly put (something which is not suggested by any scholarly sources). With that in mind I am closing this RfC as resolved, and ask that brangifer reopen the RfC on the substantive question.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reopened the RfC, I don't think you should unilaterally decide it's the wrong question when we all seem to think it's fine. Verbal chat  20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ludwigs2, your summation is itself somewhat flawed and uses straw man arguments. You fail to state in your summary that you and two other editors all thought that the NSF was just plain wrong, and that I was simply following the source, rather than engaging in such OR. You may have had something else in mind, but the arguments used by yourself, dab, and Cosmic Latte were dissing the NSF for its clear statement, and engaging in personal speculation and OR of why it was wrong, all heading towards removing it from the article. If that had ever happened I can't know, but it looked that way to me. Since such an important matter needed wider community input, I opened this RfC, which is supposed to do exactly that. We now have a number of previously uninvolved editors who accept that the NSF is a reliable source for such a statement, that it summarizes the scientific consensus, and that their statement is accurate. No one has claimed that they engage in "research". They don't have to. That's a straw man. They know of paranormal research, but they also understand the scientific method better than advocates and researchers of the paranormal, and thus they can state that such beliefs are pseudoscientific in nature. The RfC remains open for more comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That deletion of this RfC has had a very disruptive effect, in that it triggered the bot to remove it from the three RfC watchlists on which it was listed. It will get relisted, but there can go many hours before that happens, during which time more input will be delayed. Unfortunately (but for good reason) it's not possible to revert those bot deletions. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like the bot restored it pretty fast, so not much disruption was caused by a long delay. "Good bot! Here's a doggy biscuit." -- Brangifer (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * look, if you guys want to have an RfC on the issue, feel free - I will myself agree with both of the points raised in the RfC question, as will almost everyone else. and then I will turn around and make exactly the arguments I made prior to the RfC about why the cite cannot be used in the way it's being used. the RfC does nothing to resolve that issue, and merely creates an opportunity for a whole lot of useless, off-topic discussion of broader pseudoscience issues.


 * I thought I was helping you guys focus on the correct issue, but by all means if you want the opportunity to vent about side issues, please continue. I will wait until this particular exercise in distraction and futility is over, and then I will go back to the original issue.


 * I recommend to all participants in this RfC to please keep focussed on the actual issues raised by the RfC, and not let it stray into side disputes. that way the RfC can be finished fairly quickly.  no one really disagrees with the points raised anyway. -- Ludwigs 2  00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of getting bogged down by dwelling on what seems like your version of IDHT (actually stated more like "I won't hear that and will ignore it..."), I'll focus on something you say that might help us make progress. (It wouldn't be very constructive if you choose to ignore this RfC and return to old errors.) Above you mention "...why the cite cannot be used in the way it's being used." Please elaborate. You didn't say why, but you have said it before, and none of the participants here have considered it a valid argument or worthy of comment. Try to rephrase it here in such a manner that they can respond to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did elaborate, quite extensively, in the section immediately preceding the RfC. in that section, I made it clear that (1) The NSF did in fact say what you say it said (agreeing with point 1 of this RfC), and (2) the NSF is clearly a well-renowned  source for scientific opinion (agreeing at least partly with point 2 of this RfC).  The problem on this article is that the citation comes from what must be treated as a primary source, and that source is a statistical work on public attitudes towards paranormal beliefs (which is one section of a larger work about the status of science as a whole).  aside from the one or two or three comments in this section, I do not think there any other mentions of pseudoscience in the primary source document, there is certainly no indication that the use of the terminology is anything more than an off-handed colloquialism, and there are no secondary sources whatsoever which indicate that the NSF is actively engaged in or concerned about paranormal 'beliefs'.  Their main concern (which I think could be sourced extensively) is in combatting clear pseudoscience - claims that masquerade themselves as scientific research without proper testing procedures.  As I mentioned above, The scientific community in the creationism debate restricted themselves to refuting the pseudoscientific claims of creationism; they did not extend the debate to attempts to debunk Christian beliefs as a whole.  If you want to use the NSF quote on this article (which I have no objection to) it can only be used to counter actual efforts at pseudoscience; trying to extend it beyond that starts to violate wp:SYN.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And that happens to violate OR. We can't close the RfC with you holding this attitude. If you can convince the community that there really is a SYNTH issue here, then try starting another RfC on that subject, but note that doing so might be considered stonewalling and further disruption. I guess it depends on how you word it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Response to the request for comment, NSF is a reliable source. It is very obvious, there is consensus, why are editors arguing about it? Please close this RfC, it is resolved. MiRroar (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. NSF is a reliable source and reflects the scientific consensus in the United States. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * yeesh... can someone please close this RfC as resolved?  I'd do it myself, but it seems that every time I try to do anything sensible on this article a number of editors start screaming and kicking like I took their favorite toy away.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comments above (02:36, 1 March 2010) indicate that you have no intention of agreeing with the results of this RfC and will resume where you left off. The RfC can hardly be closed with such a threat hanging over the article. This RfC was supposed to result in less disruption and stonewalling, not IDHT and a return to the previous state of affairs. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. At the risk of adding another redundant comment, I think the consensus here is very clear. NSF are a reputable source on the topic of what fields of study are and are not science. It's very clear that NSF's opinion is that ghosts and ghost-hunting is a topic of pseudoscientific enquiry, and not scientific inquiry. I agree with User:BullRangifer. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. To respond to the questions posed above: Yes, the NSF is a reliable source for stating that belief in ghosts and spirits is pseudoscientific, and yes, their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The NSF is sufficiently reliable to support those statements, and I don't know how people can't argue that it isn't. I am opinating here since people is still edit-warring over the sentence, this arguing about notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PLEASE CLOSE THIS RfC and the one at WT:NPOV, and then block those who then refuse to abide by the RfC consensus. This disruption, forum shopping, and the incessant harassment against myself here and elsewhere by these few editors are insufferable violations of multiple policies. This little gang needs to be placed in a wikijail for some time. How about topic bans for them all and letting them know that harassment, including revenge RfC/Us, will not be tolerated? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Object. This silly RfC is simply BullRangifer's attempt to push through inaccurate language supported by a misquotation. See Talk:Ghost below for a (so far promising) attempt to get a real consensus version that addresses this problem and doesn't push any POV. Closing this RfC does not seem a good idea. The RfC was never about what it claims to be about. Everybody agrees about statements 1 and 2. The real issue is whether it is admissible to pick random claims out of random NSF documents in a quote-mining fashion (having to assemble bits from the main text and bits from a footnote to get what one wants) and then to present the resulting statement A as if an NSF commission had worked on such a statement for a year and then published a paper A holds! and made a press release about it. Unfortunately I see no chance that BullRangifer will be sanctioned for this gaming. Hans Adler 20:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, that's a very deceptive misrepresentation of the facts, which are attested to by the multiple supporters of this RfC. I would never be able to fool them with such shoddy tactics as you propose. Your consistent failures to AGF are affecting your judgment. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * geez, you never stop, do you? Hans has it exactly right - give it up already.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) You seem to have missed that nobody contradicted the statements in your RfC, not even a single of your opponents in the underlying dispute. That's a clear sign that you haven gone off on a tangent unrelated to the dispute. What they did was "disagree" with the RfC itself rather than oppose the statements. Hans Adler 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish that were true, but it's not. Ludwigs2 even went so far as to claim "that the NSF screwed it up once", referring to the 2006 version. Somehow he can read the NSF's mind and says they got it wrong. That's pretty bold OR, and definitely not a legitimate ground to reject the source. There have been disagreements (all myriad repetitions from the same few editors) with using the NSF as a source for the topic of ghosts (one more just appeared below), and plenty of objections to the source itself, calling the statement absurd, a careless side note (or something like that) and inaccurate. No, there have been many objections to the statement and the source. The objections to the RfC as asking the wrong question might have some sort of legitimacy, in the sense that many questions could have been asked, but the solution to that problem is to start another RfC that asks the question you wish to ask. Even then, it wouldn't necessarily nullify the validity of my RfC. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The National Science Foundation is a primary source with respect to its own positions. Such sources can be used with caution. The National Science Foundation is not a reliable source with respect to ghosts. It might incorporate expert opinion about the "study of ghosts" or possible pseudoscientific claims about ghosts, but ghosts, and belief in ghosts, are religious, cultural, and psychological phenomena, at least, and it is unclear that the NSF would have the expertise to form a scientific opinion about them. I'd want to look at specific examples and specific text to see if it can be supported by the primary source. --Abd (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This objection has been dealt with numerous times by several editors. It's a secondary source which uses several primary sources to come to its conclusions. Even if it were a primary source, this isn't about an article on the NSF where secondary sources must be used to establish its obvious notability. It's been deemed a RS, and this RfC has so far judged the application of the NSF statement to be proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed this more extensively, I agree that the primary source argument is weak; the NSF is being used to show notability for the Gallup Poll. However, the NSF presented a clear definition of pseudoscience, then proceeded to use the word to mean something quite different. The source is, in that way, self-contradictory, and we are not obligated to follow such a source, and, in particular, this whole situation appears to be off the point. This is not an article about a pseudoscience, it's an article about ghosts. What are ghosts? What they are, ultimately, is unclear and, definitely, presenting any fixed conclusion on that would be highly POV (like, raising religious conflicts, we don't need that), but we can say, and the article does say what ghosts, are according to "traditional belief." Folk beliefs are not pseudoscience, per se. 'Nuff said, how about letting others comment, BullRangifer, isn't that what RfCs are for? --Abd (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree the NSF is certainly a reliable source for that. As for the "religious" argument, if fails, since there is a claim of interaction between the physical and spiritual world inherent with the concept of ghosts (manifestation) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OR and Failed verification tags added to lead
I have tagged part of User:Dbachmann's edit with tags:


 * Beginning with 19th-century spiritism, various attempts have been made to draw conclusions about the existence of ghosts through scientific methods, but such efforts are generally held to be pseudoscientific. 

I don't find anything even close to any of that in the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To make it clear which elements are OR, there is nothing about "various attempts...through scientific methods", or about "such efforts" in that source. That subject isn't mentioned at all. That's pure OR, and is actually another subject that must use other sources as backing. Both Dbachmannn and Ludwigs2 have been pushing this OR interpretation of that source for too long. It is a legitimate subject, but it isn't mentioned in the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To make it doubly clear, I have argued extensively above that this citation does not support any claims about the NSF's attitudes towards public beliefs, and trying to make it do violates wp:Syn. please leave my tags on the quote until you are willing to discuss the point that I have raise three times now.  ignoring me won't make the point go away.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverting in a BRD is edit warring. Self-revert immediately and stick to discussion. No one has been ignoring you. They just haven't been agreeing with you. The consensus in the RfC is totally against you. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * you're kidding, right? BRD isn't even a guideline.  When you respond to my explanation of why this quote can't be used this way, we can discuss the matter.  till then - have a nice day. -- Ludwigs 2  01:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not kidding. You have been warned, warned, and warned about edit warring before, but now you're ignoring those warnings again, again, and again. I previously (at your edit war at alternative medicine) tried to get you to promise to respect BRD in the future, but you refused to do so. You're a combative editor who fails to show any respect for our edit warring policies, guidelines, and the repeated advice and warnings you received against edit warring. Whether BRD is a guideline or not is irrelevant. It is still the only thing we have that defines the line between edit warring and not edit warring. You have crossed that line again and you have been reported. Even if what I have written here had no other merit, you are failing to show a collaborative spirit.


 * As to discussing it, the whole RfC discussed it! You are ignoring it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The RfC (as I said explicitly several times above) was not about the fitness of the use of this quote in the article. I voted in favor of your position on the RfC, for heaven's sake, because you constructed the RfC to ask about something trivially true.  Don't blame me if you RfC'd the wrong issue.  If you would like to have another RfC about whether this citation can be used in the article in the way you're using it, feel free.  If you would like to discuss the issue rather than fly off on rants about my behavior, I'm good with that as well.  till then, I will keep the usage tagged as inappropriate use of a citation and OR.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Then let's make sure we're on the same page. Here's the statement, including your tags:


 * The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as belief in ghosts and spirits, to be pseudoscientific beliefs.

What have I included that wasn't part of what you agreed to in the RfC? Do they or do they not consider those beliefs to be pseudoscientific? Please point out the exact wordings that you believe are wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * for the fourth time: the problem is not with what the quote literally says; the problem is that this is a minor quote from a small section of a primary source on a different topic that has no supporting secondary sources, and yet you are treating it as though this seemingly off-hand comment reflects an actual programme or policy of the NSF. As I said, even a casual analysis of secondary sources shows that the NSF and the scientific community at large do not have a practice of questioning people's beliefs; at best, they question efforts to elevate paranormal beliefs to matters of scientific fact.  as I said above, even in the creationism debate scientists were careful not to call Christian beliefs into question, just the pseudoscientific claims being made by creationists.  Using the quote as you do above is en claire synthesis from a primary source.  so:
 * are you suggesting this document isn't a primary source?
 * are you suggesting this document is, as a whole, primarily about pseudoscience (or even carries pseudoscience as a major theme)?
 * are you suggesting that there are (as yet unrevealed) secondary sources that support your claim that the NSF is engaged in a programme against non-scientific beliefs?
 * This seems to be blue-letter core policy, BR, but I await whatever argument you want to make.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and failure to abide by BRD
I see that Ludwigs2 has violated BRD by restoring a revert of a clear WP:POINT violation, even though the explanation was clear in the edit summary. The matter is clearly explained above. He is yet again ignoring the clear consensus in the RfC. The sourced statement is exactly what the RfC has supported. Self-revert and "Discuss" or you'll get reported. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my post above - that fact that you type faster than me does not constitute a violation of BRD, and the fact that you have consistently failed to respond to explanations is not an excuse for you to continue pushing for insupportable material.-- Ludwigs 2 00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that you reverted a Revert in the BRD cycle, rather than Discuss, is a clear violation. Talk about Deja vu! Period. Self-revert and continue to discuss. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|25px]] I understand the disdain of constructive editors for Ludwigs2. He is disruptive. He likes to edit-war. It is understandable that editors do not pay attention to what he says. Nevertheless, here, he is correct.


 * The claim by the National Science Foundation is blatantly false. A belief in ghosts, goblins, spirits, spectres, fairies, elves, pixies, and so on is not a pseudo-scientific belief.


 * A mere belief is either scientific or unscientific. A mere belief cannot be pseudo-scientific. Only a process or a procedure can be pseudo-scientific.


 * A process or a procedure is pseudo-scientific if it appears to have some of the attributes of a scientific endeavor but does not satisfy the rigors of that endeavor. The reason for pseudo-scientific processes or procedures is always to bamboozle or hornswoggle someone.


 * The naked belief in some absurdity is not an attempt to appear scientific. People believed in ghosts for tens of thousands of years before they had any notion of science. Someone's belief in ghosts is not by itself bamboozling or hornswoggling anyone. Accordingly, the issues of pseudo-science do not arise in relation to a belief. To reiterate, a mere belief cannot be pseudo-scientific.


 * Accordingly, the expression used by the National Science Foundation is inappropriate. The citation should not be used. PYRRHON  talk   07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for displaying your blatant OR in contravention of the clear consensus in the RfC above. I'll take the NSF over your opinions anyday. We follow the sources, not the opinions of editors who don't like what the NSF says. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pyrrhon8 seems to be arguing that ghost-belief is not pseudoscientific because some ghost believers do not even make a pretence of of appearing to be scientific. Pyrrhon8 seems to be missing the obvious point that many people actually do make this claim. Simply observe any 'ghost-hunter' type program and observe the self-proclaimed ghost-scientists attempt to deploy all manner of scientific-looking apparatus which can purportedly detect ghosts. This is very clearly a pseudofscientific belief. Let me draw an analgoy - creationism is pseudoscience regardless of whether you believe it on faith or because you believe what Dr. Dino told you.


 * If we were to apply Pyrrhon8's standard of pseudoscience then almost no field would qualify since pretty much any junk-field (e.g. aromatherapy, acupuncture, homoeopathy) could also be excluded from the defintition. Pyrrhon8 is effectivly trying to define the word pseudoscience away. I do not feel that Wikipedia is the right forum for this act of lexical recalibration. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The context of the NSF statements about pseudoscience, IOW the whole page, would seem to indicate that they consider any false belief arrived at through a lack of understanding of the scientific method as a pseudoscientific belief. They are basically extending the simplistic definition we often use so that it includes the very basis for pseudoscientific beliefs, which is a failure to understand the scientific method. They are using a more inclusive definition, rather than a superficial one. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Terminology is important in this connection. While it is proper to label anyone who holds false beliefs, and then engages in scientific research in attempts to promote and prove those beliefs, as a pseudoscientist, it would not be proper to label ordinary, naive believers as such. They are simply people who hold pseudoscientific beliefs. If they have been presented with the evidence against their belief and persist in it, then they become true believers. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, in summary you do not have to be a pseudo-scientist to hold a belief which is pseudo-scientific. You do not have to engage in cargo-cult science, wear a lab-coat or make scientific-sounding claims. A simple failure of reasoning is enough. I think the NSF's point is valid & pertinent. Pyrrhon8's special pleading reminds me of how L-Ron-Hubbard re-defined scientology as a church to avoid criticisms of pseudoscience. Pyrrhon8's attempt to re-frame his belief in ghosts as mere spiritualism is no mor convincing than Hubbards's. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

still waiting for you to respond to my points above. it's particularly disheartening that you would continue using this argument without first addressing the fact that I've disputed (well, pretty much refuted) it. You are close to crossing the line into IDHT territory. -- Ludwigs 2 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the "fourth time" comment? Total BS based on misunderstandings of wikipolicies, and therefore unworthy of reply. I accept the RfC's conclusions and you don't. That's about it. Right before your comment I had requested:


 * What have I included that wasn't part of what you agreed to in the RfC? Do they or do they not consider those beliefs to be pseudoscientific? Please point out the exact wordings that you believe are wrong.


 * Instead of answering my questions, you evaded and made a long comment based on misunderstandings of wikipolicies. You should have answered my questions. Please do so now. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, so now you are truly engaged in wp:IDHT - you can't even address my point in a sensible fashion. I ANSWERED your question, directly and explicitly.  I TOLD you what the problem with using the cite in this way was, several other editors have AGREED and told you the same thing.  you can can refuse to acknowledge the point until the cows come home, and you can continue arguing inconsequential points that no one disagrees with - it's your life, and I really don't care. But sticking your head in the sand and bleating like a sheep (pardon the mixed metaphor) doesn't make you correct; it just leaves your nether parts sticking out in the cold.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked you questions and you haven't answered them. There is nothing after my entry there that deals with my questions. Your comment deals with other matters. Just answer my questions. Your stonewalling style is once again (extremely!!!) similar to that of User:Levine2112. Are you certain you are not allowing him to use your account? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I did answer your questions: would you like diffs? or maybe it will be clearer if you ask your questions again so that I can answer them again? I'm pretty sure I can just cut and paste from above.  I'll expect, however, that you will answer my questions (clearly posted in the section above) in return.


 * I copied it above. What you provided doesn't qualify as an answer. I want a simple answer. Here it is again:


 * Then let's make sure we're on the same page. Here's the statement, including your tags:


 * The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as belief in ghosts and spirits, to be pseudoscientific beliefs.


 * What have I included that wasn't part of what you agreed to in the RfC? Do they or do they not consider those beliefs to be pseudoscientific? Please point out the exact wordings that you believe are wrong.


 * There. Please answer those two simple questions. Repeating what you've already written won't help. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * References


 * I've said this already, but I'll humor you: The first question of the RfC asked whether the NSF was a reliable source for the statement about pseudoscientific beliefs (which it obviously is; that's a matter of inspection); it asks nothing about whether it is a reliable source for scientific consensus on the matter.  The second question does ask whether the NSF in general can be considered a reliable source on issues of pseudoscience (which, again, it obviously can), but does not ask whether this particular source can be taken as a source about pseudoscience, nor whether this particular cite can be taken as an important, substantive, or otherwise non-trivial statement in the document.  do you see the synthesis problem here?


 * Thank you for agreeing with me. The rest is a diversion. I did not ask for you to answer questions which I did not ask. The rest of what you write is irrelevant to this matter, so I don't see the problem. Those are other matters that the RfC didn't address. If you try to force those issues onto this source, then you will be engaging in OR. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, you are obligated to answer my three simple questions - if you don't, then I will assume that you can't answer them without defeating your own position, and I will laugh at you.
 * 1. are you suggesting this document isn't a primary source?
 * 2. are you suggesting this document is, as a whole, primarily about pseudoscience (or even carries pseudoscience as a major theme)?
 * 3. are you suggesting that there are (as yet unrevealed) secondary sources that support your claim that the NSF is engaged in a programme against non-scientific beliefs?
 * -- Ludwigs 2 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I'll answer you. (I have taken the liberty of adding numbers. I hope you don't mind) :
 * 1. Irrelevant. It's a RS. That's what counts. This is how we build an encyclopedia. We find V & RS sources that speak about a topic and quote them in context.
 * 2. Irrelevant. It is a quote from a whole section on the subject of pseudoscience. It is not taken out of context or made to state some new or novel position that the NSF doesn't hold.
 * 3. Irrelevant. They don't have to be engaged in any type of "programme against non-scientific beliefs." They are the supreme scientific body in the USA and are an authoritative source on anything related to science. Even if they were dead wrong, we should still quote them.
 * My answers will no doubt disappoint you, but that's my position. I see no violation of policy in any manner here. There is no synthesis of sources. It's ONE source quoted in context from the most authoritative source on scientific subjects. Since you don't like what they say, I suggest you take it up with them. If you can find more authoritative scientific sources that contradict them, then by all means let us know and let's see how we can also include the disagreement, because that's how Wikipedia works. Allowing your personal opinion and disagreement with them to control content would violate a number of policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, your answers don't disappoint me. in fact, I'm glad you that you've taken the time to express yourself fully without resorting to ad hominems.  Unfortunately, however, your answers do violate both the letter and the spirit of wp:OR  (and likely wp:V and wp:NPOV in lesser ways).  You can't just use any old quote you can find to justify your own preconceived notions about a topic, and particularly not when you use that quote in a context alien to its intent in the original document.  You know that as well as I do - you'd be the first to criticize any effort to use a primary source that supported alt med in this way.  I mean really...  you are basically claiming that all of wikipedia's sourcing policy is irrelevant in this context because they happen to prevent you from making an unsupported and largely unjustified claim.  Is that what you mean to do?  -- Ludwigs 2  02:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but no, I never stopped beating my wife because I don't beat her. Your final question assumes that your previous comments are true, but they aren't. The NSF and the RfC are totally against your view on this one. You are the one engaging in OR and claiming that your personal POV is more accurate than the POV of the NSF. You even have the nerve to denigrate them! Why not take the high road and show that you can learn and bring your POV into line with the scientific consensus as expressed by them? I doubt that all those commentators in the RfC above failed to see the violations of our sourcing policies which you claim exist here.


 * No, you're way off base and desperately struggling to find some way to undermine the RfC and the NSF. You haven't come up with a single argument that puts the slightest dent in the (with the exception of yourself) unanimous consensus from that RfC. You don't like their conclusion, and you still threaten to continue to disrupt this article by not respecting that conclusion. In fact your POINT-violating tags you added and restored (a BRD violation), which are still in place, were placed in violation of the clear consensus in that RfC. That's just plain disruptive. Please stop it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * as I said, this is a matter for sourcing - can you provide secondary sources that make the claim you are making? you obviously can't, or you already would have.  without secondary sources you're basically without any standing here.  if you like, we can open a new (correct) RfC on whether a primary source can be used in this fashion, but I'm not even sure that RfC would be meaningful, because I'm not certain how far an RfC can go against clear policy.


 * reliable secondary sources would be best - how much time do you need to provide them? -- Ludwigs 2  03:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is really bizarre. I've NEVER heard this type of argument in a situation like this, except for from one person...User:Levine2112. He has done it more than once in his classic stonewallings at the chiropractic articles, where he could waste our time for six months on one single little point! During the process he'd go through multiple RfCs, mediations, ArbComs, several editors getting blocked and banned, article lock downs, repeated edit wars, etc.. That's no exaggeration. It has really happened! Very few have equalled him for the ability to disrupt Wikipedia and use it as a battleground. (The expression "pusher of fringe POV" was invented to describe him, and you're his clone. It's really uncanny.)


 * You're misapplying the requirement for secondary sources. No one else here has considered this to be an inappropriate use of a primary source. NOT a single one! That rule is for other situations, usually related to BLPs and MEDRS. Please take this to the WP:RS/N. Until you get a ruling from them that overturns the RfC, you have no standing with these "arguments". This is bizarre!!!! -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * damn, you have an odd memory - you can remember fights you had with other editors long ago, but not that three or four editors agreed with my assessment in the section immediately above the RfC. go back and look! nor am I 'misapplying' policy; this is exactly what policy says, and it's used exactly for this purpose.  do you need me to quote policy at you, or will you go read it for yourself?  I swear, brangifer, of all the editors I've had the pleasure of working with on wikipedia, you take the cake for failing to stay on topic.  you just can't seem to resist getting in your digs, even if the digs don't make a whole lot of sense.  it's bizarre...   P.s. hell, even Pyrrhon8 agreed with me, and if there's anyone on wikipedia who dislikes me more than you do, it's him


 * also, this is the third or fourth time you've mentioned Levine2112, but I don't get the point you're trying to make. I edited a couple of pages he was on a long while back (I forget which ones, but probably paranormal pages).  as I remember I it was hit or miss as to whether I agreed with him, and he was a bit touchy, but at least he could follow basic logic.  Is this intended as some strange form of ad hominem attack?   If so, I don't get it.   -- Ludwigs 2  04:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did get off track there. I'll try to stay more focused. Before the RfC you did have a couple supporters: Dbachmann and Cosmic Latte. Then, after the RfC, Pyrrhon made a comment which was quickly debunked. Note that several of the RfC participants debunked their comments, and none of the participants in the RfC agreed with any of you, but all agreed with me and the NSF. None found any problem with my understanding of the application of policies, most notably in this specific application. They all thought the current edit was totally justified. You were the only one who objected and they all found fault with your logic and understanding of policies. In the face of all that, you then pointedly tagged that RfC-approved content twice! Those tags are still there because I"m not going to edit war with you. ANYONE else may delete your tags, since the RfC approved that content.


 * Your persistence after the RfC has just been more disruption. There is a saying: "You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you." You seem to have trouble recognizing that you're on the losing side of this debate. NO ONE in the RfC supports you! You're welcome to continue to believe that you're right, but you are going in circles without convincing anyone. That's disruptive stonewalling. How about keeping that belief quietly to yourself, so that this article will no longer be your hostage? That way you can save face, still feel you're right, and Wikipedia will have one less battleground. If you hadn't started this battle by violating BRD and refusing to accept the unanimous decision of the RfC, we could all have been doing something more constructive. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * by the way, I've archived the (clearly off topic and uncivil) comments above one more time - if you unarchive them again I will report you to ANI for disruptive editing. does that work for you?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And I have archived your even more incivil comment. You're living in a glass house and are in no position to talk about incivility, so let's keep it even. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The comment about NSF regarding ghost belief as pseudoscience is currently in the skepticism section. NSF and CSI are both highly regarded skeptical organizations whose statements can be taken as very reliable summaries of what leading skeptics think of ghost-belief. Ludwigs2 makes a legalistic, philosophical point that "pseudoscience" might not be the best word to describe what may merely be just a crackpot spiritual belief, but this matters not a jot since the purpose of the section is to report what skeptics think and say, and not what Ludwigs2 thinks they ought to say. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Salimfadhley:
 * the NSF (National Science Foundation) is not a skeptical organization - it is a consortium of scientists with a government mandate. please...
 * I have no doubts that scientists as a rule don't by into 'crackpot scientific beliefs', but I see no indication that the NSF of the scientific community has an interest in attacking beliefs. scientists can distinguish between pseudoscience and non-science; if you can't that's a problem.
 * Beyond that, if you have a problem with wp:NOR, I suggest you take it up there. As it stands what I'm saying conforms to that policy perfectly. or do you want to argue that it doesn't?  as I keep saying, I have no problem with using the quote itself, so long as the quote isn't used to imply or make claims that are well beyond what can be justified by the citation.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What in your opinion disqualifies the NSF from representing the skeptical opinion on this matter? Are you suggesting that only an explicitly skeptical organizations like CSI or JREF are qualified to hold a skeptical POV?


 * You say that you have no indication that the NSF has an interest in these beliefs, but the very quote you are disputing states precisely what the NSF's interest and belief is: They consider it to be pseudo-scientific. Unless you can demonstrate that this clearly stated view of the NSF is based on something other than a skeptical perspective or that the NSF's view represents a fringe position amongst the skeptical community then your argument fails.


 * Your other claim is that since ghost-belief is not a scientific activity then labelling it as "pseudo-science" is therefore unwarranted. Trust me, you do not need to keep making this point - we read and understood it the first time. It's still a flawed argument. The purpose of the quote is to illustrate the views of skeptical people. Whether or not this community have made an error by labeling it as pseudoscience is irrelivant: It's what they believe. Furthermore, some ghost believers, particularly those who "investigate" ghosts make scientific-sounding claims and use scientific-looking apparatus, and this case the NSF's point is clearly pertinent.


 * Finally, you have misunderstood the meaning of the wp:NOR - Citing a leading scientific body's view of a topic in no way constitutes Original Research. You seem to randomly accuse other people of violating all kinds of site policies, may I suggest that if you see yourself as an enforcer of Wikipedia's policy you should first become familiar with them. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Salimfadhley: The CSI is a dedicated organization of skeptics, and I would certainly take their view on the skeptical perspective; JREF I don't know enough about to judge. I don't see any indication that the NSF is interested in disputing beliefs, period - if they wanted to dispute beliefs, they would clearly state that they are an atheistic organization, and they would be actively engaged in disputing, refuting, and debunking non-scientific beliefs. the document in question is a primary source document that mentions the word pseudosicence in a very minor and casual way in a small section of a chapter on public attitudes and media presentations. in this document they are not calling for the refutation of all non-scientific beliefs - they are asking for better public science education and better representations of science in public media, both of which are very good aims, mind you.


 * citing primary sources in a way that creates a new meanings (meanings not directly presented by that source) is the very definition of synthesis, which is a form of original research. the burden of proof is on you if you want to show that the NSF means to criticize beliefs themselves, and certainly with an organization as significant as the NSF there should be reams of other sources (secondary and primary) which demonstrate that the NSF takes this position.  you'd have no problem finding such secondary material for the CSI, would you?  so, you should have no problem finding it for the NSF.  do so, and I'll cede the point.  If you can't do so, then you ought to recognize that you're engaged in synthesis.


 * Finally, I will stop making the points I need to make when I stop needing to make them. your choices are to prove me wrong or accept that I'm right.  simply ignoring what I say will cause me to repeat what I say.  ok?  -- Ludwigs 2  05:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Added a second ref and removed the tags.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly the cited document is clearly not a primary source - it's a summary of research into pseudoscience and it's prevalence.


 * Secondly, the citation has not created 'new meaning': The document clearly states that belief in ghosts was one of the ten pseudoscientific topics that a survey investigated. The citation does not mis-represent the NSF's position on the subject of ghost-belief. It is not a "casual" detail of the document, it's part of the substance of the survey which the document is reporting.


 * Finally, there is no requirement that only "skeptical organizations" can represent a skeptical perspective: The NSF is a notable and reliable source of information about science. It is abundantly and unambiguously clear that they take a skeptical position on the matter of ghosts, spesifically that it is pseudoscience. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline at WP:Disruptive_editing indicates that "sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input" is disruptive editing. The consensus of the community according to a RfC is here. On this talkpage, Ludwigs2 and I have reiterated the consensus of the community. The view of the Wikipedia community is that a ghost or a belief in ghosts is not pseudoscience. Rather, a ghost or a belief in ghosts is non-science or nonsense. The statement attributed to the National Science Foundation confuses the topics of pseudoscience and non-science in the same way that some people confuse astronomy and astrology. Characterizing Ghost as pseudoscience is inappropriate.


 * The article and this talkpage would be much improved if everything related to pseudoscience was removed, and the introduction was revised. Defining a ghost as a soul or a spirit is an example of ignotum per ignotius. Ignotum per ignotius is a rhetorical device which defines obscure terms by obscure terms. The device takes what is murky, and defines it by what is murkier. The device is contrary to WP:SPADE.


 * We should prefer a definition that tells us only this: ghosts are a consequence of make-believe or delusion. Nothing more is necessary. Anything more will ensnare us in insurmountable, definitional difficulties.


 * Ludwigs2 suggests that we define a ghost as an entity of myth and legend. I suggest we define a ghost as an "entity of fantasy or delusion."


 * In that regard, I dispute the definition of necromancy that is used here. Necromancy is not the attempt to contact spirits. Spirits are entities of fantasy or delusion. Necromancy is the practice by which someone pretends to communicate with deceased persons or deceased pets. PYRRHON  talk   18:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Salimfadhley: to your points, above:
 * It is not research into 'pseudoscience and it's prevalence' it is social scientific research about public attitudes.
 * per above, the use of the quote in this way does indeed create new meaning
 * you're confusing scientific skepticism with philosophical skepticism. the first is a natural and healthy procedure that makes no claims whatsoever in the absence of evidence; the second is an irrational practice that asserts claims about the absence of evidence.  very different things, sorry.  of course the NSF uses scientific skepticism; that does not make them skeptics.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1 & 3 are simply not relevant to the question of whether this is an appropriate cite. 2 is simply wrong since, the list of topics is indeed from a Gallup poll, however Gallup describe these topics as "paranormal" and not "pseudoscience". The label pseudoscience was applied to the ten topics by NSF and nobody else. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NSF or Gallup?
Forgive me for starting a new thread, the old one was getting way to complicated for me to handle. Now that we have the Gallup survey summary which NSF cited in their S&E Indicators paper we note that the list of ten topics did indeed originate from an annual Gallup survey about American attitudes to the paranormal. The list did not originate with the NSF as originally stated. Gallup never described these topics as "pseudoscience", they only used the word "paranormal". So who was the first to apply the term "pseudoscience" to this list of topics, it appears to be the NSF. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * probably so - no one doubts that the NSF in interested in the topic of pseudoscience. However, this is still a chapter on science and technology in the media and public viewpoint.  Threre's good reason to assume that the NSF is talking about the portrayal of science in the public realm - e.g. Ghost Hunter type shows, series which depict wildly imaginative technology, movies that treat fantastic subjects (like vampires and werwolves) as though they were physiological realities, and other presentation which clearly involve pseudo-science.  beliefs in general are not pseudoscientific because they make no particular pretension to being scientific in the first place.


 * In short, if you want to call the inverse relationship between pirates and global warming pseudoscience, I'm behind you 100%; if you want to call the Flying Spaghetti Monster pseudoscience (all blessings to his noodly crown) I have to demure. it's just a belief.  frankly, the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning is pure and unadulterated pseudoscience by your reasoning, because in fact that statement is based on an entirely debunked cosmology.  but it's a bit ridiculous to run around pointing it out.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are attempting to infer what the NSF really means based on some kind of personal knowledge of what interests the NSF. I am merely pointing out what the document literally says. I think these are the relevant sections:


 * note table has been updaed --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bold emphasis added to the parts used as article content. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough the Wikipedia citation on Ghost implies that the NSF are criticizing the scientific-process of the ghost-unters, when a close reading of this cited section reveals that they are actually labelling the belief as pseudoscientific. Ludwigs2, feel free to add additional rows & columns to the table, lets see how we differ on the interpretation of the document. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Where are those words that "implies that the NSF are criticizing..."? That might need fixing. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I was wrong, it's really quite clear, the text around the citation is: The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead, as well as belief in ghosts and spirits, to be pseudoscientific beliefs - that's an accurate summary of NSF's position as revealed by the paragraphs I listed above. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Salimfadhley: My issue here (as I have said previously) is that you are taking what is (to my mind) evidently a casual/careless use of the word pseudoscience as though it were an intentional/analytic use of the word. see my additions to the table above.  The document itself gives a definition of pseudoscience immediately before the sections you are quoting which is far more restrictive than the one you are trying to offer.  honestly, you are using quotes out of their document context in a fairly dramatic way.  The intent of this chapter is to discuss Scientific literacy among the general public; it is not intended define or explain what pseudoscience is, but rather to point out that the general public is pretty vacuous about what science is.  do you see the difference?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you be sure that this is 'casualness'? How do you presume to know the state of mind of the author? This seems like an over-bold interpolation to me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * hey, you guys are making the claim here, not me. You are trying to assert that the NSF means something by this passage beyond the passage's immediate context of critical thinking, so the burden of proof is on you.  that being said, this usage seems to be unique to this particular section of this particular document.  If it were more broadly used (across multiple publications, for instance) or if it was used as part of a larger argument (i.e., where other things that the NSF states depend on and/or follow from this 'pseudoscientific belief' idea) or if the research of NSF scientists habitually challenged people's beliefs, then there might be some reason to believe what you want us to believe - that there is a broader focus of concern in the NSF about people's beliefs.  I don't see any such broader context, though, and so I can't see that this quote supports what you are trying to say with it.


 * Don't try to pull logical fallacies on me - you know as well as I do that a negative can't be proved. You say they means something specific by this, I say they don't; prove that they do.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your beef is with the NSF, not us. Contact them and ask them to publish a clarification in which they state that they didn't deliberately equate "pseudoscience" with "paranormal" when they quoted the Gallup Poll, and that it was a typo, and then get them to state that they don't consider those things to be pseudoscientific beliefs. Then we can use those retractions to modify any use of this quote at Wikipedia. Until then, you're engaging in a debate with them, and it's OR. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am confused. Is anyone here attempting to claim that "research" claiming ghost exist is not pseudoscience?  This ref  discusses the topic nicely. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. We are all agreed that it definitely is. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) so what does Ludwig want to change the line referenced to the NSF to? I by the way consider it fine the way it is. This ref from the NSF is a little closer to what we have but either should be good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the way the quote is used in this article is that it tries to extend the NSF statement well beyond pseudoscientific research about ghosts - there is an unwarranted emphasis on beliefs about ghost, as though all beliefs about ghosts are pseudoscientific. This is clearly not true, and not what the NSF intended by the quote - it's a misapplication of an out-of-context quote.  trust me, if they were restricting the quote to pseudoscientific research, I wouldn't have a problem with it.


 * Again, the problem here is that Ludwigs2 is inviting us to make an interpolation from the cited text in order to deduce what the NSF may have meant. What they wrote and published is verifiable, what they have intended to mean is open to debate. I can see the logic behind his theory. If our task were to deduce what the NSF meant to say I might reach exactly the same conclusion as Ludwigs2. I am sure you understand that would be original research and should have no place in Wikipedia.


 * I think this debate is approaching pointlessness, since we have established beyond doubt that NSF is Notable and Reliable. We've established they are qualified to discuss pseudoscience. We've established that even though the survey list originated from gallup, it was NSF who first applied the adjective pseudoscientific to the list. We've established that there is an apparent inconsistency in way the adjective is used. Beyond that, what more can we say without crossing the line of original research?


 * May I suggest that Ludwigs2 should start a new header and propose an alternate way of citing this document. Perhaps our fellow editor could show us an alternate wording and explain to us why it works better? --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that you guys are working out a new approach to this cite, though I have to say it's cracking me up a bit. You seem to have taken a cue from creationism: i.e. that the absolute and literal reading of the text is the only viable interpretation of the text.  unfortunately, your 'literal reading' isn't literal and isn't a reading - it's an interpretation of out-of-context sound bites.


 * with respect to a 'alternate way' of dealing with the cite...  I've presented at least three alternate versions, at least 12 times in the discussion above.  every time I do, unfortunately, it gets layered with half a ton of off-topic manure.  I'm tempted to tell you to go find one of them yourself, but instead I will go through and dig one of them out (or marshall up a new one) later this afternoon when I have the time.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * and by the way: asking other people what I mean is usually is problematic; asking the people I'm disagreeing with what I mean is a sure fire way to get misinformed. if you want to know what I'm saying, you'd best ask me for clarification. -- Ludwigs 2  07:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree per Doc James and Salim. Inhabiting philosophical rabbit holes is unproductive. If L2 and other dissenters post alternative sentences to BR's and use them as a point of discussion, we could soon see fast, fast relief. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, pretty please - L2 show us the right way to do it! :-) --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As a sidenote here, I actually find the way the NSF uses this interpretation of what is pseudoscientific to be refreshing and a learning experience. It shows they understand the term better than those who stick to a rigid interpretation (only strict and open claims of "scientificness") and that they are including the very fundamentals of why people come to hold pseudoscientific beliefs in their definition. The NSF understands this better and uses a better and broader definition. That raises my respect for them. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to Doc: I agree, the NSF report repeatedly employs the phrase "belief in pseudoscience" in clear context with unmistakable intention. A section header reads How Widespread Is Belief in Pseudoscience? followed by the sub-header, Belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread. Examples, including ghosts and haunted houses follow. Directly beneath those examples, they write: "Surveys administered periodically even show increasing belief in pseudoscience. Of the 13 phenomena included in the 2001 Gallup survey..." followed, again, by ghosts and haunted houses being cited as examples. They deliberately bracketed that section with the phrase "belief in psuedoscience". Nothing vague or haphazard about that. The emphasis on belief as pseudoscience comes from the NSF, not BRangifer. So (if I may suggest optional wordings here) our articles could report that the NSF characterized ghosts and haunted houses as pseudoscientific beliefs. Or, that the NSF included ghosts and haunted houses among beliefs that come under the heading of pseudoscience. That way we're just reporting what they said rather than trying to correct perceived errors in their logic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I did ask Ludwig the wording he / she would prefer. I was not asking other people. Can you please in a section below add this proposed wording? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please let me make clear my opinion and involvement in this discussion: Both NFS and Gallup are clearly quotable sources. Both are also US-specific sources, and their use should be strictly confined to a very small paragraph on "belief in ghosts in the USA". Discussion of these, for the purposes of the Ghost article, very marginal references, has already been blown far out of proportion. Just write a short pargraph about the US and be done, but don't let these points of US demographics dominate the entire article and/or talkpage. It is not acceptable that a large topic like "ghosts" should be taken hostage by petty ideological disputes surrounding the US "culture wars". It also is not permissible to give US-specific debates on "belief in pseudoscience" vel sim. more than passing mention in this article. This entire discussion of pseudoscience is completely misplaced. Please take it to Talk:Paranormal, and discuss whatever it is the NFS has to say about paranormal phenomena, of which "ghosts" is just one item in a list, over there. --dab (𒁳) 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The sceptical inquirer is an international source which says the same thing.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * um, no, it doesn't say the same thing at all. Your link suffers of none of the problems we have been discussing. For one thing, I fail to see any occurrence of the highly dubious term "pseudoscientific belief" in your link. In fact, the sceptical inquirer article can be used as a source illustrating belief in ghosts on one hand (Belief in such contact is called spiritualism) and a pseudoscientific approach to investigating ghosts. I see no problem with using the sceptical inquirer reference to establish that So-called “investigation” has ranged from mere collecting of ghost tales to the use of “psychic” impressions to a pseudoscientific reliance on technology applied in a questionable fashion while the NFS reference can be used as a source discussing US demographics. Please stop using a source focusing on giving demographic trends to make a point about the definition of "pseudoscience". Take the trouble to present a source that is actually making the point you wish the article to make. The NFS source is dealing with the rise and decline of USian belief in paranormal phenomena, and if we are going to quote it, we should quote it on exactly that. --dab (𒁳) 17:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some interesting definitions of pseudoscientific belief show up in seaches. Including the 'recent study' cited in the NSF document ("Losh SC, Tavani CM, Njoroge R, Wilke R, Mcauley M. 2003. What does education really do? Skeptical Inquirer 27(5):30-35") reprinted here, where the phrase "pseudoscientific belief" is used several times. That same report even gives us a definition of the term: "Here, we define pseudoscience beliefs as cognitions about material phenomena that claim to be "science," yet use nonscientific evidentiary processes." I think that may answer a lot of the issues surrounding perceived internal errors and/or "what the NSF meant to say". Wd could even attribute that definition to the source given. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dbachmann, above you write "This entire discussion of pseudoscience is completely misplaced. Please take it to Talk:Paranormal, and discuss whatever it is the NFS has to say about paranormal phenomena, of which "ghosts" is just one item in a list, over there."

I find your ownership tone rather obnoxious. You do not own this article, and you have no right to force it to cover only certain aspects of the subject to the exclusion of others, exiling them to the paranormal article. Ghosts definitely are a paranormal subject, as well as sociological, literary, etc.. It is a broad subject and should cover all aspects, including the paranormal and pseudoscientific aspects. You are currently (again!) on a deletionist campaign that violates the consensus in the RfC we have just held. Adding more content is one thing, but actual deletionism is quite another. That's wrong. The RfC consensus was pretty clear that the NSF source was being used properly, yet you have just removed the small portion about pseudoscience which you dislike, in spite of the fact that it was a very little part of the article. Now you make it a sentence or so. I may start with an RfC/U, but I am prepared to make an ArbCom case out of this and seek to have you desysopped for your actions. I expect that Ludwigs2 and Cosmic Latte will pile on there and reveal their true selves, thus providing a nice opportunity to get them topic banned or blocked as well.

You are resuming your previous edit warring and being disruptive by doing this. I suggest you back down and accept that the RfC consensus was not favorable to your limited interpretation. I will start to restore some of what you removed/vandalized, and I'll do it in such a manner that the article also covers the pseudoscientific aspect, and that any attempt by you to once again remove it will be seen as clear evidence of your nefarious intentions to cover up the fact that the NSF clearly labelled belief in ghosts "pseudoscientific beliefs". Note that I will do it even more thoroughly this time, and will not do it carelessly, so you will have no excuse to just revert it. Since it has been discussed before and the RfC consensus was that it was a proper way to use the source, your first revert will be counted as an act of edit warring, and not a part of the BRD cycle. It will be so clearly against policy that it will be clear to all and usable as evidence. Consider this a warning. I have no intention of edit warring over this. If you persist, I'll start an RfC/U, and if necessary proceed to ArbCom, since there is already plenty of evidence against you in the edit history. You have unbalanced the article by removing that very tiny bit of mention this subject had. I am restoring the balance, but not completely. If we were to balance this article properly, according to our WP:FRINGE and weight guidelines, the coverage of this as a fringe and pseudoscientific subject would be much larger. I'm not going to attempt to do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I respect dab's editing I do think the NSF is still significant enough to belong in the lead.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (I suspect you mean "while I respect...") If you knew his editing history (edit warring and OR use of the source to say something it never mentions, and which I have once again removed from the lead), I suspect you'd have a different opinion of his editing. I have restored the RfC approved content, enhanced it by using exact quotes, and attributed the content to USA consensus. It now has the appropriate weight for where it is mentioned. Its mention in the lead is only one sentence, which is so small it violates FRINGE and WEIGHT, but that's life. I'm satisfied with even this small mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * this is rather rich. You are the one trying to "own" this by insisting on your unhappy wording. I do not insist on any specific wording at all, I am requesting that you appreciate the point that has been made. The point is that the topic of this article is not the pseudoscience of "ghost buffs". It is undisputed that this is pseudoscience, so stop trying to pretend that this is the point you are trying to make. You are actually trying to establish that "ghost buffs" and their pseudoscience are relevant to the topic of ghosts by debunking them prominently. Before you prominently debunk something, you need to establish that it is notable in the first place. You cite a source on US "belief in pseudoscience", of which "belief in ghosts" is just one item in a list. You may use this source, but only in the context of the source itself. If you want to discuss ghosts and pseudoscience, use a source that actually explores this, such as the SI article linked above. If you absolutely want to insist on the phrase "scientific consensus" pray present a source that actually uses it. You are welcome to make your point, but you are required to present sources that actually make your point for you, just like everyone else.
 * once condescend to appreciate this point, we can seek a compromise solution. This is what BRD is about: you don't indulge in bone-headed reverting to your own version, you seek compromise solutions that actually improve the article step by step. I am sure the point you want to make in the lead can be made, professionally and encyclopedically, if you just let people help you make it. E.g. by using a reference that actually addresses the point you want to make. If you can explain what you believe belongs in the lead without insisting on your precise wording, I will be happy to make a suggestion of how to put it. This is a concept also known as "collaboration". --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And your complete revert was collaborative? As an admin, you should know better than to display such ownership of this article. Instead of going directly to an ArbCom, I think a prominent RfC/U would be better. That will not only focus attention on your disruptive editing and ownership here, it will also bring even more prominent editors to this article to rescue it from you. You're holding it hostage. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment about this removal. Placing it on the lead is US-centric, so this removal was good. The section "Scientific skepticism" should have a short mention of the NSF's position, and the full explanation of the poll should be under the "US" section. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then do that, since Dbachmann's complete revert was an act of edit warring that was against the wording supported by the RfC. Note that the content I included was not completely identical to the previous content, but was an improvement which addressed concerns mentioned here. I set a trap and he fell into it. His blind reversal shows that he didn't actually study the differences between the previous content and the new content. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer, whatever the RfC may or may not support, it certainly does not support your complete failure to grasp the issue. If you simply cannot or will not understand what is being said to you, there can be no meaningful discussion. Try to consider the possibility that the problem is at your end: you are not in dispute with me, so far you don't even have an idea of what it is I am saying. Please try to find somebody who can help you represent your point of view with a minimal amount of communicative skills. --dab (𒁳) 16:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * oh, he knows what you're saying; there's just a distinct advantage in pretending that he doesn't. It's the same tactic the Republicans have used in the US for a couple of decades now: never acknowledge your opponent's position, and make the most extreme claims you can make without offending people, in the loudest and most hysterical voice you can use without offending people, in order to give the impression that there is no other opinion than yours (no matter how unreasonable your opinion is).  it's a sophisticated version of the argument style that 8 year olds habitually use, and it's very effective.  The only way to deal with it effectively is to be patient, plodding, boring, and as much as possible repeatedly force the argument back to logic and reason.  That works with 8 year olds, anyway, because they learn how to reason; adults don't seem to learn it, but they do eventually lose the hormonal steam that this argument style demands.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All I will say is that neither one of you has convinced the majority of editors who support the content and use of the NSF statement as I proposed it in the RfC. You are simply stonewalling and failing to convince me or anyone else. Your arguments are in violation of policy and go against the clear consensus in the RfC, and they are vacuous, dealing with other issues, instead of sticking to the point of the RfC, which even Ludwigs2 admitted was correct ("no one really disagrees with the points raised anyway") and then asked for the RfC to be closed ("yeesh... can someone please close this RfC as resolved?"). He thought it was improperly formed and has continually tried to discuss other aspects than the plain fact, agreed to by a majority of editors, that the NSF did in fact call belief in 10 named ideas to be "pseudoscientific beliefs". Stick to that point instead of trying to divert the discussion to other issues and engaging in OR in your attempts to denigrate the NSF and its position on paranormal=pseudoscientific ideas. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The position of other scientific bodies in other parts of the world if these exist would be interesting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitely, but lacking such information would not be a legitimate reason for not using what we have. The editors who constitute the majority at the RfC need to make their views known by more comments and by ensuring that the will of the consensus is maintained on the article. Right now it's being held hostage by the two disruptive editors who refuse to accept the results of the RfC. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, brangifer, that does seem to be all that you can say. 95% of your comments in talk are about how much other people agree with you and how those people who disagree with you are 'bad' in one way or another.  you haven't actually advanced anything approaching reasoned analysis since I first arrived on this page.  frankly, it doesn't really matter to me that I haven't convinced you, because I don't believe anything could convince you; You don't respond to reason with reason.  All we can really do here is to keep repeating the same reasoned arguments and nullifying the irrational responses you dredge up - not to convince you, mind you, but with the expectation that you will eventually tire of talking nonsense, and then reason will prevail.  Now, if you want to continue to misrepresent my view (like you did in the paragraph above) and misrepresent the core of the problem (like you did in the paragraph above), I can't stop you.  but I will continue to correct you.  shall I do so now, or do you want to step back from it?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, you seem to get some sort of pleasure hearing yourself repeating yourself. Stonewalling against the RfC consensus doesn't really make you look very good, nor does it impress or fool very many, but if it turns you on, whatever. It's all evidence that will be used against you. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The results of the RfC were crystal clear and in Brangifer's favour and I'd suggest that if this nonsense continues that arbitration be sought. Xanthoxyl &lt; 06:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Xanthoxyl: I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. which results of which RfC are crystal clear about what?  we have had one RfC about a non-contentious non-topic, and another RfC that somehow got tangled up with an RfC on a different topic on a different page, and neither of them speaks to the actual problem under discussion here.  can you clarify what you mean?
 * The results of the RfC above. You are arguing that the respondents don't understand the issue (the use of that particular reference to back up that particular statement), but the responses make it clear that they do. Furthermore, you are indulging in quite severe incivility. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 06:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Brangifer: I don't like repeating myself, but I don't mind, and if repeating myself is what I have to do to bring this discussion (repeatedly) back on topic, I will do that. and you know, this is maybe the fourth or fifth time I've heard you make veiled threats like 'evidence to be used against me' and 'people are watching', and etc.  what's up with that?  If you're going to go all 'secret police' on me, you'd do better without the 'keystone cops' overtones.  Get on with it, or get over it.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2, don't play dumb. You know perfectly well that the only RfC held on this page is this one. The other was an announcement. The one above is overwhelmingly in my favor. As to evidence against you, I'm referring to the same thing that Xanthoxyl has mentioned. You have been disruptive for far too long, and you've been given plenty of rope to hang yourself with. Playing dumb isn't going to help you. You have been warned many times that you're being disruptive by refusing to accept the results of the RfC. That you have Dbachmann in your corner doesnt' help him either. You'll both get into trouble. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I went ahead and checked the most current version of the Science and Technology Indicators, which does not contain this language. that obviates the entire discussion - your source is outdated... also, if you threaten me one more time I will take you to ANI - I am not going to sit here and listen to your incessant personal attacks forever, you know.

<-- Ludwigs2, this is not about scientific research, where new findings replace old and outdated ones. The NSF report changes slightly from year to year. In the absence of any evidence that they have changed their POV, the contents of ALL the NSF reports are legitimate sources. The part that's relevant and fits the ArbCom wording exactly (to be used as a ref at NPOV), is found in the 2006 version and possibly others. Just because the NSF declared belief in ten concepts to be "pseudoscientific beliefs" in 2006, doesn't mean they are suddenly not pseudoscientific beliefs today. What you say really doesn't matter. It's just another diversionary attempt. The National Science Foundation is a legitimate source and my simple proposal has overwhelmingly passed muster in two different RfCs. I invite you to bow to the consensus as any good Wikipedian does.

But.... if you really are a masochist and wish to suffer the consequences of filing an RfC/U, like you're threatening to do on User talk:Dbachmann, the gun is in your hand. Go ahead and shoot. It's not my fault that it is pointing at your own foot. You've been given ample rope to hang yourself. If you hadn't been edit warring and had consensus on your side you'd have a case, but all you will achieve is that your edit warring, OR, and blatently tendentious editing (seemingly written by someone describing your behavior) will be noticed and get its due reward. Violating consensus isn't taken lightly here. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV attribution in lead removed by User:Dbachmann
User:Dbachmann has removed the NPOV attribution from the lead.

Here was his existing content which violated WP:FRINGE, by stating as fact that souls and spirits actually exist. That wording also violates NPOV:


 * "A ghost is the soul or spirit of a deceased person, taken to be capable of appearing in visible form or otherwise manifesting itself to the living."

Here is the version after I added the attribution required for such fringe statements (with bold emphasis on the added part):


 * "A ghost is considered by believers in the paranormal to be the soul or spirit of a deceased person, taken to be capable of appearing in visible form or otherwise manifesting itself to the living."

Dbachmann removed it with the edit summary:


 * ""fringe opinion" such as that of OED and Britannica? This is very close to vandaliism now. Please try to understand what was discussed."

We are not writing OED or Britannica. We have different rules, among them NPOV. Attribution is not only helpful here, it is required if we are to retain the existing wording. We can't state something that is a scientifically fringe belief as if it's true. It is patently obvious that those who don't believe in the paranormal or souls or spirits do no believe in ghosts, and that believers in the paranormal phenomena of ghosts do believe that "the soul or spirit of a deceased person, taken to be capable of appearing in visible form or otherwise manifesting itself to the living."

An argument could be made for some religious believers in souls and spirits who therefore believe in ghosts. Some of them might also believe that those souls and spirits may appear to the living as ghosts. An inclusion of that fact would be appropriate, whereas the deletion was improper. Here is a possible wording that would satisfy policy:


 * "A ghost is considered by believers in the paranormal and by some religions to be the soul or spirit of a deceased person, taken to be capable of appearing in visible form or otherwise manifesting itself to the living."

Note that there are other types of "ghosts" which are entertainment phenomena. They may scare some children at amusement parks and in movies, without those children believing in them as actual entities (disembodied spirits).

Whatever the case, the deletion and the edit summary don't hold water, either logically or according to policy, and they should be reverted.

Likewise I have tagged the NSF ref in the last sentence of the lead. It is Dbachmann's OR and misuse of the NSF source. Anyone who has actually read that source will see that it contains nothing relative to that sentence, and therefore the tags and ref should be removed. Likewise there is no source at all for the first phrase (19th century), so it should either be sourced or removed. It had previously been removed as it really adds nothing. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that attributing these beliefs to someone is important as they would not be held by the general public. I think it could be shortened to to believers in the paranormal and by some religions to be.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Doc James, is there a large typo above? I suspect a copy and paste got screwed up. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No typo at all. It's actually easier to read in the wikitext, which doesn't allow the signature to be confused with the proposed snippet of text, and which sets off the snippet with bolding. On the other hand, I believe I'm Doc James. Don't you? Doesn't everyone? Oh. Never mind! To each his own. --Abd (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I question it was because it's an exact quote of my wording. It doesn't propose any shortening or anything new. It seems like it was a copy and paste that went wrong. (and no, you're not Doc James ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well that's silly. everyone (even people who don't believe in ghosts at all) know that they are supposed to be the soul or spirit of a deceased person.  restricting it to people who believe in the paranormal is a complete misrepresentation.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I write unclearly? That's possible. We can't have unattributed opinions like that in the article. They have to be attributed to whoever holds those opinions. Otherwise they stand as statements by Wikipedia. See WP:ATTRIBUTION. Since there is no scientific evidence for the existence of souls or spirits, per WP:FRINGE we need to frame the statement properly. By adding the few words I added, the statement still properly describes the meaning of ghost, with the added benefit of clarifying who holds those beliefs. I'm not saying my wording was the only or best way to do it, but the statement, as it was, violates policy. I fixed it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * not every phrase in wikipedia needs to be attributed - if all of them were, wikipedia would be an unreadable mass of pointless citations. We attribute where we need to verify that a contested statement was actually given by a source, or where a contested viewpoint needs to be localized to a particular person or perspective.  In short, attribution is to aid the reader in verifying what's written in wikipedia; attribution is not a system to prove things to the reader.  There is no contested viewpoint here.  Even you don't have a problem with the given definition - e.g. the disembodied soul or spirit of a deceased person - you simply want to make the argument that such things don't really exist.  I agree with you that they don't exist, I agree with you that the article should make it clear that there is no scientific evidence for their existence, but I disagree with your obvious efforts to cram a skeptical viewpoint down the gullet of what you must see as a rather stupid public.  Dude, c'mon: nobody believes in ghosts (outside of that kind of wistful Anne Rice sort of thing, or campfire scare-each-other silliness) - this pedantic insistence on saying they don't exist is like having your mother-in-law in the back seat, warning you about every stoplight you come to.  it just makes wikipedia look stupid.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I stumbled across this discussion, and did not read it all ... Belief in ghosts is integral to many of the older religions and is related to concepts like angel and djinn in the Abrahamic religions. The article should be sensitive to these widespread beliefs. It would not be appropriate for an article on Bhuddism or Christianity or Islam to say that, of course, there is no scientific evidence for many of the elements of the belief, such as life after death. Better to just describe who holds the belief and what the belief consists of. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that we should "describe who holds the belief and what the belief consists of", and I did it in a very neutral manner. Right now Ludwigs2 is denying that we should even say who believes in ghosts, and then he introduces a diversionary tactic by claiming that we're trying to "say they don't exist". That's another subject, which can only be done by citing sources of criticism. This immediate discussion is not about that, but is about noting who believes in ghosts, and he's not allowing it. He's even vandalized the lead by removing mention of the NSF's position, which was properly sourced, and even the other ref. That violates the rules for WP:LEAD, which require that significant content in the body of the article be mentioned in the lead. It's all a whitewashing POV push.


 * What's really odd is that he contradicts himself above. He has been fighting for limiting any mention of the NSF's concept of "pseudoscientific beliefs" to that which overtly makes claims to be scientific, IOW such things as ghost hunters and parapsychology. He's satisfied to maintain a limited and rigid definition, with no other nuances. Yet above he's saying that no one believes in ghosts anyway? What happened to the pseudoscientific pushing by those who believe in ghosts and try to use scientific methods to prove them? Suddenly they're gone! I'm beginning to think he actually believes in ghosts and the paranormal and is trying to whitewash this article from any criticism by the National Science Foundation, which labels them as "pseudoscientific beliefs". No one but a true believer would act this way. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What utter nonsense, Brangifer. If you have read any of the points I have made you have spectacularly failed to grasp any of them. Do the editors of the OED secretly "believe in ghosts and the paranormal"? I don't think so. The problem is you and your false dichotomies. --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)