Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 3

Lie detector (polygraph)
I'm adding the polygraph here which received a very bad report from the NAS in 2003

Peter Duesberg and AIDS reappraisal
The inclusion of Peter Duesberg and the AIDS reappraisal moviment is in contradiciton of the afirmation earlier in the article that "Pseudoscience should not be confused with unpopular or minority-opinion scientific theories".

Peter Duesberg IS a scientist, he was being considered for a Nobel before he started promoting his views on Aids. An he is not the only scientist with great credentials that argue against the HIV theory.

The scientific method is NOT based con consensus, so is not right to put the "non-HIV theory" in the same place as Atlantis, Lemuria, and other real pseudoscience.

Even though he's a scientist it's still pseudoscience. There is no scientific backing - no studies, peer-reviewed articles, etc. Profonikz 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Unreferenced
This entire article is unreferenced. The opening intro says that these lists are basically made up of opinion, so I fear that the NPOV tag will be hard to overcome. This articles seems like a likely candidate for an AfD. Levine2112 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the above discussions. We can't have this article tagged and then the dispute settled every time a new editor comes along and reads the article for the first time. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How was the "unsourced" dispute resolved? This is a long list without any references. Levine2112 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of lists on Wikipedia don't have references. The criterion inclusion is a reference on an item's corresponding article (this is the convention elsewhere). Items have and continue to be removed due to there being no sourced declaration on the item's article that the concept or area of endeavor is pseudoscientific. The introduction to this list says as much, and this is how your concern has been settled before on this very talk page. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So that we are crystal clear, if an item listed here has a corresponding article which makes no inference that the item is considered pseudoscientific then it can be removed from this list without contention? Levine2112 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we just went through this with the quackery list. It seems that lists have to be NPOV and verified with reliable sources as well, especially if contentious.  It shouldn't be as hard with this list as quackery, because it was hard to find reliable sources that actually called something quackery.  Pseudosciences should have some references somewhere, but otherwise if it is not referenced it could theoretically be taken off according to WP:verifiability. --Dematt 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Remove at your leisure, and if someone thinks it should still be on the list, it'll be their responsibility to justify it with citations. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 02:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Title change. Suggestions?
List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts seems incorrect and misleading if this article is just a list of disciplines which some critics have labelled "pseudoscientific" but in actuality the disciplines may not be. No immediate suggestions come to mind that aren't as clunky and long as something such as List of concepts which may or may not be pseudoscientific. I know that sounds ridiculous but in essence that is what the opening paragraph is saying. So it is pretty damning to put something under this article because regarding of the opening paragraph, the title of this article suggests guilt. This is equivalent to a List of evil people and then have an opening paragraph that says that this is a list of people which may or may not be evil in truth but someone (perhaps a rival) may have called them evil. Would you want your name on that list? I certainly would not. I'm not sure if I would even want my name on a list entitled List of people who may or may not be evil because any association with that list may suggest impropriety.

Anyone have any suggestions as to how to rename this article into something less damning? Otherwise, I would suggest removing everything which is is "iffy" - which may or may not be - and just leave the things which are hard to dispute as anything but pseudoscience (i.e. Intelligent Design). Levine2112 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The title should stay. Few people would want to be on the list of serial killers, either, but the concepts "serial killer" and "pseudoscience" are not normative. Both have truth conditions that are empirical in nature. This is in contrast with "evil," which is a normative concept. Finally, the requirement for this list that scientists have labeled a practice pseudoscientific is in place because of WP:NOR and WP:V. If you think an item should be removed, do so (especially if the corresponding article fails to establish with reliable sources that the practice or concept is pseudoscientific) or bring it up here for discussion. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that pseudoscience should be a truth condition. But if that holds true here - if there is an empirical way to determine if a discipline is in fact a pseudoscience - then why the need for the intro which makes it clear that the disciplines in the following lists may or may not truly be pseudoscience; that they may be have been placed here because a critic of a discipline called it pseudoscientific or that a rival with a competeing theory said it to be so or that science in large still hasn't made up its mind about the discipline. To me, this intro makes the application of the "pseudoscience" label sound like a grey area and not a black-or-white, it-is-or-it-isn't empirical determination. Therefore, my question is: if pseudoscience is a yes/no conditional label determined by empirical truths, then why the need to explain that some of the disciplines listed here may or may not be an actual example of pseudoscience? Levine2112 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning the introduction, I think it's because a compromise was made with someone who objected to the inclusion of a pet discipline. You can remove it to see if anyone comes here to complain, and we'll find out more. Personally, I don't think any such qualifications should be made in the introduction. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My fear is that skeptics (and pseudoskeptics) like to brandish this label and often time you hear them misattributing the psedoscience label to discipline. I can't even pretend to be an expert in all of the fields listed on this article and I certainly cannot tell you if each of them are empirically pseudoscience. If I remove that paragraph then I would be guilty of perhaps making this article even more POV. If we change the title to include the phrase "alleged to be" (for instance) then that might clear up the POV issue, but then it makes the article weaker and perhaps more weaselly. This is a rock-and-a-hard place scenario indeed. Levine2112 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia policy concerning crackpot theories?
I'm curious if there is any policy at wikipedia concerning crackpot theories. Sometimes, these theories become embedded in popular culture, and hence deserve a page in an encyclopedia. However, should every single crackkpot idea that has one or two promoters be given space here? I recently came across a page suggesting wierd gravitational effects occur during a solar eclipse (the Allais effect). The topic is well written, and altough the NPOV could be improved somewhat, I am not sure if this article should be put up for deletion or not. Lunokhod 13:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You might check out WP:FRINGE for a start. --- LuckyLouie 20:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion
This article survived a nomination for deletion Articles for deletion/List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific conceptsJeepday 12:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Added noncompliant template tag

 * Wow, sure wish I would have seen this one earlier. Lists also need to be NPOV and verifiable with RS. This doesn't, it needs work. --Dematt 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to give constructive arguments, not just your opinion. Count Iblis 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Count Iblis, thanks for recognizing my concerns. As far as what this article needs, well, as lists are in the article space they must conform to article policies of NPOV, WP:verifiability and WP:RS as a necessity, especially controversial subjects. This article needs work in at least tow areas:
 * 1) as per Lists the defintion for inclusion needs be specific and well defined - this list is iffy and general.
 * 2) should not be hard to find V and RS to add the subjects that should be on the list. If not, it could well be WP:OR.  Note that the source should not be the editor's interpretation of the author as well.  That takes a lot off the list right there.

So, after seeing that the list is not sourced, it appears that this is just a pejorative list that is used to denegrate anything that a particular editor wants - which is not the purpose of WP.

My suggestions would be to either work to add sources to the list of names already (lots of work), delete names without sources(easier but not civil), or perhaps merge the article with WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism. --Dematt 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that for most entries in the list the sources are mentioned in the articles about the listed topics. The only problem is the that you can have topics that should be on the list and that aren't mentioned here. So, the list could be biased in that way.


 * Can give some examples of items on the list that shouldn't be on the list and explain why not? Count Iblis 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize, Count, that you were not the one to start this article, but if you want, you might be able to improve it. It might well have a good purpose for some, but I suspect the best use is for the skeptic group as a reference for their workgroup.  To be considered reliable (part of WP:NOR - one of the three cornerstones of policy) it is going to have to be referenced so as to avoid OR.  Articles in WP cannot be used as a source, mostly because an article on WP is in constant flux and you never know when it might be full of OR.  Just because it might say something, doesn't make it so.  List members really require their own references to stay on the article namespace.  I don't have a problem with anything in particular on this list, but I do have a problem if this list is circulating as fact in the real world, and I think we all should be concerned about that. Moving it to project space should avoid that. --Dematt 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dematt, this has been discussed and settled before, repeatedly, on this very talk page (you actually participated in one of these discussions and made the exact same points there as you have made here). To be on here, the listed article must make a sourced claim that the scientific community considers the field/concept to be pseudoscientific. While unconventional, this sourcing method is distinct from merely citing another Wikipedia article. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly we discussed my concerns, but I wouldn't consider it settled. You even agreed that this is not conventional.  All I have done is exercise my right to be bold and assert that this article is not up to WP policy by adding the appropriate tag.  When asked to discuss the tag, I responded with my reasons and when queried again, my solutions.  I am certainly not the end all editor for this article, but I do wish I would have been notified about the AfD, I would have suggested this then.  However, that doesn't mean it still isn't the right thing to do. Right now all I have done is add a tag. Where it goes from here is up to us. Why do you think it should stay as it is? --Dematt 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think first, we need to discuss the list criteria. That is laid out very specifically in the article. What about it do you consider too broad? If that becomes narrowed, that may prune the list itself right away. Then we can move on to the sourcing debate. -- Kesh 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of this list could be replaced by using the category tags on the individual articles. Each entry in the list if biased that way the experts looking after each article can decide if pseudoscience is an appropriate category for that article. There are problems with the characterization itself. Furthermore, characterising any field as pseudoscience risks venturing into POV land. For example, I object to characterising Neuro-linguistic programming as a pseudoscience because this is not the general consensus in the peer-reviewed literature. To the contrary, it is strongly argue that NLP can be tested and for additional research to be carried out. There is also a current university funded research project and small, but constant, research published in doctoral dissertations and peer-review journals, see my list Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. --Comaze 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse attempting that solution. Arker 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. A properly tagged Category is preferable to a list. Also, I note that QuackGuru has started up List of articles related to scientific skepticism again. I think the same applies to that list. Once each list has most of its articles properly categorized, the lists themselves should be deleted. -- Kesh 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a word of warning. This list began as a solution for the edit wars that resulted from trying to apply the PS category to articles.  Comaze, you are absolutely correct, as are most anybody that argues that PS is not a proper label to apply in an encyclopedia environment.  Ours is to educate, not denigrate.  To apply a subjective pejorative term to anything other than a handful of articles could be construed as nothing more than POV pushing. However, to use a list such as this in the rational or scientific skepticism workspace is okay with me. --Dematt 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd object to this approach. Categories do not allow for annotation, and in a controversial category such as this, annotation is going to be needed in the form of reliable sources (especially since my previously-proposed solution is probably not going to mesh well with policy; see WP:LISTS and WP:CLS). Once properly referenced, the only thing that will be necessary is to deal with those who object to their pet "theory" getting listed here. That generally isn't a problem. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Annotation and sources should be added to each article - that's not a problem. Arker 00:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:CAT:
 * "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."
 * So, yes, it is a problem. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is important for us to consider here: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics."WP:LISTS --Comaze 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is very important. Unfortunately this list has never complied with that requirement, and having watched it for some time I see no hope that it will ever comply with that requirement. Arker 01:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No, it's not. We're not talking about just slapping up a category and calling it a day. The articles themselves would need an explanation of why they are labelled as pseudoscience, complete with reliable sources for that claim. I'm sure that will prove controversial, but it's more relevant to the article itself than a list that people will likely never see. -- Kesh 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One advantage to this approach would be that the editors familiar with each subject would be in a position to give input and provide sources for and against inclusion, rather than a separate group of editors making these decisions without input from those most familiar with the subject matter in question. This could only be an improvement. Arker 01:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A list people will never see? This list gets more drop-in edits than most standard articles and almost as many as the Pseudoscience article itself. That's indicative of a relatively large amount of traffic. Handling sources to establish each entry as pseudoscientific is easier when done at a central source (i.e., a list like this). Really tending to Category:Pseudoscience would lead to monstrous, multi-article dispute involving dozens of people. If anything should be deleted, it's the category. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue is the number of people seeing it, it's which people see it. If someone wants to list subject foo as a pseudoscience, the people that are familiar with foo are the ones that need to be heard from, not just the people who choose to concern themselves with the pseudoscience list. Arker 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look how we handled this on the Neuro-linguistic programming article. It is heavily cited and is still a work in progress but we are now working towards feature article candidate. Under classifying NLP, we've included views of both proponents and skeptics. To end the heavy edit warring we were very careful to use full quotes and careful paraphrasing in date order. The problems came when people tried to synthesize or provide pseudoscience categorisations without citing reliable sources. I can certainly understand Simoes concerns. --Comaze 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again.
Given the talk going on here, and the fact that QuackGuru included the recration of his list in mainspace, I think folks here may want to keep an eye on this: Articles for deletion/List of articles related to scientific skepticism. The results of that AfD will likely affect this article as well: if it's considered fine to tag a list with 368 references to keep it in mainspace, I'd say that will affect this discussion. -- Kesh 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge this page
I think the only real option to do this correctly is to merge this list with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism. It will never be verifiable with reliable sources. They can use it for their purposes of "watching" articles that they are concerned about and not have to worry about being NPOV on the project page where it won't be linked to. The PS category is already there and working the way it is supposed to, with editors requiring V ad RS. If some of these subjects aren't in the PS category list, it is probably because they are not supposed to be. Lets just get it over with. If you guys agree, lets merge. --Dematt 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I believe you mean to merge it into this page: WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism - Levine2112 03:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your correct - thanks. --Dematt 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed --Comaze 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That list should have been deleted as indiscriminate information, and it's a shame it survived a MfD nomination. As the items on the present list are largely already found on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism, merging would amount to little more than deleting. This flies in the face of the consensus reach at this article's AfD nomination discussion (even excluding later "speedy keep" votes that were due to the nominator being a probable sockpuppet). I'm not understanding why the new arrivals to this talk page are resistant to the idea of getting to work on finding reliable sources for all the entries.<b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll point out I'm hardly a 'new arrival.' I have had this pile on my watch list forever. I abandoned trying to do more than just watch it and try to remove obviously improper additions a long time ago though. I think there's a serious structural problem with the list, I don't think it will ever be encyclopædic or in conformance to properly applicable policy, and that's not a 'new arrival' opinion it's one that's come with time. Why don't you explain exactly what value this list brings to wikipedia that the category doesn't already cover? Arker 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we have to bring it in line with NPOV, V and RS? Even if we get the lead to be NPOV and in line with WP List requirements, we still have to perform V and RS citing.  We will likely lose at least 90% of the articles.  Do you disagree? --Dematt 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. And 90% sounds pretty accurate too. Levine2112 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't recall specific POV complaints about the opening. Bringing it in line with WP:RS does the same with WP:V, and vice versa. And, no, it's not going to be overly difficult to get sources for the vast majority of these entries. The entire Astronomy section, for example, has already been covered (though not using tags). I find your prediction pessimistic and unproductive. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I am sounding pessimistic. I am only stating things as I see them.  The POV complaint is that the inclusion criteria for this list is vague and allows for POV insertions into the list. We have to clean that up.  If we do that, then we will have to require that V and RS call the subject a PS.  V and RS is going to require strict adherence to the quality of the source and what it said.  We cannot call something a PS simply because it was "disproven", because that does not automatically mean anything - to the contrary, that's what made it scientific.  We will have to have reliable sources (opinions and primary sources won't do this time) that explicitly call it a pseudoscience and explains why it qualifies (No OR).  If you think we can do that, I'll take the tag off myself? --Dematt 04:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you requirements for reliable sources in this case? How about a PMID for the medical related theories? Otherwise, it should be peer-reviewed, and if there are replies they should also be included to balance it. --Comaze 07:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comaze, you are on the right track. Each field will have differnet criteria, basically because every field of science has different limitations that they have to deal with.  Math and physics use complicated concepts that can be tested with experiments yet psychology has to work within the bounds of the human mind.  How do you test that?  I don't know and neither do you, but someone within the psychology field has a good grasp on the state of the science.  Do you ask a pharmaceutical company if psychology is pseudoscience? No.. psychologists don't prescribe drugs, of course they call them pseudoscientists.  So every reference chould be evaluated according to its author.  Some may be PhDs and peer reviewed and that would be great, but there is a good chance that somebody else with the same degree disagrees and NPOV suggests that we state that here on this page, not in the article. --Dematt 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Dematt -- good to be back and to see you and Levine and Fyslee again, even if it means I'm staying up too late! I would suggest holding off on deleting or merging for now.  For one thing, pragmatically, a significant and vocal plurality of scientific-skepticism-oriented Wikipedians will object.  And I think that the PS meme is sufficiently well-established to be the subject of a list if, as you rightly suggest, we make sure we abide by NPOV, VER and NOR.
 * Rather than deleting or merging, I think that it might be better to fact-tag each entry and work to provide citations, as Simoes suggests. Simoes imo completely nails it when he points out that lists are, per WP:CG, less POV-ish than categories insofar as lists can be annotated.  I think that we should be able to steer a course between NPOV and VER/NOR here, and find significant voices saying foo is pseudoscientific, while at the same time making clear that the criteria for inclusion are somewhat fuzzy.  Inadvertently, before reading the discussion here, I added a sentence and a couple sources to acupuncture; fwiw, it's a start!
 * Speaking of categories, this is kind of weird: Category:Voodoo_science.  The term "voodoo science" is, I gather, a meme coined by Robert Park.  I'm not sure it's notable enough to be a category (indeed a sort of "super-category") on WP.  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Simoes is right, but then that means that, if this list is to remain in article space, it has to follow the same guidelines that articles do. It has to be NPOV and using V and RS.  I personally don't think Acupuncture has V and RS that state that it is PS.  Everything I have read shows me that any reliable source that I have read recognizes ACU for exactly what it is, an interesting modality with centuries of data that needs more study.  Period.  Nobody would call it PS unless they had a vested interest in saying so.  It may belong on other lists, but not PS. Just because TCM created models to help them decide how to treat, doesn't mean they didn't use good solid thinking to come up with those models.  We just don't know that, yet.  It needs more study.  It needs to be stated that way.  To say anything else is to stifle true scientific thought and investigation.  How can we advance mankind (which is the purpose of science) when we poopoo things before they are studied properly. This encyclopedia should not do that either. Jimbo set this up and it works when we follow the rules.  When we don't, we create something that borders quackery itself. --Dematt 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Apollo moon landing hoax accusations
I think the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations fall more into the "conspiracy theory" category rather than the "pseudoscience" category. --Candy-Panda 04:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Candy-Panda, you have every right to remove it from the list or ask for a reference to support it being here. --Dematt 04:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are not pseudoscientific concepts involved in the moon hoax. NASA lied about the trip, but they didn't claim to get there with a perpetual motion machine. 129.44.172.8 11:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been a reference to support it being there for a long time now (see the section). It's from a reliable source, too–the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To make it easier to see, I converted it to the proper format using tags. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is my point. It is not our job to weigh the merits of each purported "science".  We are not qualified, and even if we were, we are not supposed to make that determination.  We just report what we read from reliable sources.  If there is no source specifically stating that it is pseudoscience, then it does not belong on this list.  Also note that just because somebody makes a web site that calls everything they don't like a pseudoscience does not mean it is.  This is a serious scientific endeavor that requires high quality neutral party type sources.  To be sure to be NPOV in controversial concepts, there should be equal quality sources that disagree and the discussion needs to be made here, not just on the "article".  Then we will be heading in the right direction in providing something valuable. --Dematt 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. If by "that" determination you mean "determining that it's a pseudoscience by ourselves," then I never made such a claim. And this isn't a case of some random Joe making a website. It's from an academic society. Would you mind clarifying your comment? <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Simoes, I was responding to the post above yours. But, in regards to the reference you made, here's the problem. I looked at the reference given for Man on the moon .  I don't see him callin this concept pseudoscience.  That is not saying that it is correct, valid, fringe, or even pseudoscience, but he didn't say it.  He used the word fringe science in the paragraph, but most of all, he characterized it as information that should be viewed with a "skeptic's eye".  That is where this belongs; in a list for scientific skeptics to look at.  Nothin more, nothing less.  Because even he did not say it was pseudoscience because he would not put his reputation on the line.  If he won't do it, we shouldn't.  See what I mean.  If these are all classified and placed on the lists that they really belong, whether it be fringe science, creation science, medical science, non-science, or whatever science, then we would not have much on this list. This list should be small because real scientists call very few things pseudoscience. --Dematt 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Again
Pizzazz, Simoes is right. This article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. It is a better option than a category because categories can't be made NPOV. This list can. There are certainly things that belong on a list of pseudoscience, we just need to clean it up. --Dematt 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead
This is the current lead: 1) First step is that we have to define "critics" in the first sentence.
 * The following is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects. Some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community. Note that the pseudoscience label may be applied by disputants working in the same field to disparage a competing theory or form of argument used by a rival; by commentators from outside a field to disparage a whole field; merely to characterise the fact that a theory published in a popular book has no academic credibility whatsoever; or in reference to a theory now discarded. See the individual articles for more information.

2)The rest is just weaseling to add a POV field. Any suggestions? --Dematt 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics section
I took out Prescientific system because it seems to be OR. What seems to be left is not characteristcs of PS but things that are not PS (fringe, minority, etc.) so I changed the section heading. I'm okay with anything that you might feel needs reverting, just trying to clarify what does belong on this list. --Dematt 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning
Okay, I've chopped a lot, but we can put some back in if we want. We're still missing the criteria for inclusion that is not vague. I am not sure that we need the two sections that were in the Characteristics (now Pseudoscience is not) section. How is it looking so far? I'll pause and let anybody make comments from here. --Dematt 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You've done a marvellous job. I wonder though if we will ever be able to make this list completely Wiki-compliant. I fear that tag at the top of the article is there to stay. You know? Levine2112 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you find a way to write the inclusion criteria that won't be vague? --Dematt 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't. I wish there was a steadfast rule of inclusion here. I look at the list and one of the first entries is Mount Ararat. Is the mountain a pseudoscience or a pseudoscientific concept? Bear in mind, while science may not accepts the story of Noah's Ark, the mountain is real. I mean it is a real mountain. It isn't a concept. It's a large mass of rocks projecting out of the Earth in Turkey. I mean if there was a theory purported as science that was called the Mount Ararat Theory that claimed that Noah's Ark landed there, then perhaps it should be included. Otherwise, we should have entries here for every mountain, river, and land mentioned in the bible's text. I know this is ridiculous, but I am trying to make a point. If this is a list of things kind of/sort of related to pseudoscientific theories, then fine. I can sort of see why Mount Ararat would be included here then. But that is not what the title of this article claims to be. Everything listed here should be a concept that has been reliably labelled and widely agreed upon as pseudoscience. Make sense? Levine2112 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Once we get the inclusion criteria correct, then the sources will either be there or they won't be. We don't have to worry about the actual listed items yet.  Don't even look at them. We are not supposed to make the criteria = the list, the list is supposed to = the criteria.  That is half the problem.  This criteria was adjusted so that more could be placed in it.  Unfortunately, it was adjusted to shear nonsense.  All we have to do is bring it back. --Dematt 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Then I think you are awfully close here. Levine2112 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Impossible task
Wow, look at this. It is the edit history of this article since 2003 when it started. This article has been through this very same thing from the beginning. Ever feel like we're on one big rollercoaster ride;) It's obvious that this is going to be a big time waster for all of us.  I think I'll revert to the beginning, take out the prescientific stuff and keep the tag on it.  This article may never be able to cut it, so it should have a tag on it.  It really should be in PS projectspace, but i won't push it if you guys want it here.  For now, I don't think there should be much argument in taking anything off this list that does not have a reference.  If it ever comes up for a vote to Merge or Move, I'll go that way.  Sorry I put everyone through this, but I had to give it a try.  Thanks for listening.  --Dematt 01:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Four years! Wow. More like a carousel than a roller coaster. Just ggoing roand-and-round and not getting anywhere. I agree. This article would be better suited for Project Space. Levine2112 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If we go along with this rationale, we should also put the George W. Bush and evolution articles on project space, too. Please feel free to work on other articles on your watch lists if you don't think this one is improvable. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear you, Simões. And I don't think this is a matter of how much time we put into this article. I just think it shows that in all of this time and all of this enery we arrive at the same place where we were 4 years ago! George Bush and evolution might be articles with heated debate, but the two topics are definable concepts with various world POVs surrounding them. Even the article Pseudoscience is a little better than a list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Pseudoscience is at least a definable concept. Now then, inclusion into a list of things that are pseudosciences or pseudoscientific is a whole other matter. Inclusion should have hard-and-fast criteria. The problem here is that the criteria is soft and vague. (* * See my comment on Mount Ararat above * *) If we can nail down the criteria for inclusion, that would be another matter, but thus far (in at least 4 years) no editors have been successful at this. Please give suggestions if you have any ideas on how we can do this here together. Levine2112 02:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend a sole criterion of an Academy of Sciences (national or regional level) declaring a field or concept pseudoscientific. I can't really see there being conflicting declarations on something, but if we ever come across one, we can just note it next to the list item. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Simoes, you might be on to something with Academy of Sciences! Are you aware of any statments that they have made pertaining to this?  Lets look at them. --Dematt 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's one from the Iowa Academy of Sciences. If we do end up going by the "Academy" standard, that would cover a number of the items on this list. I do note, however, that this declaration is hosted on a scientist's personal website, and the scientist is probably not a member of Iowa's Academy. Ideally, would should find statements in print and/or on the websites of the Academies themselves. I'll dig some more. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I found a copy of the statement on the Iowa Academy's website. Huzzah! <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That does seem like a step in the right direction. Let confirm that AoS passes WP:RS more than any other source or at least a reasonable amount. Oh, and here is that statement from Iowa Academy from their actual site. It does date back to 1987 unfortunately (science is ever changing and getting a more up-to-date source would be more reliable). Levine2112 03:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm liking what I am seeing so far. --Dematt 03:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And what kind of yell is Huzzah!:) --Dematt 03:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Huzzah! ;) <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, it even has it's own article! Mine doesn't Ho yeah! :)--Dematt 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I created User:Simoes/Sandbox/Pseudoscience list sources so the sources we find can be listed in a central place instead of being scattered through comments. Feel free to add to the list if you find something. If any entries are disputable in your opinion, bring it up on the talk page there. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 03:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that any list of this sort should also include the replies from the proponents of the theory in question. If there is ongoing research, counter-arguments or proposed changes in methdology to bring it in line with the scientific method, then this should be included. Should this post be here, or in the sandbox? --Comaze 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This post belongs here, and it is a very good point. I agree.  It seems to me that, if we make a sPOV statement by the AoS, then all other POVs should have a shot at it, unless it is an extreme minority POV.  That would keep the article NPOV according to the same guidelines that all articles.  That could make for a very large article if we allow narrative type explanations, though.  Should there be limitationss? --Dematt 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Medicine Section Is Not Pseudosciences Or Pseudoscientific Concepts"
The medicine section does not really fit into this article. I will create a new article specifically for the section. This list is longer than the scientific skepticism list. It may be possible to create more new articles for specific topics to narrow the focus here. I believe this will work. Before deleting any information from this article consider making a new article for specific topics. A new article has been created. The entire medicine section does not fit this article. I am beginning to agree with what Levin2112 has told me in the past. Now, it is time to clean up this article. Editors have cleaned up the scientific skepticism article and now lets at least make an attempt to make this list more focused. I vote to remove the entire medicine section aggressively. It is not pseudosciences or pseudoscientific concepts. Accupunture is not pseudosciences or pseudoscientific concepts. For membership on controversial lists such as this one please supply references demonstrating it is pseudosciences or pseudoscientific concepts. Members only please! --QuackGuru 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So you don't like that acupuncture is on the list. This hardly warrants wiping the entire section. Do you have any others with which you disagree being there? Also, in case you didn't read the recent discussions while you were scrolling past them, please note that we're working on a solution for the entire list. You are invited to join in. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire medicine section is about medicine. It has no business in this article. This is obvious. The solution is simple. The only way to save the medcine section is with a new article for the subject matter. A laundry list will never fly on Wikipedia. This huge list is way longer than the scientific skepticism list. I will rvert your edit and then click on the link. Solution solved for the medicine section! Thanks, QuackGuru 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)--
 * What did you expect the medicine section to be about? Cheerleading? The Physics section is all about physics-related pseudoscience, too. Do we also have to "save" that section by creating a new article? Please explain your position better, but also please cool it with the choppiness and new article creation for now and join the main article improvement discussions. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The medicine section is not pseudosciences or pseudoscientific concepts. The solution is to remove it or new article. BTY, I already created the new article. We must get serious. Just because it looks good to have it in this article does not mean it belongs. I want to save the medicine section with the creation of a new article. Thanks, --QuackGuru 00:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be some that are arguably not pseudoscientific, but others, like AIDS reappraisal, are more clearly so. And, once again, you're missing the boat entirely here. We're discussing how to improve the entire article. Leave your quibbles with particular entries or sections aside for now and join the main discussions. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, no. AIDS reappraisal is NOT unfalsifiable. The medical mainstream, in fact, insists not only that it is testable, but that it has been falsified. So in no way is this even arguably pseudoscience - no matter how wrong it is.
 * More generally, I think Quackguru has a point - medicine is not science. Quackery is not pseudoscience. They may be related, but they are not identical. Arker 01:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll settle whether this or that item belongs on the list once we get our sources in order. As for whether medicine is a science, here is the first sentence of the Medicine article: "Medicine (or Biomedicine) is a branch of health science..." <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will let you sort things out and then in the future when consensus is reached that almost the entire medicine section does not belong here we can get to work on a new stub. Cheers, --QuackGuru 01:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

New problem, new solution
Okay, so proclamations from Academies of Sciences are not getting us near the amount of items we want. As I noted here, national and regional academies only make statements on pseudoscience when there is a concern that a particular pseudoscience is finding its way into education or government. Only a few pseudosciences ever get this far. My solution for this is to allow two more types of sources: statements from specialized scientific organizations (e.g., a society of plasma physicists), and statements/publications from scientific skepticism organizations. This last bunch will most certainly fill out the list, but there may be some concern that these skepticism organizations are a little too trigger-happy, labeling anything that smells funny to them "pseudoscience."

This concern may be addressable by separating out list members by the three source types. At the top will be the section listing pseudosciences as declared by the generalist Academies. These Academies are definitely our most reliable sources, as their broad membership (in terms of being cross-specialization) makes their released statements highly indicative of what the scientific community as a whole thinks.

Next will be the section of fields and concepts declared by specialized societies to be pseudoscientific. Such societies, while not as broadly representative as the Academies, are arguably highly representative of specialists. This makes their statements (arguably) not quote as good of reliable sources as statements by Academies but still sufficiently reliable for policy purposes.

Finally, there will be the items declared by the skeptic organizations to be pseudoscientific. Without a doubt, this section will be the largest. Declarations from these organizations are the least likely to be agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (though I think the likelihood, for the most part, is still high). While I think WP:NPOV should prevent us from including replies from the practitioners of the alleged pseudosciences (see Comaze's recommendation above) contained in the first two sections, it would be more warranted for this one. This is especially true given that skeptic organizations will often have comparable numbers to the smaller, allegedly-pseudoscientific groups they're criticizing, making the latter not so much of an "extremely small" minority relative to their critics.

Okay, that's my proposal. If there is consensus for it, one handy piece of literature I can pick up from my university's library is The Skeptics Society's two-volume The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. It is bound to be a goldmine as far as this list goes. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what the 'concern' is that needs to be 'addressed.' If confining the entries to those that are properly verifiable at an appropriately high standard results in a shorter list, so what? Arker 01:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Simoes, My point was that replies from notable opponents (mainstream scientific consensus, skeptics societies, etc.) and proponents (professional associations/societies/researchers) of alleged pseudoscientific methods may pass WP:NPOV. --Comaze 01:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what happened to me, Simoes. When I started to investigate who was saying what was pseudoscience, I began to realize that this is not a scientific term.  This is a concept in the philosophy of science that is still not settled and extremely controversial.  It has its purpose; mostly to motivate people with good ideas to come up with ways of studying their ideas methodically before announcing them as fact (test with scientific method).  Because it motivates through negative feedback, there is danger of misuse.  Think about it.  The purpose of science is to sort through all the observations in life and decide what causes what in an effort to build a knowledge base for future generations.  There was a time when a man who believed the earth was round would have been beheaded as a heretic.  But scientific thinking is what saved these free thinking men.  They were able to use reasoning to overcome unsubstantiated belief.  Most of them did not know what we know now - they just knew it was not right.  However, they were smart enough to seperate science from religion in order to save their own lives.  Most of the Top 1000 scientists of all time were vitalists.  Louis Pasteur was a vitalist(which we have on our list).  Today that seperation still exists, but it seems the line between them is getting thinner, hence we start seeing theories such as Emergence try to explain why reductionism has not been able to discover how it all works, yet.  IOWs, true scientists know that the nature of knowledge is much more complicated than a list of Yeah and Nay for PS.  There is a large (dare I say Huge) gray area of unknown that needs investigating.  Many will spend their lives searching down the wrong paths, but who knows which one will unlock the door to a vast cavern of new knowledge.  Will it be in space? the ocean?, underground? or "energy fields"?  Nobody knows, it all needs to be studied -thoroughly.  How many times have you looked for your keys and couldn't find them and your wife takes one look and they are right where you looked!  True scientists understand this, and that is why they resist using this label until, as you say, it reaches a level that may be putting too much emphasis on something that is not proven - like govenment involvement.  So, the AoS sources are the best.  If we lower the bar to include scientific skeptics (which includes people like you and me) then the list is so watered that it becomes meaningless and untrue.  At that point it becomes a pejorative list for someones favorite hate group, which is not what WP is about.  IOWs, it becomes a list for scientific skeptics rather than a list of pseudoscience.  So I think we need to raise that bar further than scientific skeptics to at least someone with a PhD in science.  <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  14:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chiropractic = Pseudoscience
Chiropractic = pseudoscience Any suggestions for inclusion. A few sentences along with which references would be good. --QuackGuru 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Quru. You really have a thing for lists, don't you? Like an acne doctor likes pimples, eh?  I know you are relatively new here, but if you go back in the talk pages of the Chiropractic article you will see that chiropractic is not pseudoscience, except of course, in the minds of non-scientific hate groups like so-called "skeptics" societies similar to the ones you are relying upon as the basis for yet another POV list.   But they seem to hate most things, don't they.  Perhaps you are not familiar with chiropractic, but it is recognized by the whole of the United States, Canada, foreign countries, insurances, Medicare, WHO, etc., etc.  That's why we can't rely on those with a history of hostilities to all things that isn't old-school medicine, like so-called secret 'skeptic societies'.  Just because one doesn't goose-step to the tune of 'Better living through prescriptions', doesn't mean it's pseudoscience. This is why I removed Chiropractic from the list.  Cheerio  Steth 14:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I provided the references. Your statements above are your personal opinion. You removed it based on personal beliefs above. I understand you are a chiro advocate based on your above statements. Again, I provided the references. --QuackGuru 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See e.g. http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html for a list of references. I reverted the removal. --RE 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This was recently (re-)introduced without discussion. Additional, so far, the only type of source that has any consensus on being considered reliable is a statement from an Academy of Sciences. All other source types have yet to gain acceptance. I have thus removed it again. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was introduced with references and there is a new discussion above. Most of the articles on the list do not have any references. The Chiro has 3 refs. So why are you picking on this one. Please tell me where is the policy I have to discuss it with you before adding anything to the list. See e.g. http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html for a list of references. --QuackGuru 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You introduced it and then announced that you had done so. This is a controversial article. From this, the proper procedure is to first discuss, then gain consensus, and then make the change. And, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, please stop doing your own thing without regard to current discussions and consensuses. It is considered disruptive. There is an extended discussion going on to address problems with the entire article, and you have yet to contribute a single word to it. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 20:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And what happened to WP:BOLD? --RE 20:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It has exceptions, and an article under chronic dispute is most definitely one of them. I added a tag at the top a little while ago to inform editors of this. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So why are there entries on this list that are not referenced on your page of statements by Academies? You're hardly going to get hold of a statement by an Academy of Sciences regarding, e.g., Time Cube. But it's obvious that it deserves to be on this list. --RE 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Read these: Added noncompliant template tag, Lead, Characteristics section, Cleaning, Impossible task, New problem, new solution, Draft. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, OK, got some reading to do. I agree in principle with the idea, but it is rather exclusive. --RE 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point to the policy where I have to discuss it with anyone before introducing anything to the list. If chiro does not belong on this list then what list does it belong on. That would be helpful. How is adding an article with 3 references being disruptive. According to what policy it is the proper procedure to discuss first. Most of the articles on this list were added without discussion! Please point to the discussions editors had before they added articles to this list. I have discussed my proposals and ideas with you and that is contributing more than a few words! Another editor has added Mozart Effect to the list. Is that editor being disruptive too. Please inform me of the policies I have to discuss before adding anything to the list. Thanks. --QuackGuru 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:CONS: "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus." There are disagreements pertaining to the entire article. You know this and yet continue to make unilateral changes, even when repeatedly told to stop. This is disruptive. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comments toward me were not polite. Please tell me what is your disagreement about the references that did not meet Wikipedia policy. The same editor has added another article called Papyromancy. Is that editor being disruptive too. I hope you will try to answer all my questions this time. Please explain what I did that was disruptive. Adding an article with references is normal. Please explain to me very specifically what were the unilateral changes and who told me to stop to edit this article. I added an article another aditor (RE) reverted another editor and I fixed and added references. What is unilatral about that. I was never told not to edit this article. --QuackGuru 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gentlepeople, let's all assume good faith here. Quru, IMO, this 'list' is very questionable POV to begin with. Is your purpose to create a list that is useful or is inclusion of chiropractic your main objective? Of all the things on this list, chiropractic has the weakest argument to be here at all, given that is so widely accepted by the US Federal Government, all states, Canada, provinces, Medicare, insurance, WHO, not to mention millions of patients. Even MDs are OK with it. Statement by the American College of Surgeons on Interprofessional Relations with Doctors of Chiropractic Why are you making this your personal soapbox? Cheerio!Steth 22:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I provided the references which you have refused to address. The references are reliable by Wikipedia's standard. --QuackGuru 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, three points for your consideration:


 * Your argument is not sound. The introduction clearly states the inclusion criteria, and your inclusion with the references meets those criteria, yet you argue based on a violation of NPOV policy, as shown in the heading of this section, which you added. That heading leads off into a tangent that sidetracks the issue. We may believe (and there are notable chiropractors and chiropractic authorities who state it in very V & RS) that chiropractic contains pseudoscientific elements (you should use those sources), but the stated inclusion criteria and NPOV do not make that equation. We do not state in the list or in articles that the included items "are" pseudoscientific, but that they are "characterized" by "critics" of such. The point is that there are "critics [who] have characterized [chiropractic] as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects." (from the lead) Stick to that point and you are on solid ground. Stop sawing off the branch you're sitting on.


 * Regardless of the unsoundness of your argumentation, the original inclusion (well, it was there all along, but deleted by others and you reverted it, IIRC) should be supported, as it was proper. It is chiropractors who are deleting it, and they have a vested interest in deleting it. They are using unsound arguments (ignoring the inclusion criteria) as a straw man excuse for doing so.


 * You are not going to get anywhere with your attitude. I suggest you read what's linked at the end of my signature here:


 * "Collaboration trumps all other policies"


 * --  Fyslee  ( First law ) 08:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyslee, for your calm head. Quackguru seems to come across as a bit disruptive. I was wondering, have you had any communication with Quackguru before his arrival at Wikipedia? Thanks Steth 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to my knowledge. I don't know who (s)he is. From my comments above you can see I don't agree with all things QG does. -- -- <i style="color:#330099;">Fyslee</i> (<b style="color:#339966; font-size:x-small;">First law</b>) 12:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the reply Steth 12:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria According To The Lead

This is the first sentence in the lead from the article below.

The following is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts that "critics" have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects.

The inclusion critia specifically stated that critics*** have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects.


 * Chiropractic

Here is a list of the critics:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1402821,00.html

http://www.chirobase.org/01General/skeptic.html

http://www.ncahf.org/news/saf3.html

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/c-d/chiro.html

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=chiropractic.php

These are the critics**** who have characterized chiropractic as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects.

This meets every aspect for the inclusion criteria. Fits like a glove. Cheers, --QuackGuru 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

remove Catastrophism from list?
I think that Catastrophism should be removed from the list under Geology. It is true that many catastrophic theories (often linked to the bible) are psuedoscientific, but most geologists realize that natural catastrophic events have shaped the landscape of the Earth and other planets. Most notable are impact cratering and giant floods (caused by breaking of ice dams). While this article can definitely be improved, it is not, in my opinion, psuedoscience. Lunokhod 11:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of those borderline cases. Catastrophism is flooded with psuedoscientific concepts, so much that the real study is almost overwhelmed. I think this one could stay, if we can cite sources and point out that there are legitimate studies in the field. (Again, with sources.) -- Kesh 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the article is a well balanced historical description of the origin of catastrophism (both scientific and religious), the loosing of favor to uniformitarianism, and the gradual acknowledgement by the scientific community that some catastrophes are important geologic processes. I suggest that we remove Catastrophism from the list, but keep flood geology and add a link to Velikovskys book Worlds in collision instead. Lunokhod 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Add anti-gravity?
I'm curious if we should add anti-gravity to the physics list. This topic is somewhat gray, and lies somewhere between extreme minority opinion, psuedoscience, and crackpot. The article in its present form has a major NPOV problem. Lunokhod 11:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good lord, that article's a mess. And yes, I think it should be on this list, with similar caveats to Catastrophism. -- Kesh 21:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Draft
I submit the following as a new place to start for the article. It still needs work, but I think it's to a point where it is acceptable for mainspace display. I think other types of sources should be considered reliable, but this version reflects the fact that, so far, there is only a consensus that statements from Academies of Sciences are reliable sources. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, though you're missing the [] around the Ufology reference. I think this is a good place to start. And, to be pendantic, draft articles should be in userspace rather than a sub-page of the article itself. No harm done, just a technicality. -- Kesh 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As for your last point, I was wondering about this before I created the Draft page, and came across the following from WP:SP: "Do not write drafts of major article revisions, e.g Example Article/Temp in the main namespace, as you can get there accidentally using special:randompage -- write these in the talk namespace, e.g. Talk:Example Article/Temp." Other places on WP:SP seem to be inconsistent with this statement, so I wasn't sure what the actual policy is. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. I'd never seen that about the Talk space before, and been specifically told by other editors it was a bad idea on other pages. Ah well. Either way, I think you're working in the right direction here. -- Kesh 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! Looks great!  Simoes, you undoubtedly have better things to do, but if you have you any thoughts on the pseudoscience article itself, please share them.  I'd like to see that article give heavier weight toward saying who uses the term and why.  I thought you did a fine job rewriting scientism along such lines.  Jim Butler(talk) 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Simoes, definitely on the right track. It can grow from there, but from my research, it isn't going to go too far unless we lower the bar, which in my opinion is not necessary.  There are other lists that can reflect from there.  On Wp we have this whole thing backwards. This is the way it is:
 * I. Science
 * II. Pseudoscience
 * A. fringe science
 * B. minority science
 * C. other borderline and religious concepts


 * It should be re-organized:
 * I. Science
 * A. Mainstream science
 * B. minority science
 * C. Fringe science
 * D. Pseudoscience


 * What qualifications are necessary to be a scientific skeptic? I think there is some weight to the accusations that competitors classify their competition as PS in an attempt to cripple them.  We should not fall prey to that particular group.  Is there a line that we can draw here?  A degree, peer review, anything that seperates them from "skeptics" with dubious motives.  Having said that, some are probably qualified to make these judgements even if there is no clear line that seperates any of them, though a true skeptic would note this grey area with doubt rather than denial.  So-called Scientific skeptics tend to comment on B, C, and D above.  Keep in mind that just because they comment on B and C them does not make them D.  B and C should have their own lists.  Scientific skeptics comment on all of them and can certainly have a list in the project space that keeps them all together for them, but on article space it is too tempting to mislead the public.  Am I making sense?  <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  15:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly true that anything not mainstream is organized under pseudoscience. See, for example, List of minority-opinion scientific theories and List of protosciences. See also Fringe science, which draws a distinction between it and pseudoscience. Also, I don't think there is any desire to use individual scientific skeptics, but instead the organizations such as the ones found on Template:Skeptic Organizations. There is no requirement that our sources be NPOV, only that the article itself is. This is why I proposed early that statements and publications from skeptic organizations be separated out and the organizations' more controversial status be noted.


 * Note that there was a recent ArbCom ruling on the pseudoscience article itself. One of the final statements unanimously endorsed by the committee was "The term 'pseudoscience' shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories." I think this and sheer good sense warrants us to create a fairly robust article here.


 * But regardless if anyone agrees with expanding the list beyond the draft, does the draft itself have at least rough consensus as a starting point? If so, I'd like to move it to mainspace and end a lot of dispute-related headaches now. So, please support or object. I'll begin. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Subdivide relevant discussion

 * It's not exactly true that anything not mainstream is organized under pseudoscience. See, for example, List of minority-opinion scientific theories and List of protosciences. See also Fringe science, which draws a distinction between it and pseudoscience. Agree. However, it seems that it is arranged that way by default; if it is not mainstream it is pseudoscience.  Unless someone categorizes it somehwhere else, then it ends up here without references.  Note that Intelligent Design design is on both lists. I think you are on the right track, if we keep the inclusion list tight here, then it is up to the other lists to define their inclusion criteria. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I have looked at the Category:Pseudoscience list and it seems reasonable (with few exceptions), probably because in order to remain on that list, the editors on each article have to agree to it. Another kudo for the WP process.  Once the names of people and such are removed, there really aren't that many named subjects. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom noted other things as well that we should probably keep in mind as well. I'll bring them here just so we are all on the same page.  The ones that seem to go with us are:
 * Obvious pseudoscience
 * 15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.


 * Generally considered pseudoscience
 * 16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.


 * Questionable science
 * 17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.


 * Alternative theoretical formulations
 * 18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.


 * Apparently that is what triggered the formation of the fringe science list that apparently moved some out of here.-- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Holocaust denial not on the list?
Are there any good arguments why Holocaust denial should not be here? MaxPont 12:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a scientific matter, but a historical one. A visit to Aushwitz is a sobering experience. While wild animals may even begin to eat other animals while they are still alive, man's inhumanity to man is sometimes enough to even make an atheist believe in the devil. -- <i style="color:#330099;">Fyslee</i> (<b style="color:#339966; font-size:x-small;">First law</b>) 12:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a concept of Pseudohistory that is exactly the kind of place that argumetn should be made. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it already is there. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of draft to replace current version
Okay, there haven't been any objections to the draft yet, but I wanted to get a clearer sense before putting it up. Please note that this draft is considered a starting point for possible later expansion and reflects the fact that the only consensus on what should count as a reliable source here is for statements from Academies of Sciences. So please support or object. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Obvious. ;) <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Huge improvement. Roger 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Again obvious.  Some concern about third tier. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. So much better. So much more NPOV. Excellent work. Levine2112 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Question Apologies if this has been discussed before. As Dematt pointed out above, Category:Pseudoscience has the structural advantage of having its contents checked by the editors on each individual article.  These editors are (1) presumably more familiar with the individual topics than someone looking at the overall list; and (2) probably unaware of this list article (I only just now stumbled upon it).  Thus, (1) it seems like the inclusion/exclusion debate is better handled at the individual article level; and (2) it seems inefficient to duplicate that debate here.  Why not have the inclusion criteria just be (consistent) membership in the Category:Pseudoscience (excluding people, etc.)? Fireplace 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Search with your browser for the following sentence on this page: "Most of this list could be replaced by using the category tags on the individual articles." The discussion proceeds from there. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There seemed to be support for the idea there. It seems like the primary objection was lack of annotation.  So, keeping in mind my initial argument, I'd propose the following criteria of inclusion/introduction: "This is a list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts.  The criteria for inclusion in this list is that the element (1) has sustained inclusion in Category:pseudoscience; (2) is a field, practice, endeavor, or concept; (3) is annotated (sources can usually found in the original article; if not, the article probably should not be in Category:pseudoscience)."  The point, again, is to shift the burden to the editors of the individual articles (where it belongs), and to reduce redundant labor.  Fireplace 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't use a Wikipedia article (or category) as a source. I tried the "let the listed article have the reference" line myself, but that didn't fly with many people. We really do have solution now after four years that has not faced any substantial resistance. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the argument against it? (The proposal isn't to cite a Wikipedia article as a source.) Fireplace 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support as preferable to the current version. Prefer my proposal above.
 * Fireplace, your suggestions above show some really good insight. Please review the last few days of conversation and stick arund as we try to make these next few decisions.  Thanks! -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose as is (too narrow, conflicts with ArbCom findings; see also see peoples criticisms below). I'd support if the article is renamed to List of pseudosciences according to Acadamies of Sciences or somesuch. Fireplace 21:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. The proposed draft appears to gut this article of almost all of its content. This would be wrong. From what I can tell, this proposal to gut the article is an attempt to circumvent the AfD process, which closed with a keep less than a week ago. linas 05:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. I did not vote on both attempts to delete this article, because I never edited it. However, as an editor for several pseudoscientific articles which I will categorize as anti-evolution, I come here often to get ideas on how to combat the fundies.  The draft article completely guts this article and makes it pretty much useless.  Why are you all attempting to circumvent the AfD process, which failed, by getting rid of the article in fact?  Orangemarlin 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose What on earth is wrong with the current version? Does it include some of your favorite subjects?--Filll 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree with Orangemarlin. If the article needs work, do it on the article, but mass removal of information does not seem to be the answer. While I won't go so far as to say "Circumventing VFD", it does seem to be going against the spirit of the results. --Falcorian (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to invite linas, et al. to back off with the accusations of circumventing the AFD process. I voted to keep the article (both times), wrote the draft, and favor an expansion of the draft after it goes live. Accusing me of engaging in circumvention of a process is nothing less than a gross bad faith assumption.

Now, if you had read the discussions here before flinging accusations like this, you would have discovered that the draft was the first step in a solution to the chronic NPOV/OR/V disputes. A slow rebuilding of the list was (and is) the goal. So please read the previous discussions. In the mean time, I've stripped the list of every unsourced entry (as licensed by WP:V and WP:CITE). It's now shorter than the draft. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 07:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In my own defense, the discussion on here is long, convoluted, and difficult to read. I read a lot of it, but missed your point on what is or is not verifiable.  I'll admit to not clicking on every link on here, but the ones I did certainly linked to articles that described itself as pseudoscience.  Most of what is on this list is most definitely pseudoscience, so if the article referenced on the list does not describe itself as pseudoscience, then we need to fix the article not this list.  I apologize for stating that you were circumventing the AfD process, although, to me, it seemed like this article has been nominated for Deletion a couple of times, been kept, and then I saw your proposal, and WOW, it was stripping the article bare.  I like Jim Butler's idea below, but you've implemented it so we're good to go.  Once again, sorry about the bad faith assumption, but it sure appeared like it to me.  Orangemarlin 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've spent some time reviewing some of the edits on here. I just don't get what is going on, and it is frustrating.  Items like Flood Geology which is so far over onto Pseudoscience, that there is no room for interpretation were removed from this list.  Why?  Is it because it wasn't categorized as Pseudoscience, which was probably a result of a Creationist removing the tag from the article?  Right now, all I see with this article is a revert war where a couple of editors want to eliminate it and have failed a couple of RfD's, others trying to edit it into uselessness (which will get it deleted), and others adding links.  This is frustrating, since this article could be useful.  Orangemarlin 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Flood Geology in fact is on Simoes's draft, under Creation Science. Jim Butler(talk) 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong support (edit conflicted twice; seem to be on same wavelength as Simoes here), and a word to address the concerns expressed by Linas, Orangemarlin, Filll and Falcorian: please read the preceding discussion a couple of sections up.  Specifically, see Simoes's comments   in the section above entitled New problem, new solution.  I hope you'll agree that this is not an attempt to gut the list, and that good faith is alive and well here.  The proposed draft is a starting point, including only material that meets the highest standards for VER.  As Simoes says, much or all of the remaining articles can still be included in a "tiered" manner according to how VER the source is.  IMO that approach strikes a good balance between NPOV and VER.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One comment post-edit-conflict: Simoes, you're technically correct to purge the list of all non-verified stuff, but given that the editors above have raised the temperature a little bit, I think your actions may tend too much toward escalation.  Maybe better to just fact-tag them all instead.  I agree with your point, but OTOH, see WP:POINT.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 07:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed and self reverted. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 07:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose The information can easily be incorporated into the article. Unilatral action such as this idea will never fly on Wikipedia. If we agree with this idea it would essentially delete the article against consensus from contributions by many in the Wikipedian community. Please take it one step at a time. Edits like this one are revealing to the desires of a certain editor. >>> Please click here <<< This article may need intervention based upon the evidence. I hope this is not an attempt to hammer the list. However, I will AGF. Cheers, --QuackGuru 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed criterion of "statements by Academies" is way to exclusive. You're hardly going to get hold of a statement by an Academy of Sciences regarding, e.g., Time Cube, but it's obvious that it deserves to be on this list. --RE 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Using the Academies as a source will solve most of the controversy around OR, V, RS, NPOV, etc. MaxPont 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Options

 * Well, that didn't go over so well;) I do consider that some might be seeing this as an attack on the page, but it is nothing more than working together to get it to satisfy the aforementioned WP policy.  I encourage those objecting to look at the other options; basically we have three:
 * Do nothing and keep the tag
 * Change the contents to reflect the name
 * Rename the list to reflect the contents
 * Number 2 and 3 still require changing the lead to reflect specific inclusion criteria. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to wait and see if linas, et al. come to once they realize they're working off a false assumption. Orangemarlin already seems to have. QuackGuru, on the other hand, is consistently confusing. I never have any idea what he's talking about. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not fully onboard, because I'm not clear on what is being proposed. Can someone summarize what it is that needs to be done with this list?  Orangemarlin 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got my support. I've got you on my watchlist. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  16:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What I am consistently confusing. I think you know exactly what I am talking about. Please explain. That would beneficial. --QuackGuru 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read some of your comments above QuackGuru. I'll have to agree with Simoes that your commentary can be unclear.  Orangemarlin 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... I think it did go very well. There it still an article and the list remains intact. I do not see the editors who want to start the list over trying to add any references to the list. I wonder why. Any ideas to gut the list is ill advised. I recommend to everybody to start to find references and build up the list. Nothing more. --QuackGuru 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New proposal and argument
I propose the following draft.

Criterion: This is a list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. The criteria for inclusion in this list is that the topic (1) has sustained inclusion in Category:pseudoscience; (2) is a field, practice, endeavor, or concept; (3) has its inclusion justified (preferably in the list, but at least in the original article).

Argument:
 * There should be a close, if not one-to-one, correspondence between topics on this list and topics in Category:pseudoscience.  Topics should only be in Category:pseudoscience if their inclusion is justified in the article.


 * For consistency and efficiency, there should not be duplicative non-mechanical determinations of inclusion (i.e., NOT: one in the list, another in the article/category).


 * The decision to categorize/list is best left to the editors of the individual articles. They are most familiar with the topics, and this distributes the labor.

Fireplace 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This inclusion criteria redistributes the edit wars/disputes to the individual articles, which is where they belong.


 * Support Holding off pending discussion with JimButler below. Fireplace 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - IMO, better than current article:
 * Pro - would satisy list NPOV and inclusion requirements.
 * Con - it could revive (extremely) disruptive edit warring on the article spaces.
 * -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, I doubt edit warring on articles would go up significantly because, as it stands, the categorization issue is already present in each article. Fireplace 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be right. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose --My reason is that there needs to be a list of all items that are pseudoscience. I think I know what pseudoscience is, but Wikipedia spends a lot of time attempting to be neutral, sometimes to the point that it allows in articles that just are not real science.  I could switch to support if the list includes "suspected" pseudoscience.  But that's just my thought on the matter.  Orangemarlin 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the objection. There's might be room for an article List of suspected pseudosciences, but this is not it.  (Also, note that the proposal includes far more entries than the current version.) Fireplace 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see relative discussion from above concerning Arbcom case about pseudoscience. It needs to be factored into any of our decisions. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The point of the proposal is that the criterion, whatever it is, should be implemented at the level of the articles and flow through the category into the list.  Fireplace 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify: this proposal isn't suggesting deleting everything that doesn't have a citation. In fact, the list will be much larger than it is now.  The citation requirement is a looping requirement that looks back to the original article.  Somewhere there needs to be a justification — and it should be (and usually is) found in the article. Fireplace 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "sustained inclusion in category:pseudoscience" is too vague, and we need to cite sources here, on this list. Simoes' idea (his actual one, not the one Filll and others have hastily presumed it to be) arrives at basically the same place in terms of inclusiveness, but wtih appropriate tiering of V RS's.  Fact is, an Academy of Science IS a much more V RS than Michael Shermer writing a column in a popular magazine.  Suggest redoing Simoes's draft to include the material, properly cited.  Also, per WP:CG and WP:CLS, lists can be more inclusive than categories because they are annotatable; categories are on/off conditions.  Jim Butler(talk) 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problems with Simoes' proposal are that (1) the criterion is too narrow (it would exclude obvious cases of pseudosciences merely because people haven't found an authority that uses the word "pseudoscience", regardless of whether it clearly satisfies the definition — see ArbCom decision; and (2) it leads to redundant disputes (one at the list level, another at the article level). Fireplace 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Fireplace -- First, I appreciate your and Simoes being dedicated enough to write these drafts. On (1), actually I think your and Simoes's proposals will lead to pretty much the same topics being included, the only difference being that Simoes advocates particular attention to VER when he says:
 * "...national and regional academies only make statements on pseudoscience when there is a concern that a particular pseudoscience is finding its way into education or government. Only a few pseudosciences ever get this far. My solution for this is to allow two more types of sources: statements from specialized scientific organizations (e.g., a society of plasma physicists), and statements/publications from scientific skepticism organizations. This last bunch will most certainly fill out the list, but there may be some concern that these skepticism organizations are a little too trigger-happy, labeling anything that smells funny to them "pseudoscience."
 * In what way are those criteria too narrow? What is an example of an "obvious" pseudoscience that (a) at least one sci-skept V RS hasn't identified as such, and (b) is notable enough to be in WP?
 * Re (2), I'd suggest that the list should follow the articles, summarizing them by paring down the arguments and counter-arguments, but still citing a couple of major ones.  See e.g. my edit to the list for acupuncture.  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As to (1), you may be right, I hadn't seen that comment (it should be incorporated into Simoes' draft proposal though, which currently only lists Academies of Sciences). As to (2), I think we're in agreement. With that in mind, I suggest using the Academies of Sciences/sci-skept criterion in Category:pseudoscience, and membership in Category:pseudoscience as a sufficient condition for membership in the list. The list could also include a section on alleged pseudosciences, or something, as there's some demand for that in this discussion. Fireplace 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good discussion here, Fireplace. I think we're on the same page re (1) and (2).  Regarding categorization, I'll make my case for populating the list more broadly than the category, following WP:CG, which says:
 * "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."
 * Symoes suggested three tiers of sources for this list, according to the degree to which they are V RS's:
 * (A) National and regional Academies of Sciences;
 * (B) specialized scientific organizations;
 * (C) scientific skeptical organizations (e.g., The Skeptics Society).
 * I would suggest populating the category only with A- and B-level sources, since members of C can get a little trigger-happy, and there is nothing to stop e.g. Randi from calling something "pseudoscience" when in fact a sig minority of scientists have stated otherwise in peer-reviewed publications. (See ArbCom ruling re "questionable science" and "alternative theoretical formulations").  Thus, e.g., acupuncture doesn't belong in the cat, but does have enough V RS's to go on the list, with proper annotation.
 * WP:CLS talks about the advantages and disadvantages of lists and categories. Given that this is a controversial category (at least at the "border" between pseudoscience and valid minority sci views, etc.), the main advantage of the list is annotation.  I agree that it's a drag that lists don't auto-link the way categories do, but still, "what links here" on the article page will bring up the list.  Also, the list can be manually addded to the topics' pages as a "see also".
 * Regarding "alleged pseudoscience", I'm not sure when something stops being that and starts being a pseudoscience per se. Obviously there's a grey area, depending on the evidence for foo, the degree to which proponents misrepresent foo as being scientific, how the critic defines pseudoscience, and the credibility of the critic.  Perhaps, for WP purposes, the threshold for "alleged pseudoscience" would be a level-C V RS, and the threshold for being pseudoscience per se would be a level-B or A V RS.  Does that make sense?  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems largely right. A few comments: (1) I'm not sure there's a need to distinguish between A-level and B-level (plenty of B-level groups are just as authoritative as A-level groups).  (2) There's an issue remaining over whether the organization needs to use the word "pseudoscience," or whether they merely need to describe it in such a way that it clearly satisfies the definition of pseudoscience.  I'd tentatively prefer the latter, which would catch more candidates at the category level. (3) It's likely that consensuses will have been reached on many articles that won't conform to whatever category standard is decided here.  Thus, it might be preferable to avoid a bright-line rule for category inclusion with respect to borderline cases.  I'm not sure how this should be drafted: maybe a bright-line standard for clear inclusion (A, B level), bright-line standard clear exclusion (controversy in peer-reviewed sources), and a vague standard in the middle (list a few factors like C-level source, satisfies the definition of pseudoscience, etc.) that is to be applied at the level of the article. Fireplace 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm not entirely convinced by my own (3). For a category-level standard, how about: A field, practice, endeavor, or theory should be included if one of the Academies of Sciences or a specialized scientific organization that is widely considered to be authoritative regards the topic as pseudoscientific.  A citation should be included in the article.  The source does not need to use the word "pseudoscience," but it must at least characterize the topic so as to clearly fall within the definition.  Alternatively, a topic may be included if (1) mainstream scientific bodies have not taken a position on the topic (because, e.g., it is too obscure) and (2) there is consensus that it should be included. Fireplace 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not too resistant to combining A- and B-type sources, but the original rationale for separating them is that although most B-level groups are just as authoritative as A-level groups, some aren't, and I see no way of distinguishing between the more reliable and less reliable B-level groups under WP:NPOV restrictions. The mean reliability of statements from the Academies is, at least slightly, higher than the mean reliability of the specialized groups.
 * That said, my main concern is separating out A/B from C, and excluding statements by mere individuals entirely. Some credentialed individuals will call anything they find unfamiliar "pseudoscience." More importantly, though, there are a handful of individuals with science PhDs who will call things like evolutionary theory and related concepts pseudoscientific. By the current page's standards, we should dutifully add evolution to the list. This, of course, is just absurd.
 * Finally, I have no problem with statements that say, e.g., "field x is said to be scientific in character but isn't." Using the exact word of "pseudoscience" was never an issue (as far as I'm aware), so everyone is on board with you on this point. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in pretty much full agreement with Simoes's reply here, and have little to add. Fireplace, your ideas for "bright-line" inclusion and exclusion (wrt the category) are excellent.  Again, I read WP:CG as saying to err on the side of strictness for this category, since it's an on/off condition and (generally) a pejorative.  One can be a little bit dependent on alcohol, but that doesn't mean the label "alcoholic" is justified, particularly in Wikipedia.  Grey areas are imo better summarized with a line or two in the list (and elaborated in the articles themselves, to whatever extent due weight requires).  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 09:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Its much easier to sustain cited references to a field being called a pseudoscience here than on the articles themselves which are often well defended against skeptics’ criticism and would involve lengthy and sustained battles. Supporters of pseudosciences hate them being labelled as such in the Pseudoscience Category. The most I've found possible to defend is a paragraph stating how scientists view the field in question. See Astrology . Lumos3 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like I'm losing this one, but not for good reasons. First, Astrology is categorized as pseudoscience.  Second, if there's no consensus over whether a topic is properly categorized as a pseudoscience, it's acting in bad faith to sneak it in over here and not in the article.  This kind of inter-article edit warring would be avoided by a criterion promoting consistency.  Fireplace 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine there is solution somewhere in between these two proposals. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here?
In a short period of time, a bunch of edit wars, deletions, 2 AfDs, now 2 proposals for much sparser drafts. What do people not like about the current article? I do not get it and I do not want to read all this history to find out.--Filll 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm so confused, I'm getting a headache. It reads like a bunch of people have agendas, and they don't make sense.  Orangemarlin 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My proposal is for a much larger draft. Fireplace 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is with the a vague criteria for inclusion in a list that is not NPOV or verified with reliable research. Start here and it won't take long to catch up. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  20:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Filll writes: " I do not get it and I do not want to read all this history to find out." Well, gosh, you're going to have to invest at least some effort if you really want to understand and collaborate. Read Simoes's and my comments under your "Strong Oppose" above. Or read this. The idea is to redo the list, keeping most of it, with descending tiers of verifiability. What's not clear about that? No hidden agendas. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 20:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support having a tiered list, with topics recognized science societies or scientific journals etc have claimed are pseudoscience on one tier, then a 2nd tier which skeptic societies claim are pseudoscience, but I would also include a 3rd tier of suspected but unsourced topics. I would then mark all the unsourced 3rd tier topics with or  and then slowly find as many references as possible to reduce the uncited topics. Is this what is being proposed? Or something like it? I would not favor removing the unsourced material now, but I would mark it and then find cites for those topics slowly as time and resources permit.--Filll 23:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the way I interpret Simoes proposal. The list he put up initially was just the first part with the Academy of Sciences as the source. The other tiers were not on the list yet. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My plan was to exclude anything without a source until something was found, but, yes, the end result is roughly how you describe it. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much agree, with the caveat that we can't change WP policy on VER (i.e., there is a balance to be struck, and unsourced stuff shouldn't stick around forever). I'm personally not in a hurry to delete anything that sounds like a plausible, sig POV.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 09:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision
Just to focus discussion, it seems like this (or something like it) is what's on the table:

Category level criterion: ''A field, practice, concept, or theory should be included if one of the Academies of Sciences or a specialized scientific organization that is widely considered to be authoritative regards the topic as pseudoscientific. A citation should be included in the article. The source does not need to use the word "pseudoscience," but it must at least characterize the topic so as to clearly fall within the definition. Alternatively, a topic may be included if (1) mainstream scientific bodies have not taken a position on the topic (because, e.g., it is too obscure) and (2) there is consensus that it should be included.''

List level criteria:
 * Section: Pseudosciences and pseuoscientific concepts. ''A field, practice, concept, or theory should be included if one of the Academies of Sciences or a specialized scientific organization that is widely considered to be authoritative regards the topic as pseudoscientific. The citation should be derived from content in the original article.  The source does not need to use the word "pseudoscience," but it must at least characterize the topic so as to clearly fall within the definition.  Alternatively, a topic may be included if (1) mainstream scientific bodies have not taken a position on the topic (because, e.g., it is too obscure) and (2) there is consensus that it should be included.  Because the inclusion criteria are the same, there should be a one-to-one correspondence between this list and Category:pseudoscience.


 * Section: Subjects regarded as pseudoscientific by mainstream scientific skeptical bodies. A field, practice, concept, or theory should be included if a mainstream scientific skeptical body (e.g., The Skeptics Society) regards the topic as pseudoscientific.  The citation should be derived from content in the original article.


 * Optional Section: Subjects bearing some characteristics of pseudoscience. A field, practice, concept, or theory should be included if mainstream scientists have not expressed a consensus view, but the field bears some characteristics typical of pseudoscience.

Thoughts? Fireplace 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'd be against the "optional" section, though, as well as using Wikipedia editor consensus as a standard. Consensus should be used to decide whether a field or concept meets the standards, not be a standard itself. Besides, any pseudoscience notable enough to be listed here is probably also showing up on the radar of the scientific skepticism organizations. It'll be a rare situation where something escapes through the cracks that we'd want to list. If it turns out not to be so rare, let's talk about it again here. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow, I'll swing by my uni's library and pick up The Skeptics Society's The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. It's supposedly a mammoth pair of volumes. When I get a chance, I'll list every entry in my userpage's sandbox, and we can do some sifting and sorting action. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 04:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am having a problem with this portion of the statement: The source does not need to use the word "pseudoscience," but it must at least characterize the topic so as to clearly fall within the definition.
 * Who decides what clearly is? And what is the definition? We are leaving the door open for WP:OR again.  We might as well leave it like it is. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as the source says "its proponents claim it's scientific" and "but it isn't," we'll be fine. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I would accept other language as well. It's unlikely there is a satisfactory purely mechanical criterion for category-inclusion.  The proposal also uses language like "mainstream" and "widely regarded as authoritative," which are also not mechanical.  But this isn't a problem — it's appropriate for borderline cases to be debated and subject to a determination by consensus.  Fireplace 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the skeptics encyclopedia is a neutral source. If there is a mainstream view that a method has not followed the scientific method and, for example, has methodological errors then this would be available published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This sort of test is then going keep the list on-track. --Comaze 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What about seperating our criteria based on the Arbcom guidelines? At least it would be defendable at the WP level. Probably still some trouble with #3 and will need some pretty good references but #4 should not be on the list and #1 can be on the list without references? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's more-or-less what we're doing here, though dividing the list into that many groups would be quite a feat without really aggravating WP:OR and WP:V. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that sources be from a NPOV. That's our responsibility and is done in this case by simply stating, roughly, "The following are asserted to be pseudoscientific by scientific skeptic organizations and may or may not be indicative of consensus in the scientific community." <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a small difference, and not one that I think is a show stopper. I do like your format better; divided by strength of the source which should give it a sense of definitely yes to maybe/maybe not.  Perhaps then the Arbcom guidelines might be incorprated into the inclusion criteria in such a way that we are not the ones that make the decision (btw, I only see three tiers in the arbcom? - that seem to coorelate well with your tiers).  That way we have a pretty solid foundation with WP arbcom support.  Are we in the same ballpark? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Fireplace is maintaining that there is too negligible a difference in the reliability of A and B sources (i.e., academies and specialist organizations) to warrant their being separated. I slightly disagree, but not enough to push the issue. That leaves us with a two-tier system, which is still way better than the list as it is now and also still (more-or-less) captures the spirit of the ArbComm guideline. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Comaze that we need to draw a line with the scientific skeptics. I.e. this is one of our acceptable sources, skeptic.com on psychoanalysis, but WP arbcom specifically says not to characterize it as pseudoscience (because it has a large following). How many others fit this description? How big is a large following? Can we write this into the inclusion criteria? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  18:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a big issue is that we are misunderstanding scientific skepticism as a belief rather than a methodology of believing. Scientific skepticism is merely a way of thinking... about anything. If you think with scientific skepticism, then you approach everything with the need to have it explained rationally by the scientific method. It is the opposite of accepting something on faith (without scientific evidence). The irony is that groups claiming to be "Scientific Skeptics" are usually not truly this kind of thinkers. They claim to be, but more often they are just "haters" and disregard scientifc evidence that doesn't jive with their beliefs. This is what I call "true disbeliever's syndrome" or as Truzzi put it: pseudoskepticism. Let's stick with the apogee of sources and not low-brow hater clubs. Acadomy of Science is certainly a pinnacle organization with much less of a political or economic agenda. A Skeptic's Dictionary or a Quackwatch is the nadir of sources with too many vested economic and political interests to be considered reliable sources for this subject. Levine2112 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, sources don't need to follow WP:NPOV. We do, and we're doing so by separating out source types. Also recall that we're using skeptic organizations such as The Skeptics Society. The dictionary you mention is a publication associated only with a single individual, and Quackwatch, while a "non-profit organization," appears to be a one-man web show. They'd be naturally excluded. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 05:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I see what you are getting at. I think we would have to evaluate these orgs as they come though. There are a lot of so-called skeptic organization out there, and I'd hate to make a blanket policy to allow all of them. Again, the Academy of Science should be held in higher regard than these, no? Levine2112 07:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Levine, yes, that's my understanding of the preceding discussion. Sci-skept orgs should, it is proposed, be a considered a tier below Acad's of Sci and specialist groups and peer-reviewed debate.  I agree with this approach.  Seems on solid ground re both NPOV and VER.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 11:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with you and Levine. --Comaze 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With your last clarification on the scientific skeptic groups vs. individual "scientific skeptics" with web sites, we may all be on the same page. The Arbcom decision still leaves some room for erring on the side of caution with those "with a large following should not be classified as such."  Simoes, can you write it up one more time for us all to look at? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, is this one of the "groups" we're including, or not including? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Skeptics Society is being included. While Michael Shermer is obviously the face of the society, their publications, lecture series, and conferences are definitely collaborative efforts (Shermer is often the "Master of Ceremonies" for the speaking events). At the moment, the society is actually my main second-tier source from which I'm collecting information. Other groups I'd posit as eligible for inclusion are the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Australian Skeptics. I'll have a modified draft by Friday evening (CST) at the latest. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What about CSICOP? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They're the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry now. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's it, the one with James Randi and the one Marcus Truzzi left and called pseudoskeptics. Where do they fit in the tier?  Are they in tier two or three? (Sorry for the 100 questions, just trying to make sure we are all working under the rules). -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We have two tiers, and they're obviously not in tier one. In the second tier, it will be made clear that statements from skeptic organizations are less likely to be indicative of a consensus in the science community (or something resembling that). It might be good to give brief of mention of notable critics of these organizations who are not targets of their critiques. We can hammer these details out once the draft is ready. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

<- Okay, thanks for your patience - go ahead and put the rough draft together and we can go from there. I'll go get some sleep;) -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  04:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work. --Comaze 13:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we are all on the same page here then. Nice. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you are saying here- it seem pretty balanced. But, I think that "mainstream scientific skeptical bodies" should be reduced to "mainstream skeptical bodies."  These bodies, such as CSI, are not involved in science- they are involved in pure skepticism (or debunking acts), and we have no sources saying they toe the scientific line- and some saying they don't, or are pseudoskeptical.  So they need to be introduced this way, and those such as Marcello Truzzi who have been skeptical of the skeptics should have their positions stated.  In other words, the tiers you are suggesting need extremely through introductions, with a great deal of counter-opinions- else the fact that the subject is listed here will have such weight that the article will not overall be NPOV.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Info dump from the Skeptic Encyclopedia
See User:Simoes/Sandbox/Pseudoscience list sources for the new items. The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience lists these as "Important Pseudoscientific Concepts." After that section of the encyclopedia, the remaining sections are of reprinted articles from Skeptic magazine (the main publications of The Skeptics Society). Those articles didn't get an official proclamation from the encyclopedia (and therefore the organization), so they'll be naturally excluded from the second tier. There may be room for those in a possible third tier, but we can discuss that later. I'll add the new items to the draft soon. Should we go with the topical organization of the items (as found in the current mainspace version) for the second tier, or should that be abandoned? Personally, I'd favor keeping it, as it makes navigating the list easier. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The editor of the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is the director of the Skeptic's Society and most of the articles are from Skeptic magazine, a Skeptic's Society publication. How can we make it clear that this is a somewhat partisan source? Looking at the current scratch file it appears to be be ok. I think that calling it "The X Encyclopedia of Y" gives it an impression of authority. --Comaze 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're a skeptic organization. That's already going to be made clear in the intro to the second tier section along with the reason why they're separated out. This group isn't more or less partisan than any of the other slated tier 2 sources. And, as Fireplace suggested, the section for tier one will be called "Pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts," while the second section will be "Subjects regarded as pseudoscientific by mainstream scientific skeptical bodies." That looks sufficient to me. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. thankyou. --Comaze 02:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good Simoes, I think the current format is good as it is easier to read, I agree. Looking forward to the next step! -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  02:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * These all look like the obvious pseudoscience which I can't imagine anyone contesting... except for hypnosis? Is that really a pseudoscience? I don't know. I can't say I know much about it. I just never thought of it as pseudoscience. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 03:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good eye. I did miss that one. I can see if we're talking about a magicians hypnosis tricks, but is it talking about hypnosis used for other purposes.  I'm not sure how it is used in medical practice, but I imagine it doesn't make unscientific claims.  Does it differentiate this? -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  03:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, this doesn't really matter. We're interested in verifiability, not truth. But the critique leveled against hypnosis in the encyclopedia targets the lack of scientific data supporting the thesis that it is a "trance state" and not merely the willingness of subjects to participate and/or a strong placebo effect. Here's a humorous passage from the article that might suggest the "willingness" explanation:
 * "One college lecturer used to demonstrate hypnosis to his psychology classes and finish with a suggestion that the subjects would take off their clothes. The students would invariably refuse, but one day, a young woman began to strip without hesitation. The lecturer hastily terminated the session and asked her why she hadn't refused like the others. She replied that she was paying her way through college by working weekends as an exotic dancer. Taking her clothes off in front of a group of strangers was nothing unusual for her."
 * There is also a large amount of material charging pseudoscientific usages of hypnosis in psychotherapy (smoking cessation, memory recovery, recollection of past lives), and forensics (attempting to recover memories from possible witnesses). Cute stuff. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 06:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * James Randi has a page on hypnosis that I would recommend: . --Comaze 12:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with sources from skeptics. Skeptics sometimes promote an anti-science agenda, and sometimes reach scientifically incorrect conclusions. This is a page of pseudo-science theories, and not a list of theories doubted by skeptics. linas 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost back
Hey, I need to not fail out of gradschool, and a temporary crunch time hit a few weeks ago. I'll be through the storm pretty soon and will resume working. ;) <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you! Go pass gradschool and we'll wait for you.  Good luck! -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b>  (chat)  01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What Dematt said. May your efforts yield abundant fruit!  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 08:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence testing
Should we put up intelligence testing up here? It's always been criticised for being flawed and such...--Jazzwick 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as we have an appropriate source. See Iq; Steven Jay Gould is fairly notable, isn't he?  But there has been some debate (see above) over whether the opinions of individuals, vs organizations, are sufficient for inclusion.  AFAIK, there are disability rights organizations that question IQ testing; I'll try to find a cite.  I see no reason why such groups aren't just as much V RS's as self-identified "skeptical" groups (per talk above, clearly "second-tier" relative to Academies of Science, but still sig POV's).  Also, check this out:  "Many times, if the researchers had a child they couldn't test, they just assumed he or she was retarded and assigned a low IQ score.". thx, Jim Butler(talk) 09:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)