Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 19

Koranic scientific foreknowledge
Moved from article for discussion.

My objections are that the first source never mentions pseudoscience, Islam, or the Koran. Maybe other words are used? That leaves one podcast, and only one source is not good enough sourcing for inclusion here. This is why we require an independent article, or inclusion in an article, that specifically mentions the topic and uses more than one RS to label it as pseudoscience. This prevents gaming the system, because anyone can find one or more sources that labels anything as pseudoscience. We can't allow that here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The "more than one RS" seems to be a made-up requirement. The topic of this list is "topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience." Here we have a topic that has been characterized as pseudoscience. The characterization was made by a reliable source, a notable physicist and skeptic. We also have an article on the topic, Islamic attitudes towards science, that mentions the same thing.
 * This isn't original research, this is a WP:BLUESKY situation. This applies to any religion that has writings predating modern science, not just Islam and Christianity. I would advocate combining the sections in Christianity and Islam and simply call it "Religious scientific foreknowledge", and including any further examples that can be found from Hinduism or other religions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not denying that religion and pseudoscience are often connected, but such a low bar as this presentation opens the door wide to gaming the system. First establish the subject strongly in an article with several good sources, then bring it here. If that can't be done, then the claim becomes a fringe claim, and I'm pretty sure it isn't. So bolster the concept better. This isn't a list for isolated claims with scanty sourcing. You can do much better than this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's more sources that mention this as pseudoscience: And here are 1 and 2 better sources verifying Edis (neither is a podcast and both are considered reliable sources). —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. I believe it belongs, it just needed better sourcing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is this list even allowed to exist? Answered.
The strict inclusion criteria were a condition. There was a lot of resistance when we tried to create and keep this list in existence, and only after these inclusion criteria were formulated and enforced did we finally find peace, and the list has now been here for a very long time. IIRC, we had the whole community against us, but they finally backed off.

The current attempts to circumvent or weaken those conditions will endanger the list again. Please don't go there. Learn from history. Those who forget history are doomed to have their work destroyed. Is this a joe job? (Bad joke. I don't believe that for a moment.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not there at the time, but I understand your concern and your reticence to test something like that again. But I would still ask you: do you think the community has, in any way, changed in the time since? I think it very possibly has. In my mind, all consensus has a time past which it should be challenged. Deletions are absolutely subject to a changing consensus. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 05:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the last decade the whole WP:FRINGE scene on enwp has matured. I know (jps) has had some thoughts on this. Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect you're right, but sourcing is still a requirement here. It always will be. WE "know" this stuff, but it isn't sky is blue to far too many preople, so we provide what RS say. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, WP:V cannot be shirked. Bon courage (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed that SKYBLUE is not enough. But I just don't think we should require also that petty squabbles on the parent articles of each one always be resolved in favor of the word "pseudoscience" if we have a very good sourcing here to show it is. It just means we should also have good sourcing there, but was either lost or never added! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What inclusion criteria are used for this list? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I still don't like the title of the article. It should just be list of pseudosciences. But whatever.... ....My opinion from years past was that the ideal framing for this list with an eye towards WP:LISTCRIT should be to find excellent sources that say "X is psuedoscience" or a directly equivalent argument and then just list the idea without much commentary.... but the problem comes in when you hit things like psychoanalysis or string theory where I can point to severe critics who are pretty reliable doing just that with some controversy. This isn't even counting the unreliable idiots saying things like modern synthesis is pseudoscience or whatnot. ....Long and the short of this is that I think that the current ugly compromise is about as functional we can get as long as Wikipedia lacks an editorial board (which, let's be honest, it always will). jps (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To be included in this list, do potential pseudosciences have to be characterized as such by a consensus of the mainstream scientific community, or just by a significant proportion? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By reliable source(s). Many source don't even consider the pseudoscience categorization. For any description explicitly of "consensus" (a special case) WP:RS/AC is required. Bon courage (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is very hard to judge consensus of the mainstream scientific community without consensus statements from umbrella organizations or dedicated studies. This typically only happens when the idea in question is gaining traction beyond what the vast majority of identified pseudosciences ever enjoy. Normally it's in a political context. So it's easy to point to "consensus statements" for things like global warming denialism or creationism, but obvious instances of pseudoscience like Ancient Aliens or ghost hunting are only parochially criticized. Because of this, we necessarily need to rely on individual reliable sources and it isn't particularly useful to the reader to distinguish in compendiums like this between "consensus" instances and otherwise because often it's the most obvious cases of pseudoscience that get the least attention. Rather than trying to decide what the "community" thinks, it is best to find excellent sources which explain the pseudoscientific nature of an idea and leave it at that. For the vast majority of ideas, that'll be good enough. Edge cases will exist, however, but it is important not to get distracted by this. It is in the interest of WP:PROFRINGE to argue that their particular idea is at least an edge case, and often that is not a well-supported or good-faith argument. jps (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is where WP:Parity comes into play. We don't need major scientific sources. Subject matter experts will do. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So what happens if subject-area experts (or scientific sources) disagree over categorization? Does the benefit of the doubt go towards characterization or non-characterization? (Roughly) what percent of subject-area experts need to characterize a topic as pseudoscientific before it is listed here? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The benefit of the doubt goes to whomever doesn't have their whole reputation riding on the matter and whomever isn't making money off it. It's quality, not quantity. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. But what about genuinely contestable topics, such as the simulation theory or superdeterminism?, or other areas where there's no money? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:FRIND, in so many words. Independence matters. jps (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since neither of those topics is listed on this page, I don't see the relevance. These are invented cases. In general, on Wikipedia, we care about actual subjects which are actually implicated, not hypothetical ones. We operate on a case-by-case basis, not generalized logical or theoretical constructs without concrete examples. Wikipedia is not a scientific discipline, or a mathematical theorem. It is a contradictory, imperfect, and ever-changing enterprise which only gets closer to the ideal if and when our sources do.In other words, any attempts to create hard and fast rules, or logical "gotchas" will inevitably fail. We operate on community consensus. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria / Edit note
This list article does not have a "proper" edit note. It should.

Currently there is some disagreement regarding whether we should require that the entry be described as pseudoscience in the main article. There is a hidden editors note somewhere that states this requirement, but apparently it was added without discussion many years ago.

So, let's try to craft an edit note, and address whether the above requirement should be part of the inclusion criteria.

Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Do we need one though? Since the early days of this article the WP:PAGs have moved on and WP:FRINGE become well established. We could say material here should be in WP:SYNC with main topic article, but I would oppose anything which implied editing had to be done in a certain sequence of that lack of WP:SYNC'd content was an excuse to delete well-sourced content from anywhere. Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons why each entry should already be described as pseudoscience in the main article:
 * WP:POVFORK - "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article"
 * WP:FRINGE - is this a fact and major point of view? Hard to tell if we (are) showing "broadly supported by scholarship" or just cherry picked sources.
 * WP:LISTPURP-NAV - list is (or has become) a navigation list, a series of linked articles (topics) that all contain the feature topics characterized as pseudoscience - content needs to be there to be indexed here.
 * INVISIBLE to editors working on the topic. There can be allot of name calling here and those who know the topic (editors of the topic) will never see it. Best to bring up material at the linked article where it can be evaluated to see if it meets guidelines and policy.
 * Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The material should be in sync, but the problem is elevating this into an absolute requirement, so that editors can use the lack of synchronisation as an excuse to delete content, even if it is well-sourced. Also some topics (e.g. Earthing therapy) are so obscure they don't even have a main article, but are worth mentioning here. Bon courage (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No edit note, please. I see no reason why we should require that the primary article A) exist, B) directly claim in the body that it is pseudoscience. It should be enough that we have sources here describing it as such. That is the inherent nature of WP:V. Yes, consistency is good (and should be the goal), but it isn't a mandate, and it isn't about having "first one article say something then the other". There is no hierarchy of list vs content articles on wikipedia. it's all the same jazz. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be enough that we have sources here describing it as such. By that standard Climate change and Evolution belong on this list. Anyone could just start a POVFORK here. Hence the note added by is a pretty good idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of those is a particularly fair comparison. I would urge you to please WP:STEELMAN instead of straw-man. The overall weight of sources for both lean towards it being an accepted practice among experts. AA and 12-step do not have that, they are more in the realm of "minority views which are controversial". It is only recently that these have had beneficial evidence published in reliable sources per WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDSCI. Absolutely nothing like evolution or climate change. In this instance, we have accepted experts who are publishing in scholarly sources which are saying 'This is controversial and has been criticized as pseudoscience'. And we do not have a clear scholarly consensus that it is not pseudoscience. We have only some limited sourcing showing some benefit. It's far from academic consensus that these programs are beneficial. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * per WP:STEELMAN, check my edit history at this topic. Like I said above, this article is the wrong place to debate inclusion. You are making augments that belong on the 12-step page, that's where all the sourcing, the UNDUE comparison, and the experts are. With a fluffy title like "characterized as pseudoscience" and a WP:CONTENTIOUS claim we are on a sliding scale somewhere between including everything and deleting this list (it has been proposed). A WP:LSC based on this being a rip-and-read list of already existent (and verified) article content in Wikipedia is a reasonable middle ground. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it absolutely is not. Wikipedia articles are not WP:RSes and should not be treated as such; there is no reason to think that any individual article on Wikipedia has gotten more attention or has more eyes on it than this list, and therefore no reason why a difference between the two should automatically be resolved in favor of other articles. Either the sourcing exists or it doesn't; if it exists, it should be easy to pull it up here. If it doesn't, pointing to the other article is inappropriate, and trying to ignore valid sources because they haven't been added to another article is likewise inappropriate. There is a reason why MOS:COMMENT forbids comments that try to overtly "set rules" the way this one does, and why the process of adding an edit note is so difficult; editors are not supposed to casually create their own sweeping absolute rules for every topic area. Plainly this page is getting plenty of attention and discussion now, and WP:FRINGEN exists if there's a dispute here; that means that you haven't demonstrated even an iota of the level of problems that would be needed for the sorts of sweeping bespoke requirements you're trying to impose here, not when we have detailed and well-established systems for dealing with these exact problems already. If the question of whether something is pseudoscience was already discussed and settled on another page, you should be able to point to the discussion and repeat the arguments from there, and take it to WP:FRINGEN if that fails to settle things. --Aquillion (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pointing to the other articles that already have verified content (and requiring, or strongly urging, that it be there) is appropriate per: WP:POVFORK (Forks are not permitted on Wikipedia), WP:LISTPURP-NAV (navigating a reader to a list that contains certain content), and WP:SOURCELIST (consider if the list's format allows room for all the details of competing views in the list item or if those details should only be covered in the linked, main article on the topic. Either way, make sure to add them to the main article if they are not already there). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support adding an editnotice. If the description, characterization, or label of 'pseudoscience' doesn't pass (or isn't included) at the primary article, editors could easily start a WP:POVFORK here, which violates WP:NPOV. For example, consensus at [topic] is that it's not pseudoscience, but a random editor could find a random source or two (meeting WP:RS standards) which describes it as such and then add it to this article, arguing that the sources "characterize it as pseudoscience". I also support keeping the hidden note:  Some1 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Err, if a truly reliable source has stated that something is pseudoscience, per WP:NPOV we are obliged to reflect that, and prominently, per WP:PSCI. NPOV is not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See the example given above by Fountains of Bryn Mawr on Climate change and Evolution. A random editor could cherry pick some random RS to say that a topic is pseudoscience and add it to this article, when there's consensus on the primary article against labeling it as such. That's one of the reasons why the articles should be in sync, to prevent WP:POVFORKS. Some1 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A random editor could cherry pick some random RS to say that a topic is pseudoscience and add it to this article, when there's consensus on the primary article against labeling it as suchOur existing policies of WP:RSUW, WP:FRINGE, and Scientific consensus handle that situation pretty well already. This is also probably the most watched article on the site by subscribers of the Fringe theories/Noticeboard! Any addition of material like that to this page would be removed pretty quickly, citing the aforementioned policies. This is a solution looking for a problem, imo. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * List articles are based on existing articles. (On topics that are notable enough to deserve their own article, hence we required they prove it by being created and surviving the usual AFDs. THEN they can be listed in a list article.) That's been standard practice for eons. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not always true. Sometimes topics are obscure enough not to deserve a standalone article, but per WP:NOPAGE are worth mentioning in the list. And while of course having everything lined up is best practice, making it an absolute requirement on a par with things in WP:BLP seems like asking for gaming trouble. Bon courage (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Fringe theories noticeboard.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * However much I wish that were true, it's not. WP:NLIST says Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable .... As long as you have a few sources that mention the the idea of the items as a group, you can have a list of anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That would mean this entire group or set would have to have appeared en masse in a few reliable sources... that exists? Per the Arbitration Ruling noted at the top of this talk page, this is not a list of anything, it has limits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That would mean this entire group or set would have to have appeared en masse in a few reliable sources That's not what NLIST means. It means "things characterized as pseudoscience" as a concept has appeared in RS. And we have entire encyclopedias about pseudoscience, so that sourcing is very robust.The alternative (the entire list would have to have appeared all together in RSes) is such a high burden, extremely few (if any) lists would ever meet it, and we would probably not have any lists on wikipedia. It also is not a logical conclusion from the phrasing at NLIST which says: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Because if that were the bar, then we wouldn't need this sentence at all, as the source showing each member would also show notability for each individual. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No edit note per Shibbolethink. Having RS that call a topic pseudoscience explicitly (or something obviously equivalent) is enough. However we should not be including ideas that are simply based on dubious methodologies or alternative theoretical foundations in this list. Or topics that are primarily legitimate but have some fringe elements, like say Hair analysis or Psychometrics. The key difference is in how the RS describe these topics broadly. Generalrelative (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know enough about Hair analysis to say anything about it. But psychometrics, I would tell you, has a lot of RSes which describe a long history of pseudoscience even if there are parts of it that are valid. E.g. And things like personality testing (Myers-Briggs, OCEAN, et al) are explicitly pseudoscience: So this is an example of a field with a lot of pseudoscience within it, but also some elements of real science. I think in such instances, we should include it but accurately describe the state of the field, that there are some valid things, and also some invalid things. And that would be compliant with FRINGE imo. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly in agreement with this, and where we disagree essentially comes down to a judgment call. I'd suggest that a topics like psychometrics is a great limit case for discussing the boundary of what belongs in this list precisely because so much of it is bunk. My own view is that because the entire topic is not usually described as pseudoscience, it doesn't belong in this list. This essentially comes down to an intuition about how readers are mostly likely going to use and understand the list. But reasonable minds may certainly disagree here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We wouldn't want to exclude topics just because they're not notable enough for their own WP article. A lot of pseudoscience is not notable, but people coming here after hearing about them deserve at least a little guidance. I'd say that if we have no article, we should have an RS (best an accessible RS) here describing it as pseudoscience for those who wish to follow up on it. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support adding an editnotice with requirement that each listing has a main article and has a description as pseudoscience in that main article per WP:LSC/broad subject and WP:NPOV/WP:RSUW/WP:FRINGE. WP:LSC notes "notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject" and WP:NPOV/WP:RSUW/WP:FRINGE is the icing on the cake - you need an article on the topic where all RS, policy, and guidelines have been hashed out re:whether a topic can be, or can not be, tagged with pseudoscience. It has the added bonus of preventing long talk pages here full of arguments and long reference text walls (scroll up for example). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support adding an editnotice per Bryn Mawr and this comment. This prevents gaming the system, because anyone can find a few sources about any topic claiming it's PS. That won't do. It should only be here because it's described as PS because it actually is PS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not add edit note at least until there's some actual wording to consider. I understand the motivation, and it's true that best practice is that knowledge will be synchronized across articles. However, there are some edge cases where this doesn't work (where the topic doesn't have a standalone article), and there's a danger in effect of making a new POLICY with such a note, especially if it adopts "you are required" or "you must" wording. Ultimately, article content is governed by the WP:PAGs and not by the content of other articles. Is there any evidence in recent years that there's a problem here that needs fixing? I could get on board with something milder (something like "Where a main article exists on a topic in the list, content here should reflect content there with regard to pseudoscience" ?) Bon courage (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The existing note has served just fine for years. It was removed without any consensus or need. Keep it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Does anybody see it? Using the visual editor or editing a section, users won't. And (ironically) it's out-of-sync with the FAQ here. The HTML comment was modified by in 2013 to include the provision under discussion. Bon courage (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not for readers, just editors, and I see no reason why a version shouldn't be an edit note that appears to anyone before they can make an edit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

For reference, the text of the current edit note is below. It resides inside an html comment near the top of the article.

NOTE ON SOURCES AND INCLUSION:
 * WP:RS states that sources must be generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
 * WP:V states that [t]he appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.

Please note that due to the controversial nature of the label "Pseudoscience", we must demand a reliable source from an appropriate source in order to include it. If something seems to be obviously pseudoscience, then either such a source likely exists somewhere or it isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion.

The inclusion criteria must necessarily be strict enough that notability should be established at the main article first, using RS. So ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here.

UNSOURCED entries WILL BE REMOVED in order to keep this list clear of original research and possible NPOV violations.

For more clarification, see the top of the talk page. It is my strong preference that we should either:

a) Move it (with perhaps some revisions) to a "proper" edit note so that it is visible to anyone who edits the page before the do so.

OR

b) Remove it since it makes no sense to have inclusion criteria that nobody can see.

I do not have a strong opinion on which is preferable. But we need to do one or the other. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd add that everything in that note is already covered by standard wikipedia policies, except for:
 * "The inclusion criteria must necessarily be strict enough that notability should be established at the main article first, using RS. So ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here."
 * So the note is mostly redundant. Those two sentences seem to be the sticking point. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose both the proposed content of this edit note and any edit note or comment that directly instructs editors to do or not do something. First, articles and lists are ultimately edited independently; their content doesn't, and shouldn't, depend on what's stated elsewhere on the wiki. A hard requirement that the main article for something on a list say X or Y is totally inappropriate and should never have been suggested, let alone written by an inappropriate inline comment (see MOS:COMMENT; such comments are directly contrary to the MOS.) Inclusion or exclusion here depends on sourcing, consensus, and WP:FRINGE; a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on another page cannot become a binding one wiki-wide in the way that this edit note would try to enforce. It does not, and should not, matter one iota whether our article on a topic says something or not - only WP:RSes matter, and the article is not an RS. Finally, none of the discussions above have actually demonstrated the level of problems that would require a detailed edit note (but even if it were, the focus should be on sourcing, only on sourcing. I would never support even the suggestion that editors should consider what another Wikipedia article says before adding it here, let alone trying to make it a requirement; it is utterly inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
I tried adding holocaust denial to the list, and the edit was reverted. If Holocause is not a pseudoscience, then many topics here would need to be removed as well. DTMGO (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You'd need a good source saying "holocaust denial" was pseudoscience. I'd be surprised if one existed, though certain element of HD are pseudoscientific (e.g. analysis of gas chamber walls to "prove" no gas was there - see Leuchter report). Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if Holocaust is not a pseudoscience, then many topics here would need to be removed as well. Because many topics here don't have a good source saying that they are a pseudoscience.   DTMGO (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage There you go. Here you have a reputable source backing up the statement that Holocaust denialism is a pseudoscience:  "There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences."  DTMGO (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that great, and also says "The misrepresentations of history presented by Holocaust deniers and other pseudo-historians are very similar in nature to the misrepresentations of natural science promoted by creationists and homeopaths", making a distinction between science and other fields of misrepresentation. Other (published) sources say HD is pseudohistory.. Let's see what others think ... Bon courage (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a mention is warranted, if we focus it on the elements of pseudoscience that are perpetrated in support of HD. The focus should be on these things, not the pseudohistory elements. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since that one is just a passing mention, I think we should try and find more sources, especially to give us better guidance as to how to cover it. I think pseudohistory and pseudoscience are usually categorized differently. By my reading that entry is mostly discussing some of the pseudoscience holocaust deniers use, which may be worth covering here but which we'd probably need more sources going into detail on. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There may be enough to say something about pseudoscientific aspects of Holocaust denial. The term has definitely been applied: In the 1970s, Holocaust denial took up more sophisticated pseudoscientific methods . Holocaust deniers, and the media they use, are changing as a consequence of international political developments. [...] New forms of this propaganda encompassed pseudoscientific books and papers [...] Many of the pseudoscientific publications available internationally were published under cover of fictitious academic publishing houses. [...] The very public destruction of David Irving's already tarnished reputation, as a result of his libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, effectively undermined the position of the pseudoscientific deniers, as did the more recent conviction of Germar Rudolf. Some years ago Fred Leuchter attempted to prove technically that Zyklon B was not used in the gas chambers. His lack of any engineering qualification was the subject of a successful criminal action in the American courts and his capacity to comment was curtailed. It is possible that the terms "pseudoscience" and "pseudohistory" have been used in overlapping ways, to an extent, which would then raise the question of whether it is our job to disentangle them. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the entry again with the following edit summary: "You need to do more than mention the source on the talk page. You need to add multiple RS to the main Holocaust denial article, and if they are accepted there, then return here and restore the entry here." We have strict standards here to prevent this page from becoming a massive hit piece backed by very limited sourcing. List articles require that each listing is notable, and that is proven to us by the creation of an article. Then, to be listed at THIS list, that article must document, using multiple RS, that the subject is considered pseudoscientific. There may be certain aspects of HD that are pseudoscientific, so document that at the article. Otherwise, the whole subject is not considered pseudoscientific. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that this topic has been forumshopped by DTMGO on several articles. We need to limit it to one place. Right now I have commented at Talk:Pseudoscience. Can we keep all discussion there? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * By several articles you mean just two articles, right? DTMGO (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I saw three: Pseudoscience, List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, and Holocaust denial, but I now see that you apparently didn't comment at the last one, so it's only the first two. Sorry for causing confusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try discussing at the Holocaust denial article itself first on whether that's considered pseudoscience or not? Per the hidden notice on this article: ...ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here. UNSOURCED entries WILL BE REMOVED in order to keep this list clear of original research and possible NPOV violations. Some1 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Though of course, and leaving aside the pros and cons of this particular question, the "hidden notice" has zero WP:PAG force, so feel free to ignore. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this, but that hidden notice needs to be removed or reworded. Per MOS:COMMENT it is not appropriate to use a hidden notice to directly instruct an editor not do something - you can say "there's an established consensus for X, see [link]" if there's a clear, definitive consensus for something that you can link to, and can remind them of policy or suggest that they also update X if they update Y, but a hidden notice saying "do not add anything here that is not called a pseudoscience in its own article" (or words to that effect) is not acceptable. At best you could point editors towards a discussion establishing that consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion about the hidden note at Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience if you'd like to add your thoughts and/or proposal for re-wording it. Some1 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Eugenics
The eugenics entry mentions that eugenics was a pseudoscience, with journals publishing articles in USA and many other countries, for example.

I will prepare an edit draft for your consideration. DTMGO (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023
In the sociology section of the article i want to add Mises' praxeology as a pseudocience. Numerous arguments show it's incapacity to make predictions for the invalidity of it's axioms. An example of it's invalidity is it's view around macro-economics, which ignores how complex systems work, like society itself.

I'm going to put some sources... which are NOT all that i'm going to use in the article....

Philophical point of view: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-019-02150-8

Here is talked about Bunge's work around the philosophy of science and it's view around praxeology : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-021-09553-7 Rodrigo IB (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Illusion Flame (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Phantom time hypothesis
i have prepared the phantom time hypothesis in the history section any problem are there then you can edit it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Politics
Is it required to create a page for political science in social science section since they are more pseudoscience theories like 2020 us election fraud theory conducted by Donald Trump Ppppphgtygd (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * do we have secondary sources which describe that theory as pseudoscience? I would just call it "misinformation." — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * like JFKs assassination conspiracy theories Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with Shibbolethink here. If this list becomes too bloated with tangential topics better classified as misinformation, its usefulness to our readers will be compromised. Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship questions
Whether is it necessary to add Shakespeare authorship question in pseudoscience or its is better to create a new article on the list of pseudohistory Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove "History" section?
I would argue that the entire "History" section should be removed, and any non-repetitive content should be added to the "Categories and examples" section of Pseudohistory. We could then include a link to that article in the "See also" here.

My argument for this is rather pragmatic and straightforward: There is simply so much pseudohistory out there that I imagine the scope could creep on and on and on. If this proposal is rejected, I strongly encourage a pruning of the section to include only those pseudohistorical narratives that RS have described as involving pseudoscientific arguments, e.g. Holocaust denial (as discussed here). Generalrelative (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * yes you are right but some of them like Adolf Hitler's death theory, holocaust denial, Armenian genocide denial and holodomor and myth of christ is should be included as pseudoscience since science concepts like genetics and dna are used. Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We have Pseudohistory, which includes its own list and identifies Historical negationism and Pseudoarchaeology as articles with further information (each having their own lists). Maybe we just list a few, highly noteworthy examples while identifying the articles that have further lists and information. --Hipal (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with this, especially if they are examples with notable pseudoscientific aspects, like Holocaust denial.
 * And in reply to the previous comment: there is nothing even remotely pseudohistorical about the Holodomor. Presumably you are talking about Holodomor denial? Generalrelative (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ok it was a mistake.sorry Ppppphgtygd (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries :) Generalrelative (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Misleading image
The top Image of the Big Bang according to WMAP/Planck does not belong in this article. It could cause casual readers to misunderstand that it is part of pseudoscience instead of the well-confirmed cosmological model that it is. Unfortunately, I have not yet found a way in the mobile app to remove it, so someone else please do it (and replace it with a more fitting image if possible). PointedEars (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That image, the only one in the article, represents the broader topic of "Science" - of which this topic is a small part.
 * It is an excellent image to do that. - Roxy the dog 06:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Clunky Wording
The technology subsection has this phrase describing 5G conspiracy theories:

"theory proposing that 5G causes health issues and also causes COVID-19."

This wording seems quite clunky and poor-written. I propose it should be changed to:

"a theory proposing that 5G causes health issues, including COVID-19."

I would change it myself, but article is semi-protected (and for good reason).

Wikisincerely, 2601:600:9080:A4B0:C5F6:3A3F:38B1:6B3 (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 00:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

EMDR does not claim to be a science
Collins dictionary defines pseudoscience as "a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science". . EMDR practioners do not claim a scientific base for it. Thus EMDR is not a pseudoscience. . (It just empirically works for some people (and is thus recommended by WHO, NICE, etc).) 5.66.63.86 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, we don't care about what Collins defines as pseudoscience. We care about what things our sources say have been characterized as pseudoscience. Hence the name of the article.And, additionally, EMDR practitioners do indeed claim a scientific basis: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ridiculous. I'm sure somebody somewhere, to use an example from the EMDR talk page, thinks thinks that "Steaming your vagina" has a science basis. That does not mean that is the consensus view. 5.66.63.86 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Follow the sources and all will be well. Suggest we're done here. Bon courage (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023
Hypnosis and hypnotherapy are not pseudoscience. There are many solid studies showing strong evidence, especially in the areas of pain and depression. The American Psychological Association (APA), specifically division 30, recognizes hypnosis as a science and provides definitions for each term involving hypnosis.

Here is an article showing evidence of how hypnosis is as effective as cognitive-behavioral therapy for mild to moderate depression in a randomized controlled rater-blind clinical trial (strong evidence):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032721002032

Here are some additional articles that provide evidence of the effects of hypnosis:

Pain: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465776/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10801169/

Hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7751482/

If you need more information, please contact me.

Thanks. Meltbreak (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Note that the top of the page says: This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers (emphasis added). So, regardless if you want to litigate whether it's actually pseudoscience or not (I don't!), I feel like it's a good fit for this page, because the in-line reliable sources do classify it as such. Bestagon ⬡ 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Any entries not linked to existing articles?
Please list any you find right here so we can examine them. If they are notable enough for their own article, or are mentioned in an article, they may qualify for this list. Otherwise not. Individual entries in lists must be notable, in contrast to content in other articles. When they qualify for mention as a subtopic in an existing article, that article is often enough to justify their mention here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual entries in lists must be notable, in contrast to content in other articles This entire comment appears to be exercising your subjective opinion as a requirement for this article. It is certainly not the consensus in the section above or at WP:LISTN or WP:FTN, not by my reading.WP:LISTN says: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

All seem to be linked articles. Found one MOS:EASTEREGG but fixed it, topic seems to be extensive. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

'pseudoscience' not mentioned in the article
Here's a list of topics that do not include any variations of the word "pseudoscience" in the body of their respective articles, but are listed in this article. So far I've gotten to Hexagonal water, so the list below isn't complete yet.


 * The Face on Mars
 * Lunar effect
 * Geocentric model
 * Moon landing conspiracy theories
 * Bermuda Triangle
 * Autodynamics
 * Energy Catalyzer
 * Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory
 * Electrogravitics
 * Free energy suppression conspiracy theory
 * Brilliant Light Power
 * Dry needling
 * Acupressure
 * Twelve-step program
 * Alexander Technique
 * Alternative cancer treatments
 * Animal magnetism
 * Apitherapy
 * Aromatherapy
 * Lancet MMR autism fraud
 * Balneotherapy
 * Bates method
 * Biological terrain assessment
 * Chronic Lyme disease
 * Colon cleansing


 * Medical uses of silver
 * COVID-19 misinformation
 * Fasting
 * Hair analysis (alternative medicine)
 * Hexagonal water
 * Bach flower remedies
 * Leaky gut syndrome
 * The Lightning Process
 * Macrobiotic diet
 * Morgellons
 * Moxibustion
 * Oil pulling
 * Orthomolecular medicine
 * Pulse diagnosis
 * Tin foil hat
 * Urine therapy
 * Vaccines and autism
 * Vaccine hesitancy
 * Wilson's temperature syndrome
 * 5G conspiracies and 5G causes coronavirus theories
 * Christ myth theory
 * Coding (therapy)
 * Feldenkrais Method
 * Hypnosis
 * Hypnotherapy


 * Polygraph
 * Primal therapy
 * Sluggish schizophrenia
 * Subliminal stimuli
 * Unilineal evolution
 * Numerology
 * Bible code
 * Affirmative prayer
 * Christian Science
 * Energy (esotericism)
 * Exorcism
 * Islamic attitudes towards science
 * Narconon
 * Lawsonomy
 * N-ray
 * Penta Water
 * Polywater
 * Time Cube
 * Cattle mutilation
 * Energy (esotericism)
 * Mediumship
 * Reptilian conspiracy theory
 * Levitation (paranormal)
 * Séance
 * Tunguska event

Some1 (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your work. This presents an obvious problem. Their connection to pseudoscience should all be mentioned in their articles. If we are so weak that they are only mentioned here, but not in their articles, then the case is very weak for connecting them to pseudoscience at all, and I suspect that most here know that's not the case. It just needs to be done. If attempts to document them as pseudoscience in their parent articles fails (and that's an acid test), then they should not be mentioned here, unless we're going to endorse gaming the system here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I think you have a valid concern. But I will also say, going through this list, an extremely high proportion of these are WP:SKYBLUE pseudoscience. I think, looking at these, it will be possible to find sources for many of these which are of very high quality, reliable, verifiable, and describe the topic as one of: "alternative medicine", "discounted science", "dismissed science", "using flawed methodology", or some version of "(very/extremely/highly) implausible", if not outright "pseudoscientific", "falsely using the trappings of science" or "not employing the scientific method". I would say WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY tells us that such sources, in the absence of reliable sources saying the contrary, that we should include them on this list. I am willing to post a boilerplate message about such sources on each talk page. If we could demonstrate that, and yet there develops a local consensus on the page against inclusion, then I would want to take it to WP:FTN to be a more final consensus arbiter. Because my guess is that these each very likely had "pseudoscience" in their text at some point, and then removed with an imperfect or narrow consensus. And overall, We need some time to evaluate them before removing en masse. I mean really, consider Vaccines and autism, 5G conspiracies, 5G causes coronavirus, Time Cube, Geocentric model. These are extremely well-known pseudoscience.I'd like to add sources to your list for consideration @Some1. Would that be alright? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 05:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Amusingly, Time cube was mentioned by arbcom as an example of obvious pseudoscience in that old ruling ... Bon courage (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add sources in a new comment below; that way the list above is more readable (with just bare article links instead of references following them) and it'll be easier for items to be striken off the list later. Also, thanks for working on finding sources for these topics; since you've found some already, maybe you could add these to the parent articles? It doesn't need to be long, just a sentence or couple of sentences saying the topic has been characterized as pseudoscience/pseudo-scientific, etc. (provided that the sources actually do explicitly say the topic is pseudoscience). Some1 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources for each list item
Each of the following is an item from the above list, with sources following which describe it as one of: "alternative medicine", "discounted science", "dismissed science", "using flawed methodology", (very/extremely/highly) implausible", "pseudoscientific", "falsely using the trappings of science" or "not employing the scientific method". Most just say "pseudoscience" and I'll put in the source a quote when it does not.


 * The Face on Mars
 * Lunar effect
 * Geocentric model
 * Moon landing conspiracy theories
 * Bermuda Triangle
 * Autodynamics
 * Energy Catalyzer (newest example of cold fusion. to which this entry should be merged)
 * Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory
 * Electrogravitics
 * Free energy suppression conspiracy theory
 * Brilliant Light Power  (Page also says: "The claims lack corroborating scientific evidence despite claims of experimental verification, and the proposed hydrino states are unphysical and incompatible with key equations of quantum mechanics.")
 * Dry needling (The page is also in Category:Pseudoscience as a term essentially synonymous with Acupuncture)
 * Acupressure
 * Twelve-step program
 * Alexander Technique
 * Alternative cancer treatments
 * Animal magnetism  (described in wikitext as protoscientific, which would mean its current use is, via SKYBLUE, pseudoscientific. Also in short descriptor.)
 * Apitherapy   (short descriptor lists pseudoscience)
 * Aromatherapy  (short descriptor lists pseudoscience)
 * Lancet MMR autism fraud   (I already added a mention of "pseudoscience" here)
 * Balneotherapy
 * Bates method
 * Biological terrain assessment (also in Category:Pseudoscience)
 * Chronic Lyme disease
 * Colon cleansing   (included in Category:Pseudoscience)


 * Medical uses of silver    (included in Category:Pseudoscience)
 * COVID-19 misinformation      (included in Category:Pseudoscience)
 * Fasting
 * Hair analysis (alternative medicine)
 * Hexagonal water
 * Bach flower remedies
 * Leaky gut syndrome
 * The Lightning Process
 * Macrobiotic diet
 * Morgellons
 * Moxibustion
 * Oil pulling
 * Orthomolecular medicine
 * Pulse diagnosis
 * Tin foil hat
 * Urine therapy
 * Vaccines and autism
 * Vaccine hesitancy
 * Wilson's temperature syndrome
 * 5G conspiracies and 5G causes coronavirus theories
 * Christ myth theory
 * Coding (therapy)
 * Feldenkrais Method
 * Hypnosis
 * Hypnotherapy


 * Polygraph
 * Primal therapy
 * Sluggish schizophrenia
 * Subliminal stimuli
 * Unilineal evolution
 * Numerology
 * Bible code
 * Affirmative prayer
 * Christian Science
 * Energy (esotericism)
 * Exorcism
 * Islamic attitudes towards science
 * Narconon
 * Lawsonomy
 * N-ray
 * Penta Water
 * Polywater
 * Time Cube
 * Cattle mutilation
 * Energy (esotericism)
 * Mediumship
 * Reptilian conspiracy theory
 * Levitation (paranormal)
 * Séance
 * Tunguska event

I could definitely use help with this, so anyone who wants to add sources, quotations, or challenge one of these sources, should feel free to do so!— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think the citations on fasting are adequate. They say that various authors have made pseudoscientific claims about fasting; but they don't say that fasting itself is pseudoscience. Most fasting (religious and secular) isn't done for any claimed health benefits, so it's not a topic the label "pseudoscience" could be applied to. Nor have all the health benefits been debunked.
 * The article paragraph suffers from the same issue, since the sources just show that cure-all claims by quacks are pseudoscience. The underlying fasting practice is irrelevant; I've seen authors promote a whole foods diet as a cancer cure, but it's the "cancer cure" that's pseudoscience, not the whole foods diet. DFlhb (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They say that various authors have made pseudoscientific claims about fasting; but they don't say that fasting itself is pseudoscience. This article is about topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience. Various forms/types of fasting have been characterized as pseudoscience. That's what the sourcing shows. Similar to medical uses of silver and aromatherapy, this does not mean all uses of it are pseudoscience. I love the way some essential oils smell, and I'll even use them to block out other smells under my mask during surgery, but I'm not going to use them to cure my patients' cancer. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 05:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Various forms/types of fasting have been characterized as pseudoscience. If that's the case, shouldn't this article be more specific and list these various forms of fasting, instead of fasting itself? Similar to how colloidal silver and aromatherapy are both listed on this article, but medical uses of silver and essential oils are not. Some1 (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, shouldn't this article be more specific and list these various forms of fasting Sure. It should say something akin to "Some fasting diets have been connected to pseudoscientific claims" or similar. That's what we have the ability to verify. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why exorcism is included in this article. Exorcism is not claimed to be a scientific way of treating supernatural events. Exorcism, by definition, is a practice related to supernatural and non science related beliefs and ideas. To say that exorcism is 'pseudo science', one must first prove that Demonology is a pseudoscientific claim. MattJ7 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, since this is a list of topics that someone once called pseudoscience, rather than a list of topics that actually are pseudoscience, then that's probably not necessary. All we need is a source in which someone made the rather silly implicit claim that religion is a branch of science.
 * I wonder, though, whether the WP:List selection criteria for this list is actually restricted to pseudoscience? The sources for the Bates method above, for example, say that it's "fringe" and has "little or no scientific basis" and is "fallacious", but I don't see a characterization as pseudoscience in the quotations.  Is this perhaps a List of some topics characterized as pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, or non-science? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. Historically, people who believes in exorcism doesn't claim that it's has anything to do with natural philosophy/science. It has always been seen as a supernatural practice. So by definition, not scientific. It shouldn't matter if some random person claimed that exorcism is scientific. But if you really want to include exorcism in it, then you should atleast differentiate between that person's version of exorcism and all the other versions of exorcism. One of the most famous examples of exorcisms is Catholic exorcism. But the Catholic Church doesn't claim that exorcism is a part of science. So Catholic exorcisms cannot be called pseudoscience. There are numerous other examples like this. MattJ7 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this list is excluding things that have been called pseudoscience by a tiny minority of sources. The list section criteria are unclear to me.
 * When we're working on a list such as List of common misconceptions, we're usually pretty strict about what gets included. For that list, I believe the usual standard, for anything, is to cite a source that either uses the exact phrase "common misconception" or something very similar.  But it's not obvious to me that strict requirements are being used here.  @Shibbolethink, @Valjean, what do you think?  Do you expect the sources to actually use the word pseudoscience?  Do you expect them to be a majority POV, or at least a significant minority POV?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 01:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 17:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 16:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 23:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 22:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 19:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 11:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Genetic ancestry testing entry
Not my field of expertise, but a quick skim of the topic articles and the cited sources don't seem to establish that this is pseudoscience. The first cited source reads more like an opinion piece, and the other two are far more nuanced to the point where I don't see either as supporting the claim that genetic ancestry testing is pseudoscience.

I'm going to remove the entry pending review here. Granted, the commercial enterprises providing this service may overstate it's reliability or applicability, but that doesn't seem like enough, or if it is we should probably be more specific about which claims are non-scientific rather than describing the entire field as bogus.

Happy to hear other opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Genetic ancestry testing services misleadingly conflate genetic ancestry with ethnic or geographical ancestry, which contradicts mainstream science, as scientists regard genetic ancestry to be distinct from ethnic or geographical ancestry. It has been described as the genetic equivalent of astrology multiple times. The assumptions made by genetic ancestry testing services are criticized by subject-matter experts, and you only need the opinions of subject-matter experts.Helioz9 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is an entry to be had here, but I'm not sure that the current language accurately reflects the sources. Let's see what other editors think. I'm not going to edit-war here, but the preferred approach is to reach consensus on the talk page before re-reverting an edit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit-war According to WP:BRD, User:Helioz9 is the one who is misbehaving here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverting per WP:BRD and edit note/general consensus, if this is a notability pseudo scientific claim it should be all over Genealogical DNA testing. We can't just name-call here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The topic article says the following:
 * The reliability of this type of test is dependent on comparative population size, the number of markers tested, the ancestry informative value of the SNPs tested, and the degree of admixture in the person tested. Earlier ethnicity estimates were often wildly inaccurate, but as companies receive more samples over time, ethnicity estimates have become more accurate.
 * If that contradicts the reliable sources, the place to fix it is there, not create a WP:POVFORK here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources seem to point to a misconception, not pseudo-scientific research, fanned by claims made by an industry re:genetic connection is far more complicated than the industry lets on. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This whole thing started over reverting User:Helioz9 edits on Drake's DNA test results, the edit war has been going since October 24 2023. The user's comments have included: "'WP:PROFRINGE there is no scientific consensus that someone's ethnicity can be determined by a DNA test', 'That doesn't resolve the problems with the WP:FRINGE source that claims DNA tests can pinpoint the ancestral lineage of an individual person' 'while the tests may not inherently be pseudoscience, they are typically falsely misinterpreted as being able to determine ancestry or ethnicity, making them unreliable sources for making statements about ancestry or ethnicity.'" and because there was "no talk page consensus" the user feels it is ok to repeatedly remove the information again on said page. The only source the user cited originally was a journal from 2007, but the technology for DNA testing has advanced greatly in 17 years. Would prefer to see journal sources from the last 2-3 years making similar claims and less dated view points. The user went on to add a 'Ancestry and ethnicity' section in Common misunderstandings of genetics. There should be quality recent sources and a general consensus instead of adding/removing information at will.

The overarching umbrella of genetics and genetic genealogy are not pseudosciences. From what it seems there are two topics of contention to focus on, the one being genealogical DNA tests and the other being race and genetics. Important to have distinction between debating on both, or which one of the two to focus on. Are there merely limitations and nuances in these fields? Or do they actually have no basis with the scientific method? I think the main issue here are misconceptions and laypeople who over-interpret commercial DNA testing services they buy. I also think part of the confusion here is how datasets from DNA tests change as reference databases grow and improve, but are initially based more on probability, may have inaccuracies and give ancestral trivia.

What are the "criteria" for inclusion?
Hello,

I recently added an entry to this page, but it was reverted as "not meeting the criteria". Unlike many list pages, I do not see any list of criteria for inclusion. Please elaborate on what the criteria is for inclusion and what specific criteria would be violated by including the proposed entry. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, this looks like a List of common misconceptions entry. The criteria is for inclusion in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is in the title - an area of scientific study that someone else has labeled pseudoscience. The area would be "Lift"? and somebody called it a pseudoscience? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see upthread that specific criteria for inclusion is either absent or is undergoing discussion. Over at List of common misconceptions there is specific criteria and I think it would be useful to have something similar here.
 * (As for my reverted entry, I can't find a reliable source that labels it as pseudoscience so my objection to it being reverted is easily dismissed. So, let's agree not to argue about it.)
 * A couple of places to start would be MOS:LABEL which states:
 * For the term pseudoscience: per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline Fringe theories, the term pseudoscience, if supported by reliable sources, may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science.
 * and WP:FRINGE/PS, which like MOS:LABEL establishes a minimum criteria of when something may be described as pseudoscience. I suppose we could just refer new editors to those policies, but I think it would be helpful to have some synopsis of that here.
 * While not part of the manual of style or other Wikipedia policy, the article on Pseudoscience provides a definition of the term and perhaps we could incorporate that here. My opinion is that Wikipedia should be internally consistent, so the definition provided by the topic article (Pseudoscience) should be applied to this article's inclusion criteria.
 * On the subject of topic articles, reading previous discussions here, there seems to be disagreement on whether the topic article must treat the item as pseudoscience should be an inclusion criteria. My take is that since
 * 1) Wikipedia should be internally consistent and
 * 2) editors at the topic article are likely to be more familiar with the subject than editors here so we should defer to their judgment
 * that should be an inclusion criteria.
 * Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that Wikipedia should be internally consistent Your opinion is not consistent with WP:RS. If an RS says that something is pseudoscience, but uses a different definition from Wikipedia's, and Wikipedia's definition does not fit, then WP:RS demands that we should include it while your internally consistency criterion demands that we should exclude it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Restored "unwarranted"
Discussed at User talk:Hob Gadling. Should be held here. - DVdm (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * My comments on the matter can be found in my edit summaries, but I will recapitulate -- stating that the doubt is unwarranted is unnecessary. Given that the name of this page is topics characterized as pseudoscience, and the other forms of denialism (i.e., Germ theory denialism, Holocaust denial) discussed here do not have that description attached to them, I don't see why "unwarranted" is a necessary description. The fact that the doubt is unwarranted is proven by the description of the article name. "Unwarranted" just seems extraneous. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Subjective?
The climate change denial thing feels subjective, yes, the climate has changed over the billions of years, but when the earth cooled down rapidly 3.8 billion years ago, why can't it warm up again? 82.168.190.109 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

How is skepticism a (pseudo-)science?
Please remove 'GMO skepticism' from the list. Skepticism of a theory does not qualify as a science, so it cannot possibly pose as one.

Thanks in advance! 2A01:C22:AC2F:F900:2805:68CE:2EB3:10CA (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Skepticism is a not a pseudo-science. For the reason why GMO skepticism is —and likely will remain— on the list, see Genetically modified food controversies. - DVdm (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Entire article in need of an overhaul?
Visitors to this page have devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to arguing whether individual entries on this enormous list belong there, and sometimes to whether or not a single word should stay or go. But since the basic premise of the whole article is so flawed as to render it both useless and embarrassing, does it really matter what is or isn't included?

Most dictionaries (including Wikipedia) define pseudoscience as that which wrongly claims to be science. Therefore concepts such as exorcism or faith healing are not pseudoscience because they aren't any kind of science and never claimed to be. Whether or not they work is beside the point. If it wasn't, every religious, magical, or superstitious belief ever held to be true by anyone would belong on this list, and it would be a very, very long list indeed!

Except that this isn't a list of things which are pseudoscience according to any definition other than the one at the beginning of this article, which appears to be "anything described using the word 'pseudoscience' in any context by the authors of any books we choose to define as our source material". Using similar logic, I could write an equally useful article proving just as conclusively that almost everything listed here is real science because I can cite a published (or at least self-published) source chosen by me which says so.

Of course, most if not all of my sources would be cranks or outright nutters, but so what? It states quite clearly at the start of this article that whether or not the authors of the designated source material have any relevant qualifications, or indeed any qualifications at all, is unimportant, as are all other considerations, so long as they've used the word 'pseudoscience' in connection with a topic on the list.

Consider a simiarly compiled list of Nazis. I think most historians would define a Nazi as a member of a German political and ideological movement called the National Socialist Party which ceased to exist in 1945. Therefore if my list included Volodymyr Zelenskyy they'd raise a few objections, such as the fact that he wasn't even born until 1978. Ah, but this is a list of people characterised as Nazis! And Vladimir Putin has repeatedly characterised Zelenskyy as a Nazi, so he belongs on the list, even if he isn't a Nazi in any meaningful sense.

Putting it another way, what the authors of this dismal listicle appear to be saying is that whether or not something is pseudoscience is simply a matter of opinion. In fact, not even that. It's all down to name-calling. Claiming that something is pseudoscience because somebody who in their own opinion and yours, though not necessarily anybody else's, wrote a book in which they used that word to describe it is the reasoning behind religious dogma, and indeed a great deal of pseudoscience. And as I've already pointed out, the same argument can be turned on its head to prove its own exact opposite.

Seriously, this reads like something written by little boys who would be better suited to compiling one of those articles you have listing every appearance ever of obscure comic-book characters, including that time they popped up in the background of one panel of somebody else's comic by mistake after they were supposed to be dead. What you really need to do is flush the whole mess and start again, ideally with a title such as "List of major pseudoscientific topics" rather than a clumsily worded get-out clause allowing people too thick to write the article you ought to have here to cobble together a lazy, ramshackle approximation of it then pat themselves on the back and self-identify as clever.

Before you ask, no, I'm not going to write it. I've got better things to do than spend the next few years arguing with the kind of people who can write gibberish like this without a trace of irony, let alone self-awareness. All things considered, I'm pretty sure I'd get sick of edit-warring long before they did.

Oh, by the way, since many of you appear to enjoy having long discussions about whether or not individual words should stay or go, perhaps you should apply your mighty intellects to paragraph 1, line 4, because I strongly suspect "practices-efforts" isn't a proper word at all. Have fun! 86.130.66.52 (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)