Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 7

Some comments
1. As others have said, we have to seperate between stupidity and pseudosciences. Fairies is stupid but not a scientific stupidity.

2. We have to make it clearer that is psuedoscientific about a subject and that is not. To just write Tunguska event and nothing more, makes is seem that the Tungaska event didn't happen. This is wrong. We should write something like:

Antimatter Tungaska event - the belief that the Tungaska event was not caused by a meteor but by antimatter or similary anomalous causes.

Other subjects that may need rewriting is


 * Ball lightning - ball lightings exist. Only some new age uses is psuedo.
 * Hypnosis - exists.
 * Meditation - exists. Maybe use "Magical meditation - people that states that they can no magical tricks by meditation."
 * Stock market prediction - exists. Maybe use "False economic models. Many parts of modern economics makes predictions they have no sound scientific base to support."
 * Out-of-body experiences - is it not better to use "life after death" as the psuedoscience.

Should we not add religion, god and soul as psudoscientific concepts?

3. Some things are not big enough to include. Laundry balls - never heard about. Delete?

4. We should seperate between obscure and parody pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.108.234 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reko 23:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For God and souls, it seems difficult to find source about people trying to make these concepts look scientific. But yeah, it is not really clear when something is simply unscientific or really pseudoscientific. Kromsson 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You missed the "Finally, some of these items are not considered pseudoscientific in and of themselves: only certain aspects, explanations, and/or applications of them. See an item's description text for more information on this" bit. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 14:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, both of us did. Kromsson 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bible Codes anyone?
Should the bible codes be listed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting definitions of list
The list as structured has conflicting purposes. Is it for anything called pseudoscientific by any critic or for areas where there is a clear consensus that a subject is pseudoscientific? If the latter, evidence of this should be on the article's page (and/or presented here). If the former, the article is misleadingly (and leadingly) titled, as are sections thereof. Some clarification is needed - you can't have it both ways (i.e. include disputed areas but title this article as if only undisputed items are included). Hgilbert 10:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved certain subjects from the main list to a disputed area. References are supplied in the article for the dispute (except for biorhythms, which still needs positive citations). Hgilbert 13:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose is kind of between those two extremes. The razor we came up with a while back is that we'll include it if it's called pseudoscience (or described as such, the actual word isn't necessary) by either a notable scientific body or a notable skeptic or skeptical organization. So, in the former case, it would likely be representing consensus of the scientific community, while not so much in the latter case. Of course, for something like this, there's the possibility of disagreement (particularly between skeptics when it comes to borderline issues, such as acupuncture). What to do in that case isn't clear, though I think it would be appropriate to leave it in with a note that it's disputed and briefly explain the dispute. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To expand a bit, I really don't think a "disputed" section is a good idea. I've all too often seen pseudoscientists try to fram their subject as being "disputed" in order to make it look better. In actuality, most of these cases have been resolved by mainstream scientists and it's just a few fringe scientists who are trying to keep the dispute alive. Also, to show there really is a dispute in an area, a single source by someone saying there's a dispute or disagreeing with mainstream consensus isn't sufficient. There will always be people out there (even some scientists) who disagree with well-established theories. Just look at evolution - among biologists, it's taken for granted at this point, but there are scientists all over the place who disagree with it and try to frame it as a dispute (see Teach the Controversy). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a range between genuinely disputed areas (e.g. acupuncture), marginally disputed areas and areas only disputed by fringe elements (e.g. evolution, or the roundness of the earth for that matter). There are also areas, however, that are clearly not pseudoscientific (e.g. meditation, ball lightning, subliminal perception) on this list. Whether the latter two exist or not is an ongoing scientific question; to prejudge this is bad science. The Wikipedia entry on ball lightning certainly indicates that there is serious scientific research on the question.

The article says of the areas listed: "a majority of the work ... done in them (or having been done) is of a pseudoscientific nature." This claim is not proven for quite a number of the items, either here or in the corresponding articles. In fact, several of them assert that the contrary is true; that serious work is ongoing. An unsupported claim should either be dropped or proven. If the article is simply a collection of everything skeptic groups, or even single individuals, (both of which are by definition not neutral) consider pseudoscientific, it should be clear about this too.

The terminology and qualifications for being listed should be brought into line. Hgilbert 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you make some good points there. I think the question we have to ask here is along the lines of what this list should be, rather than simply what it is or what it says it is. Once we decide on that, we can rework all sections as appropriate. Personally, I believe the article should include any subject for which the pseudoscientific research into it is notable and not in an extreme minority (and we should of course describe this in the comments about it). My reasoning is simply that if there's significant pseudoscientific research into Ball lightning, for instance, it would make sense for it to be linked from here, no? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this approach, but the list's name and the introduction should then be changed. You can't include ball lightning in a list of pseudosciences, or assert that it is a pseudoscience, when there is ongoing and genuine scientific research into the subject. Let's decide what we want and then title and introduce it accordingly. A broadly inclusive policy will require a title such as "List of concepts critiqued as pseudoscientific". Hgilbert 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We've gone back and forth on this title a lot in this article. If you haven't already, it might be a good idea to go over some of the archives to see what's lead to the current title. I'll probably do that myself as well, since I wasn't around when this last change was made. After that, we can possibly restart discussion on it if you still feel the need. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Questioning topics' inclusion
All right, I've gone through the recent archives and the arbitration proceedings. Some questions: First of all, I cannot see many of the footnotes (those formatted like this: . They are invisible to my browser somehow. Do they exist?

I see problems that remain with the following areas:
 * 1) Scientific areas. The following belong to science, not pseudoscience.
 * 2) Ball lightning. This appears to have once been questioned but now accepted by scientific authorities.
 * 3) Hypnosis. This certainly happens. There are no citations either here or in the hypnosis article to support its listing here.
 * 4) Multiple personality disorder. Clearer description that it is not the disorder, but paranormal explanations of the disorder that are in question.


 * 1) Non-scientific areas. These are not pseudoscience, but non-science. I propose removing the following items from the list; they are as inappropriate here as "Jainism" would be.
 * 2) Meditation
 * 3) Reincarnation

In some cases, there are citations in this article supporting a topic's scientific foundation, but none supporting the claim that they are pseudoscientific or undermining this foundation!!! I have fact-tagged these items.

Finally, whatever standard the article applies, documentation needs to be present as to how the topic meets this standard. Hgilbert 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

 * Allow me to be of service. Please check out Wikipedia's policy for Stand-Alone lists. Please pay close attention to the "Lead and Selection Criteria" portion of the policy which begins: Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the present lead section meets that criterion. Hgilbert 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. From my perspective, it reads a little ambiguously. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I reread the lead section, and there are some issues. The last paragraph is self-contradictory about hypnosis, for example:
 * [Subjects] are included, however, in that a majority of the work being done in them (or having been done) is of a pseudoscientific nature. For instance, while many proposed explanations for hypnosis are pseudoscientific, the phenomenon is generally accepted as real and there are scientific explanations for it as well
 * Is the majority of work pseudoscientific or is the phenomenon generally accepted as real?Hgilbert 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Hence the ambiguity. I truly believe that this list would be more maintainable if you limited it to items which only notable bodies of scientists have declared as pseudoscientific. I think including the opinions of certain skeptic organization muddies inclusion criteria with politics rather than pure science. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A little like listing "Communists" on the basis of the Committee for Un-American Activities' work? Hgilbert 11:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As absurd as it may sound, that isn't a bad analogy at all. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ball Lightning
I would like to call into question the reasoning for adding the ref tag to the ball lightning entry. What would properly satisfy the editor in question who added the tag in order to have it removed? There are numerous ref's that can added from the ball lightning entry to support the anecdotal evidence, but is it really worth adding more ref's to the page that already has a ton? From reading through the ref's on the entry, there does not seem to be a single entry that discusses more than 2 specific instances. Thoughts? Cheers!!! Baegis 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Both in the main article and in this list entry, there is documentation that ball lightning exists and is a matter of scientific study. However, there is no documentation in either location that documents why it should be included in a list of pseudosciences. (Anecdotal evidence is not per se pseudoscientific.) Hgilbert 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are accounts of people claiming to have seen ball lightning, but I would not go as far as saying that there is documentation of it existing. As you mentioned, anecdotal evidence is does not qualify it has pseudo-scientific but it also doesn't make a good case for its existence.  The scientific community may be leaning towards acknowledging its existence but until it can be replicated, it is still an area shrouded in controversy.  As to its inclusion on this list, I have my doubts.  I guess it all depends on the the lead.  And from how it reads now, I think that ball lightning might warrant exclusion.  Cheers!!!  Baegis 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience merely states that evidence is anecdotal and varied explanations are given; it does not use any term related to pseudoscience. Nor is it up-to-date; the more recent scientific consensus is that it exists, and the phenomenon is now better understood. The entry should be removed. Hgilbert 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia labels it an "important pseudoscientific concept." Also, the list item and the cited article don't say outright that ball lightning doesn't exist. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind Simoes, could you point me in the direction of the particular entry you are referring to above. With the ref's being busted, it doesn't help to support anyone's particular case right now and I would like to read it, if possible.  Cheers!!! Baegis 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Volume 1, Section 1 (Important Pseudoscientific Concepts) of The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. The article is on page 48. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't doubt the entry in the SEoP, I do have to ask why a mention of pseudoscience is nowhere present on the actual Ball Lightning entry, yet it is included here. Methinks that if it did qualify as pseudoscience, it would warrant a mention on it's own page.  Thought we should discuss that on the talk page for Ball Lightning, we need to address that problem here as well.  Baegis 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for this article, we have it properly sourced, so it should stay in. You do raise a good point that we should probably then include this information at Ball lightning, but this doesn't mean we should remove the entry from here until that's done. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about it meeting the current criteria. I have therefore moved ball lightning to a section for natural phenomena for which there is only anecdotal evidence, and have therefore been doubted by skeptics, but which mainstream science does not question. Hgilbert 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Title
If we stay with the current criteria for entries in this list, I suggest that we change the article title. The situation with ball lightning makes this evident; try this topic in Google Scholar and a host of scientific studies of the phenomenon come up, including book length works. The New Scientist article cited above makes it evident that there is no longer serious doubt about the existence of the phenomenon, only about its cause. The Wikipedia Ball lightning article records no dispute about the topic's scientific validity. Yet, because it is (apparently) mentioned in a single skeptical work, probably with no citations at all to document its pseudoscientific nature, it can be included in this list.

If an area of serious scientific study can be listed here on such a basis, then the list's title cannot claim that its entries are definitively pseudosciences - only that someone, somewhere, has claimed this, even if the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly against that individual or body. How about "List of topics ever termed pseudoscientific"? Then we get to include psychoanalysis, cryogenics, Zen and sunspot cycles (all in Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience). Hgilbert 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From the article: "Finally, some of these items are not considered pseudoscientific in and of themselves: only certain aspects, explanations, and/or applications of them. See an item's description text for more information on this" <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are, of course, areas like this, and we should be careful to avoid tainting a field with a tar brush meant for certain of its interpreters. This may need review, as well; are we careful enough with this distinction for the general reader?

I was discussing a more general divergence between the criteria for inclusion and the title, however. If one hundred scientists have done serious work in a field but one skeptical writer has called the field pseudoscience, the field qualifies for inclusion here according to the list's criteria. But it is not verifiable to call the field a pseudoscience, merely a field someone has once mentioned in this context. That's different than a list of verifiably pseudoscientific fields, meaning there is a broader consensus than a single individual in a contested area.

Note that I am not here concerned about areas where there is a broad consensus towards pseudoscience except for a few fringe supporters/investigators. I am concerned about areas where there is a broad consensus toward science but a few fringe skeptics. This seems to be the problematic situation where the article title implies a consensus that need not exist for inclusion here. Hgilbert 16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If one hundred scientists have done serious work in a field but one skeptical writer has called the field pseudoscience, the field qualifies for inclusion here according to the list's criteria. - Well, that depends. Are these scientists or "scientists"? You really have to be careful these days, especially with many pseudoscientific endeavors getting scientific funding. But anyways, it's not just one skeptical writer that's required, it's a notable skeptical writer. It has to be someone who's earned respect as a skeptic (as an easy measure, they should probably have a Wikipedia entry which makes mention of this aspect of them). Even in this case, if you can source significant dissent from this opinion (by other sources which meat the same criteria), then it might be reasonable to not include an entry. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the situation with ball lightning. It appears to be a subject of considerable serious scientific research - there are pages and pages of book-length and journal treatments on Google Scholar. But one encyclopedia appears to consider it pseudoscientific, and this apparently solely because people have seen the phenomenon often (which is all anecdotal evidence means). We only have analytical evidence that things fall down when dropped, for example, but gravity is not considered pseudoscience. Hgilbert 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought one of the guiding principles of Wiki was that all notable viewpoints must be presented. How can an article that simply requires one source to state as fact that something is an example of X, irrespective of how many competing (better? more authoritative?) sources exist, and without even mentioning the existence of those sources, itself be allowed to exist? The title should be changed to "things that have been called pseudoscience." As things stand the article is little more than a piece of POV pushing sleight of hand.Davkal 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the point. Hgilbert 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should come up with a sort of litmus test to evaluate a claim for inclusion on this list. There are obvious pseudo topics (creationism, magnet therapy) but there are other topics whose qualifications have to be questioned.  I really do think that it all comes back to how the Lead introduces the topic.  I will work on something that will hopefully give a more concrete definition for inclusion in the list.  Cheers!!! Baegis 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And then let's make sure the title reflects the criteria. Hgilbert 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea: all that needs to happen is a careful evaluation of all reliable sources. If the sources that evaluate a subject to be pseudoscience are more mainstream and more reliable than the sources which claim it isn't pseudoscience then we should include it in the article. Otherwise, I think we shouldn't. ScienceApologist 14:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics?
I don't personally consider eugenics to fall under the definition of "pseudoscience" proper, but it is often, often referred to as such. My thoughts on it might be that it could fall into a somewhat separate category here, if others agreed: things often referred to as pseudoscience, often because specific historical forms of it engaged in what we might call pseudoscience in retrospect, but depending on the current definition of the term may or may not fall under any strict definition of pseudoscience. But maybe that is a bit too wordy. Anyway, just a thought I had. --24.147.86.187 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ours is not to question why, ours is but to report what reliable sources say on the matter. Simply put, we have a source for the claim that eugenics is a pseudoscience, so it goes in. Counteracting this based on our own beliefs is original research. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't actually see eugenics listed on this page. Baegis 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposophy POV-pushing
I understand that User:Hgilbert is a fan of anthroposophy, so that may explain why anthroposphy was so unduly characterized with kid gloves. In particular, the evaluation of the sources discussing this subject was obviously biased. Classifying anthroposophy under the categorization of "conflicting studies" is quite disingenuous as the subject has absolutely zero support from the scientific community for its pseudoscientific aspects. ScienceApologist 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry? So far as I know, there is also zero criticism of anthroposophy from the scientific community. The skeptical sources used here are not scientific ones. The article quoted a verifiable source stating that there were conflicting philosophical evaluations of claims that inner experience can be treated with similar scientific rigor as outer experience; this source was removed without justification by the above editor. POV-pushing, i.e. excluding certain POVs and pushing others, is indeed out of place here. So are personal attacks. Hgilbert 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Before this begins an edit war, which it looks like it might, let's discuss this on the talk page a little. What do ya say?  Raise a pint and talk a bit?  Baegis 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the source referenced to include anthroposophy and anthroposophic medicine in this article, the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. As far as I can see, the relevant article does not refer to either of the two as pseudoscience, nor does it use any phrasing equivalent to this. At the moment, including the two in this list appears to be Original research. The articles are written by a person with no academic qualifications; the only critical commentary in the article - which has nothiing to do with pseudoscience - is cited to a self-published website. I'm not clear how this is an encyclopediac source, and it clearly does not support the entry here. Hgilbert 02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I humbly recommend that User:Hgilbert cease from editing this page as his direct association with anthroposophy is a direct conflict of interest. Typical of many advocates who dislike seeing their pet ideas labeled as pseudoscience, Hgilbert has decided to attack the source of the criticism rather than acknowledge the marginalization of his particular belief per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I note also that the sources used to claim that there is "inconclusive" or "active research" in regards to the subject are themselves highly biased meta-studies that are not published in journals devoted to scientific experimentation. ScienceApologist 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about instead of having an editor leave, we follow through with evaluating the sources on each side in order to find out it's inclusion. In going with what SA mentioned earlier, "all that needs to happen is a careful evaluation of all reliable sources. If the sources that evaluate a subject to be pseudoscience are more mainstream and more reliable than the sources which claim it isn't pseudoscience then we should include it in the article."  Lets evaluate the sources for each so that we can not only have a well-sourced claim but we can evaluate the criterion for inclusion.  Baegis 15:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to say that Hgilbert should leave, only that he should be judicious in how he edits this article considering his conflict of interest. I encourage him to give some input here, but I don't expect that his association with anthroposophy will enable him to fairly characterize the subject. ScienceApologist 15:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest with Baegis that we need to evaluate the arguments on their merits. We seem to have one source that does not support what it is claimed to support here, and is an article written by someone who has no professional or academic standing in the field. We have another source, which does support what it is claimed to support, is published by a mainstream academic publishing house, and is written by someone who is a recognized expert in the field. Please correct me if this summary is in any way incorrect. Hgilbert 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem with using the writings of someone so closely connected to the field is that they have a vested interest in seeing that their field is portrayed in a good light. A sort of appeal to authority, if you will.  Baegis 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, could you be more specific to whom you are referring, that is, which of the cited sources "has a vested interest"? Merci, EPadmirateur 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The "recognized expert" in the field. Baegis 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be so dense: do you mean Hgilbert or Robert Todd Carroll? Hgilbert is an editor and not a cited source. The sources he cites are reliable and authoritative as far as I can see. If you mean Hgilbert, then you are really questioning the motives of an editor: I think we need to assume good faith in such cases. If you mean Carroll, I believe Hgilbert raises a question about Carroll as a reliable source, so that's what needs to be discussed. --EPadmirateur 19:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to understand the justification for this edit which removed several statements and references with the justification being "material was used because it was cherry-picked and unreliable". I don't understand the reasons given. ScienceApologist, can you be more specific what problems you have with the citations of von Rohr et al., Edzard Ernst, Alm et al., and Carlo Willmann? They all look like reliable, authoritative sources to me and support the statements that you removed. Merci, EPadmirateur 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mostly, those sources are not directly relevant to the question of whether anthroposophy is pseudoscience or a based on pseudoscientific concepts. Perhaps "unreliable" is not the right word: "irrelevant" may have been better. These sources discuss what may be perceived by some to be positive benefits of aspects of anthroposophy. There, indeed, may be many positive benefits for lots of pseudoscientific beliefs. Indeed, the placebo effect of people associating their magnetic bracelets with pain relief is very real: that does not mean that the process of creating a magnetic therapy bracelet is therefore scientific. See the problem? ScienceApologist 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, let's take one at a time: von Rohr, et al. is a peer-reviewed paper by mainstream medical doctors, statisticians, etc. in a recognized Swiss medical journal which characterizes anthroposophical medicine specifically as "complementary" and not alternative: "Anthroposophical cancer treatment is applied in a complementary (additional to conventional medicine) rather than an alternative way." (p. 1183). This is a reliable source and gives a more authoritative characterization of anthroposophical medicine, I believe, and it justifies the use of that term to characterize anthroposophical medicine, as Hgilbert had it worded.
 * Furthermore, the article states "Our main conclusion is that theoretically it is possible to find study designs which respect the holistic character of alternative or complementary cancer treatments and at the same time, produce methodologically correct evidence on treatment effectiveness. But we have also learnt that unexpected obstacles do occur, which made progress difficult." (p. 1183). This study is therefore quite relevant to whether anthroposophical medicine can be studied scientifically, and indeed the authors conclude that such studies can "produce methodologically correct evidence on treatment effectiveness", although there are obstacles that need to be overcome in such studies. So I think citing the von Rohr et al. study would be quite relevant to this article to achieve a neutral point of view and should not be deleted. --EPadmirateur 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Ernst 2004 citation, Hgilbert said "No thorough scientific analysis of anthroposophical medicine generally has been undertaken; studies of individual medicines have shown a range of positive and negative results." May I suggest a more recent and comprehensive review of controlled trials of anthroposophical medical complementary cancer therapy (Kienle and Kiene, 2007. Complementary cancer therapy: A systematic review of prospective clinical trials on anthroposophic mistletoe extracts. European Journal of Medical Research, 12:103-119.) ? This study was done by two medical doctors for a peer-reviewed medical research journal, so it should be acceptable as a reliable source. Their conclusions are: "Regarding quality of studies and consistency of results, the best evidence for efficacy of mistletoe therapy exists for improvement of QoL and reduction of side effects of cytotoxic therapies (chemotherapy, radiation). Survival benefit has been shown but not beyond critique." In other words, of the 16 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 9 non-randomized CTs (n-RCTs) that were considered, the best studies showed that there was good evidence for the efficacy of the AM mistletoe therapy in improving quality of life (QoL) and reducing side effects. There was also evidence suggesting an improvement in survival but some of these studies could be criticized.
 * I'm not suggesting that these results be cited in this article, only that there are reliable sources (this one and the "better" studies that it cites) that suggest a countervailing view, namely that anthroposophical medicine is not pseudoscience. The efficacy of AM therapies can indeed be, and are, studied with scientific rigor. In fact, I believe that point warrants moving the anthroposophical medicine entry back to the Disputed subjects section, because the question is in dispute. --EPadmirateur 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Alm et al. (1999) Lancet study, Hgilbert stated "An 'anthroposophic lifestyle' has been shown to reduce atopy." Lancet articles are certainly reliable sources. Again, may I suggest a more recent study following on from this 1999 study, namely, Flöistrup, et al. (2006). Allergic disease and sensitization in Steiner school children. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 117(1), 59-66. Reprint copy? This study is a similarly reliable source from a peer-reviewed scientific journal authored by 16 MDs, PhDs and ScDs, involving 6,630 children age 5 to 13 in five European countries, which concluded that certain practices of anthroposophical doctors, such as restrictive use of antibiotics and antipyretics, are significantly associated with a reduced risk of allergic disease in children. Again, it's not the study's result that need be cited but the fact that the practices of anthroposophical doctors can be, and are, studied scientifically and their efficacy judged. So again, the question whether anthroposophical medicine is pseudoscience is in dispute, based on reliable sources. The requirement to maintain a neutral point of view means that the viewpoint that anthroposophic medicine is not pseudoscience be given due weight. Again, I would suggest that anthroposophic medicine be placed in the Disputed subjects section. --EPadmirateur 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Carlo Willmann (2001) reference, Hgilbert stated "The possibility of such a systematic [scientific analysis of inner experience] is disputed and the question remains unsettled." The anthroposophy article contains the following statement: "Anthroposophy aims to attain in its investigations of the spiritual world the precision and clarity of natural science's investigations of the physical world. Whether this is a sufficient basis for anthroposophy to be considered a 'spiritual science' has been a matter of controversy.", citing this same source. I don't have a copy of this book. The citation on the book at Google books says that it was Willmann's doctoral thesis at the University of Vienna. The book's bio say that he studied theology. The publisher (Boehlau Verlag in Germany) is a mainstream publisher. Therefore I contend that the Willmann source is a reliable source, being a doctoral dissertation in theology from a major university. Hgilbert may want to quote what Willmann says more specifically, but if a PhD dissertation contends that the question of scientific analysis of inner experience is "unsettled" or a "matter of controversy", that ought to be enough to warrant inclusion of Hgilbert's original statement in the Mysticism, religion and belief section, if this countervailing viewpoint is to be given due weight. --EPadmirateur 06:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The cited encyclopedia labels it an "important pseudoscientific concept." I'm not sure what else you could want. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 22:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of the two encyclopedia articles (on anthroposophy and anthroposophical medicine), neither of which contains the statement you cite. Could you be more specific about where you found this statement?


 * In any case, the author of the article has neither expertise nor qualifications in any related field, nor does he cite any author with such expertise or qualfications. In addition, if known POV bias on a subject excludes use here he must be rejected on this basis. Carlo Willmann both has such qualifications and also cites further sources, both non-anthroposophical (Dr. Heiner Barz, a professor of education) and anthroposophical (Kiersch, etc.) that support the contention that the claims of anthroposophy to a scientific methodology are taken seriously, even defended by established academic authorities not themselves connected to anthroposophy. Hgilbert 11:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, Willmann doesn't have qualifications to demarcate science and pseudoscience as far as I can tell, and he doesn't make any claims to this effect in the citations provided by anthroposophy supporters. Whether or not anthroposophy supports "scientific methodology" is a question that is one removed from the designation because we need to know first of all it what fashion anthroposophy is considered pseudoscience. From what I understand, it is pseudoscience of the mystical source, akin to creation science or other attempts to "prove" the existence of the spiritual. That is not an issue of methodology but rather one of falsifiability. Unless you have sources which indicate that there are anthroposophists who are willing to accept studies which could disprove their ideas then there really isn't any point in including "counterpoints". ScienceApologist 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He actually does address the issue extensively in a five-page subsection of the book titled "Anthroposophy as spiritual science"; here he reviews various contributions to the subject from a variety of people who have addressed the issue, all of whom have appropriate both academic and professional credentials, and comes to the conclusion quoted in the article - that the area is a disputed one - and a second one which I'll try to summarize below:


 * Willman suggests, with citations, that there are three different levels of scientific work, each with a methodology specific to it, but that there are meta-methodological (my term, not his) consistencies that allow one to define a broader scientific methodology. His first form, natural science, makes exact physical measurements that are repeatable. His second form, the social sciences and humanities, addressing as they do the realm of human experience, require a methodology of dialog and interpretation but nevertheless possess methodologically controllable techniques. His third form, "contemplative knowledge", though achievable in clearly defined steps of meditative procedure, is not methodologically verifiable in the sense of the first two. He quotes G. Altner, Die Wahrheitsfrage als Herausforderung : "One must not play off these models against one another as if any one of them possesses a monopoly that makes the others superfluous." He emphasizes that each form of scientific knowledge must ensure that "charlatans" are exposed, must be open to challenges by the others, but also must be accepting of the other forms.


 * I suggest that Willman is the only review of the issue we have by a competent authority; certainly the only one that cites and critiques a range of sources rather than just asserting an opinion.


 * Finally, there are extensive empirical studies of anthroposophic ideas (for example of anthroposophic medicine in medical journals, in educational journals of anthroposophic pedagogical practice, etc.) These are not directly relevant here; it would be original research for us to survey these and draw conclusions - we need to find others who have done this. But use Google Scholar with terms such as "anthroposophic medicine", "Waldorf education", "anthroposophic architecture", etc., etc. and you'll get an overview of how extensive the literature is. Hgilbert 13:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Please follow Wikipedia standards for reliability and verifiability. Unless a source does not conform to these, please do not remove it arbitrarily (i.e. because it contradicts your POV). In addition, when an active discussion is in hand, it is bad manners to peremptorily take one-sided action. Hgilbert 11:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, we could give the reader some basis in comparing the worth of the various sources. For example, the author of the Skeptic's Encyclopedia articles quoted here was denied standing as an expert witness on that very subject in a California court of law. In fact, the judge expressed "'grave doubts about any reliance upon his opinions about anything that has to do with any intellectual endeavor, including anthroposophy'" (from the trial transcript). Shall we continue to compare the strength of the sources? Or just include this last quote in the article so that the reader can make up his/her own mind? Hgilbert 13:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Expert witness on what exactly? What was the case in question?  Baegis 16:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He was denied standing as an expert witness on anthroposophy. See more details in the PLANS article. Or see the actual transcript, p. 28. Hgilbert 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessing & Rating Sources
Above a few editors suggest we should assess the various sources on offer and decide which are the most reliable and/or authoritative and then come to decision here, on that basis, about whether something is or is not pseudoscience. The editors further suggest that once that decision has been reached here, the less authoritative/reliable sources (in our view) should be ignored completely and the article should then state (as fact) only that viewpoint that we have decided here is the most authoritative/reliable source.

This runs directly counter to Wiki policy in at least two ways. First, it is almost the definition of original research. That is, we research the topic, we assess the evidence, we assess the credibility/authority/reliability of the sources, and we then write our conclusions into the article as fact. Second, it runs roughshod over the notion that all notable viewpoints should be expressed. That is, it means that once we have decided what the truth is, we cherry pick those sources we used for our decision and pretend that competing viewpoints/sources don't exist.

On both counts, then, the proposal should be roundly rejected. The problem here is not solved by coming up with new ways to circumvent Wiki policy. The problem here stems from the fact that whether something is or is not a pseudoscience is not a straightforward matter of fact, but is instead, at best, a complex value judgment. And when we add to that problem the problem of the various meanings/uses of "pseudoscience" (one fairly tight definition that includes almost nothing, one fairly loose one that includes almost everything including many sciences, and one that is simply thrown about as a pejorative by various professional "skeptics"), we can begin to see the underlying difficulties with the article as a whole. That is, the title suggests that there is a list to be compiled in a fairly straightforward manner, but the actuality shows that there isn't.

My suggestion, then, is: change the title to "Things that have been labeled pseudoscience", and then in each case state explicitly in what sense something has been so labeled; or else give it up. Anything else is, as stated above, a mere piece of POV pushing sleight of hand. Davkal 13:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose a name change to the article. It seems to me you are pushing towards wanting to nominate this article for deletion.  If that is what you want to do, it is your right, but I don't think it will be a successful move.  I'm not sure if you are talking about Science Apologist's idea or not, but I am going to assume you are for the sake of this.  His idea doesn't run counter to any Wiki policy of which I am aware.  For every contentious article, you have to weigh the different sources for each viewpoint.  We are not conducting original research by any means.  These "skeptics" you mention do not throw about the term pseudoscience and I think you are mistaken when thinking they include any actual sciences under this banner.  In going with what the lead mentions, it establishes the criteria for inclusion.  Baegis 16:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Nobody was saying that sources don't have to be weighed and appropriate levels of coverage given in the article - this is the essence of Wiki policy. The reason the proposal above runs completely counter to this is that the suggestion there is to weigh the sources here (on the talk page) and then write the article from the viewpoint of only the "winning" source" - the "losing" sources being left unrepresented in the article. This, as noted, is the antithesis of presenting all notable viewpoints because it is the explicit removal of some/many notable viewpoints/sources in order to present a seemingly factual situation in the article (i.e., x is pseudoscience) where no such certainty exists in actuality. The whole point of including all notable viewpoints being to prevent this kind of thing.

2. "Skeptics" such as Robert Carroll and Michael Shermer do throw the word "pseudoscience about as a pejorative and this article does even worse. That is, things are included in this article on no other basis than they are included in a book called the 'encyclopedia of pseudoscience' - a title that was probably chosen for it's rhetorical appeal rather than any actual analysis, carefully considered or otherwise. How else can one explain the inclusion of "trolls, elves and pixies" in such a book. And this is why there is a pressing need for the sense in which "pseudoscience" is being used to be explained in each case - the refusal to do this, or even to acknowledge the appallingly loose manner in which some items have been deemed pseudoscience is the clumsy piece of sleight of hand referred to above. It's not that far removed from having a list called "people born out of wedlock" and including in it everyone who (my friends) have ever called a bastard. That this is being done is amply illustrated in the "ours is not to reason why" response which is so regularly used to respond to anyone questioning anything in the list. Davkal 17:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You appear to be doing original research in the same breath that you denounce it. If you don't think trolls, elves, and pixies have a pseudoscientific air to them, write as much, and get published. Then, if we assess your publication as being reliable, we can cite you as a source! <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 18:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to do any research to know that fairies, elves and trolls etc. are not pseudoscience in anything other than a pejorative and largely empty sense of the term meaning roughly: supernatural or mythological or thought previously by some to exist but now thought not to. One only needs a modicum of intelligence. The point being, the one you don't even try to address - preferring instead a non-argument,is that if a list includes, say, elves, then it is not a list of pseudosciences whatever the commercial or rhetorical or pseudointellectual or pseudodscientific thinking that lay behind the choice to include "pseudoscience" in the title. And the further point being, that once we have shown by reference to the inclusion of, say, elves, in such a book, that the title cannot really be taken as evidence that what is included in it s pseudoscience, we should stop using the mere inclusion of things in such a book as a catch all response to anybody who questions why something is included in our list. Unless, of course, you want to honestly name the article "Things that have been labeled pseudoscience" or some such thing. But then if you did that you wouldn't be able to push your POV that the things here are pseudoscience in actual fact. Which is the whole point of the article after all.Davkal 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you're aiming to get yourself blocked yet again, I'd keep the personal attacks to yourself. I make no claim about whether any of the items on this list are "in actual fact" pseudoscientific. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. There was no personal attack of any kind. 2. The title explicitly suggests that the items in the list are pseudoscientific in actual fact. 3. The stuff about verifiability rather than truth is a red herring here because we are talking about: a) the exclusion of sources in direct contradiction of Wiki policy; and b) the spurious argument (non-argument) from "x appears in a book with pseudoscience in its title", to "x is a pseudoscience" and why that lying behind the article reduces the article to a mere POV pushing sleight of hand. 4. Please stop the personal attacks. Davkal 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering your past history, it might be best if you distance yourself from this talk page, Davkal. Baegis 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent argument, everything I've come to expect from the pseudoskeptic community. Harass, threaten, intimidate but at no point deal with actual points made. Well done!Davkal 19:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't see where this is occurring. Except in your behavior of course.  If you would like to contribute to the article, please feel free.  If you would rather troll, I'm afraid we can't allow that.  Baegis 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's calm down. I do agree that X's mere inclusion in the table of contents of a book with a title "Encyclopedia of Y" does not qualify as verifiable evidence that X is an example of Y, absent any content in the article that supports this further. I would hope that anyone with any sense for scientific proof, or academic standards generally, would recognize this as a minimum standard.

This is especially true in the case at hand. Heliocentrism, Thomas Kuhn, Occam's Razor, William Harvey, Meteorites and Kraken all have articles devoted to them in another encyclopedia of pseudoscience. Shall we list these as examples of pseudoscience, too? Otherwise, we will need some content in the article itself that justifies the classification. Hgilbert 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a weird strawman you've brought up. If you read the articles on these subjects it is clear that the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience isn't making any claims that these subjects are pseudoscientific. What's your point? ScienceApologist 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto for the articles on anthroposophy and anthroposophical medicine in the Skeptic's Encyclopedia. I assume you're conceding that these should be removed from this list, then? Or do you have a case to make based upon the actual articles? Hgilbert 00:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As has been repeated multiple times, anthroposophy and anthroposophical medicine are labeled "important pseudoscientific concepts" in the Skeptic Encyclopedia.<b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 03:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The articles themselves clearly state it is a pseudoscientific idea. Are you disputing this? ScienceApologist 15:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Points: 1. All that has been said up to now is that mere inclusion in the book, irrespective of further content is enough. If these things are in the book then they are pseudoscience, according to that line of argument. But now the argument has changed to require some further statement or clarification in the relevant sections of the book, which Hgilbert has already noted is missing in other cases already included here. That is why it is relevant. 2. Following on from 1) and the point I made above, once we have ample examples of things that are clearly not pseudoscience listed in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience, it is going to take much more than mere inclusion in such a book to make the case for something being a pseudoscince. 3. If you, Baegis, think threats of blocks for personal attacks where no personal attacks are made, and references to past "crimes", and accusations of trolling, followed by requests to stop contributing here are not threats, harassment and intimidation, then I suggest you familiarise yourself with the meanings of the words "comment on content, not on contributors".Davkal 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I never threatened blocks of any sort as I merely referenced your extensive history of being rebuked for your editing methods. I didn't commit an act of intimidation or harassment.  I asked you to to contribute rather than just come in and try to stir up trouble.  Considering your past, I don't know if you will be able to do so which is why I suggested you should move away from this article.  You're rants about what constitutes pseudoscience isn't actually helping this article.  Baegis 00:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Points: 1. I never said you threatened me with a block, Simoes did, just above: "Unless you're aiming to get yourself blocked yet again...". 2. To call someones arguments "rants", and accuse them of trolling, and make no real other points about content, is hardly observing wiki policy with regard to the way to respect the views of others. 3. Whether or not the points I make help the article or not is something that only time will tell and is not for you to decide. And 4. the point now under discussion is whether we should reject the argument, much (ab)used previously, and require something more than mere inclusion in a book with pseudoscience in its title to warrant inclusion in the list. The general view now seems to be that we should. Davkal 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's focus on content and get the whole argument away from editors' personalities. Hgilbert 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. So as far as I can tell the point is this: Encyclopedias of pseudoscience contain many entries that are clearly not pseudoscience. Mere inclusion in such a book, then, can in no way be taken to make the case that any given entry is pseudoscience, nor even that the authors intend it to be so taken. In light of this, we must look at the content of each entry for evidence/claims to that effect. Yes?


 * In addition though, while that would certainly satisfy the obviously essential criterion that entries in the list have at least been labeled pseudoscience (the first problem), it still would not address the exclusion of other competing and/or more authoritative sources. Still, at least it would be a step in the right direction.Davkal 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is it listed in the book then? What do you have a problem with being on the list Davkal?  Let's just lay it out because you are obviously pointing towards certain items.  Baegis 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm...we're going in circles. I just pointed out that many topics and individuals are listed in such books (meteorites, Thomas Kuhn, and so on) that are not pseudoscientific. They should have content in the articles that clearly marks them as pseudoscientific (see the intro to the article for the criteria), and should be written by competent authorities (or they don't meet Wikipedia standards). Hgilbert 01:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hgilbert hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned here. My point is not about one topic/entry in our list here. My point is a more general one about using the mere inclusion in certain books as a criterion that x is a pseudoscience (primarily because of the titles of the books!). Something that clearly cannot be any such criterion given the obvious examples of non-pseudoscientific entries in such books. And once we have accepted that mere inclusion is no criterion, we have to look further into the each and every entry we want to use here for specific claims or arguments to the effect that x or y or z is a pseudoscience.


 * In terms a little less abstract: encyclopedias of pseudoscience have been shown to contain many entries that are not strictly speaking (or even loosely speaking) pseudoscience. They have been shown to contain entries ranging from common terms used in "debunking", e.g. Occam's Razor, to people with interesting views on the topic, e.g, Thomas Kuhn, to religious beliefs, e.g., reincarnation, to mythological creatures, e.g., elves and trolls, to alleged paranormal phenomena, e.g., ghosts, to pseudoscience, e.g., phrenology, and a whole host of things in between and beyond that are not so easily classified. Given this, we cannot simply pick any old thing from such books and include it here as "something regarded as pseudoscience" without looking further at the content of each entry. We cannot do this because there is no way to tell from mere inclusion whether the author intends the subject to be fall into the category pseudoscience, as opposed to mere paranormal, or mere mythological or any of the other categories that such books cover. A possible solution would be to change the article's title to "List of Pseudoscientific, Paranormal & Mythological   Concepts" or some such thing. Another possible solution is to restrict the entries in the article to only those things that have been explicitly identified as pseudoscience - you could probably identify these ones in the encyclopedias because the entry should begin with something like "x is a pseudoscience..." or "x is a pseudoscientific practice..." or some such thing. A third solution would be to explain in the article that a very loose definition od "pseudoscience is being used such that many of the items in our list are more properly identified as either mythology, or paranormal, or anomalous. This third solution would be a  strange one in my view, given how much easier it would be to simply change the title to reflect the actual content of the article.  Davkal 09:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Electromagnetic fields and cell phones are also listed under "IMPORTANT PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS" in the Skeptics' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Maybe the table of contents is not a reliable guide to what we should include on this list...Hgilbert 13:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the supposed adverse health effects associated with EM fields and cell phones are pseudoscientific and probably should be listed on this page. ScienceApologist 15:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the topic of the EM fields & cell phones article. I added it myself months ago, but someone removed it. Feel free to readd it with the Skeptic Encyc cite. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. We have a nice Mobile phone radiation and health article too - should that get its own entry, or does the link to elecrosensitivity suffice without crowding the list? Eldereft 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposophy evaluations
This edit removes material which is irrelevant to whether anthroposophy is pseudoscience or not. Whether there are benefits to anthroposophy is irrelevant to whether they are considered psuedoscience or have psuedoscientific characteristics. These points can be listed at the relevant pages (anthroposophy and anthroposophical medicine) but do not belong on this page. ScienceApologist 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The points are obviously relevant since they counter precisely the points made against anthroposophy. That is, for example, Carroll - who knows next to nothing about the topic - thinks the underlying principles are akin to sympathetic magic (something else Carroll appears to know nothing about) and is therefore out of touch with science; whereas those who do appear to know something about the subject think its epistemic basis is (scientifically)sound. And when a sound underlying epistemology is allied with research which appears to show benefits to, say, anthroposophic medicine, the conclusion is probably science rather than pseudoscience.Davkal 18:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The source quoted regarding the epistemological basis of anthroposophy did not say that anthroposophy had a scientific basis but rather that it had a religious basis. More than that, simply because a practice has benefits doesn't mean that said practice is scientific or pseudoscientific. It is completely irrelevant. Your distrust of Carroll has been noted, but he has been judged by the preponderance of editors to be a reliable source for skeptical demarcation. ScienceApologist 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The preponderance of editors here seem to think the points relevant. I am therefore reinserting in line with this notion.Davkal 19:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I haven't seen anybody but you argue that the points are relevant: and I've pretty much demolished your claims to relevancy above. Simply stating something doesn't make it so. ScienceApologist 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with SA here, Davkal. Your feelings about Carroll have no bearing on this article.  While there may or may not be benefits, any benefits don't warrant exclusion.  People may believe in Feng Shui and it may "help" some people but that doesn't rule out it out of this list.  Baegis 20:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's please avoid editing and reverting the controversial entries on anthroposophy and anthroposophical medicine until there is a consensus on what they should say. Merci bien, EPadmirateur 20:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would accept this argument coming from a neutral party, but since you have a couple of hot pokers in the fire yourself, it's very easy to see your argument for "consensus" to be one based on hoping to preserve a commentary which is basically a soapbox for anthroposophy. ScienceApologist 22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Proper Wikipedia etiquette is not to impugn the motives of editors but to address the content of their edits or their points. My main point earlier was that properly sourced material was added to the two entries to counter the claim that anthroposophy and anthroposophical medicine are pseudoscience, in order to give due weight to opposing viewpoints and present a neutral point of view in the article. Rather than discuss the merits of these points, or whether they do in fact support the argument against a pseudoscience here in the Talk section, the edits are removed without discussion and the editors suggesting NPOV are criticized for trying to uphold a core Wikipedia policy. Très intéressant, EPadmirateur 00:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of verifiable sources...continuing
In an article with almost no academic sources, and almost exclusively referencing the table of contents of one book as its source, it is a little sad that real citations (to academic journals and books) with clear and obvious relevance are being removed by one user. I am referring to the anthroposophy citations, one about reductions in atopy (through empirical testing and published in the Lancet, which of all sources should be acceptable here) and one about the validity of its epistemological basis. Is it scientific, in order to make a point, to delete Lancet articles and keep citations to people with absolutely no academic or professional qualifications in the field, and who have been judged intellectually incompetent to comment on any field by a verifiable source, as has Dugan, the author of the article in the Skeptics' Encyclopedia presently cited? Hgilbert 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reductions in atopy do not have beans to do with whether the thing reducing the atopy is pseudoscientific or not. The validity of anthroposophy's epistemology is also irrelevant because it simply deals with categorizing the subject as a religion rather than a science. Again, that says nothing about the pseudoscientific nature of some of its claims. Claiming that Dugan is "intellectually incompetent" is quite a bold and unverified statement in itself. It looks to me like your upset that people are criticizing your baby. ScienceApologist 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your above comments are OR. The source is OK. Better than others I have seen used in wiki. There seems to a problem with a lot of the articles where people can choose what they think is a reliable source. I have seen opinions on websites used as reliable sources. It seems reliability is in 'the eye of the beholder' here. Dontletmedown 16:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we weren't really saying anything here about reliability of the sources, but I point out that there is a guideline on the issue: WP:RS. What's more there just because a source is reliable does not mean it automatically is relevant to the article. ScienceApologist 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Dugan statement was not made by me, but by the federal judge excluding him as a expert witness; I'll insert it into the article so it won't get lost again. That the Lancet study showing reduction in atopy is relevant is made clear by a request on this very talk page to demonstrate that anthroposophy subjects itself to scientific study (and, presumably, can demonstrate valid results). Whether something is confirmed by scientific evidence has a good deal to do with whether it is a pseudoscience or not...unless you ignore empirical evidence. Finally, could you make clear how a discussion of anthroposophy's scientific status and basis is not relevant to whether it is a pseudoscience? Hgilbert 00:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

disputed tag
I have added the disputed tag since there are many serious concerns about this article that have not been addressed. The article excludes presenting notable views by a piece of sleight of hand between the title and the explanation of content (neutrality). Even given the explanation of content the topics included are cherry picked (neutrality again). The definitions of some entries are ridiculous and many ludicrous opinions are presented as fact (factual accuracy).Davkal 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And I reverted your addition of the tag. It is only disputed by you.  Btw, thanks for calling me a sock of SA.  Really warms the heart.  Baegis 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hgilbert disputes for the same reasons. So have a number of others above in the last few days. These points have never been addressed. I have reverted your vandalism. Sockpuppet/meatpuppet who cares. Davkal 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you pushing for a revert ban? Please do not add the tags.  Also, please stop the personal attacks.  Cheers!!! Baegis 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems others think the tags are justified, and removing legitimately placed tags is vandalism, so unless you would like a ban I think you should desist. Davkal 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like bullying.--Filll 22:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is bullying. We should get some administrator intervention. ScienceApologist 22:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I've been bullied endlessly by Simeos, SA, Baegis and OrangeMarlin. Constant threats of bans, constant references to me rather than the content of my edits, harassment on my talk page, and pretending I'm the only one making a point that has been made by at least three separate editors in the last few days in order to accuse me of disruption.Davkal 22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * More than one person has jumped on the bandwagon and slapped the disputed tag on the article, indeed - but I can only see one person coming here to argue in its favour, and then the only argument put forward is that "there are many serious concerns about this article that have not been addressed". Please give specific examples of which items are misrepresented, ludicrous, cherry-picked etc. Snalwibma 22:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The examples have had to be given with tiresome monotony above. Perhaps if you read the talk page you would see that a number of editors have expressed exactly the same concerns over cherry-picking entries from sceptical encyclopedias which include other entries that are not included here. A number of editors have also expressed concern over the way the article breaches wiki policy by writing a disclaimer immediately after the title which straightforwardly excludes any source which does not make a positive statement that x is a pseudoscience irrespective of its status. Those editors have also noted that this disclaimer means the article does not reflect it's title and have asked for the title to be changed. And an example of a ludicrous opinion presented as fact: King Tut's curse is pseudoscience.Davkal 22:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with expanding the list and encourage people to do so. Obviously some of the entries in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience are not pseudoscience at all (for example, biographies of people like Carl Sagan), but the encyclopedia includes other examples of pseudoscience that are clearly not listed here. No one ever said that the article was exhaustive! ScienceApologist 22:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you agree that "Obviously some of the entries in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience are not pseudoscience at all". The problem this creates though is that for about the last 6 months anyone who disputed any entry was simply told that inclusion in such an encyclopedia was enough - the "ours is not to question why" stock response above. And given this, we now need explicit statements in the source rather than simple inclusion. Lets start with the "sceptics" list. I don't want to fact tag them all at once but will do so if appropriate citations cannot be found in the next few days. In the meantime I think it would show good faith if you replaced the disputed tag pending such citations and given that you now concede that mere inclusion, the criterion used until now, can no longer be considered a valid criterion. Davkal 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience describes a subject as pseudoscience we can included it here, end of story. Ours is not to question why. There is no dispute, simply having the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience describe a subject as pseudoscientific is plenty good enough for us to include it here. ScienceApologist 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But that's exactly what you don't have absent some direct claim to that effect. All you have at the moment is a title of a book and an entry in that book, and you have already conceded that this is no criterion by which to identify pseudoscience - you did that here, look: "Obviously some of the entries in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience are not pseudoscience at all", and then here again, look: "As long as the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience describes a subject as pseudoscience". Grateful if you could replace the disputed tag and then add the appropriate specific citations to the alleged descriptions.Davkal 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This point "simply having the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience describe a subject as pseudoscientific is plenty good enough for us to include it here", is also in direct breach of Wiki policy on expressing opinion as opinion, and detailing all notable viewpoints, and it is in direct conflict with the title of the article. But we will leave that argument until we at least have some evidence that the entries in the current list have at least been called pseudoscience in the first place.Davkal 23:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The subjects cited in this article are all described in the encyclopedia as pseudoscience. Every last one of them. I don't see how it is a breach of policy to let it be known that subjects have been described as pseudoscience by a reliable source. ScienceApologist 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 2 points. 1) none of the topics sourced to the encyclopedia of pseudoscience have had clear citations presented re where they have been specifically described as pseudoscience. All that has been offered so far is their mere inclusion in a book called an encyclopedia of pseudoscience. Which, as you concede, contains many entries that are obviously not pseudoscience, e.g., trolls. Unless such specific descriptions actually exist, then, we are no position to simply assert that the source identifies them as pseudoscience rather than, say, as merely mythological, or merely paranormal, or merely religious, or merely anomalous, or any one of the many other categories covered in such books. (King Tut's curse being perhaps the clearest example of something that is so obviously not a pseudoscience as to call your claim into question absent some specific citation. I mean, who in their right mind, surely not even Carroll or Shermer, would call King Tut's curse a pseudoscience?)
 * 2) Even if we get a specific citation from, say, Shermer, it is still a breach of policy to present his opinion as fact - especially when it is highly contentious opinion of a pejorative nature regarding subjects about which he is not an expert. That is, it is totally unacceptable to have an article wholly based on the notion that just because Robert Carroll, or Michael Shermer, say "X", that X is true. This is what the article currently does by pretending that what is in the list is actual pseudoscience (the article is supposed to be a list of pseudosciences in actual fact) rather than merely a list of what a few professional lobbyists with no real expertise in the subject matter have (maybe) claimed is pseudoscience. Opinion should be presented as opinion and not as fact.
 * My overall point being that I am all for letting the reader know that so-and-so has said such-and-such is a pseudoscience, but only if: a) they actually did say that (and that has still to be shown); and b) it is presented clearly as a case of so-and-so saying such-and-such is a pseudoscience rather than disingenuously as a case of "such and such is a pseudoscience".Davkal 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, King Tut's curse is an excellent example of pseudoscience. It presents a falsifiable claim that has been falsified and yet is still advocated by pseudoscientists. ScienceApologist 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I also agree with the neutrality in dispute tag: "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." Rather than get into a revert war, perhaps we can discuss the points that motivated that tag? Perhaps the article's editors will allow countervailing evidence to be presented for a listing? So that the article can present a balanced, neutral point of view? --EPadmirateur 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless the countervailing evidence is specifically about demarcation, it does not belong in this article. ScienceApologist 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Above SA wrote, "interestingly enough, King Tut's curse is an excellent example of pseudoscience. It presents a falsifiable claim that has been falsified and yet is still advocated by pseudoscientists." This is patent nonsense, and shows a worrying lack of clarity about the nature of PS. If I claim that the winners of the 2007 World series in Baseball were the San Diego Padres, and continue to claim this even after someone has shown me the record books, this does not make my claim PS. Much, much more is required than that.Davkal 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed consensus
I hope we all share in a consensus that: If we do have such consensus, we can go on to evaluate case by case. If we don't, I support the disputed tag. Hgilbert 00:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The author of an article cited must qualify as a reliable source.
 * 2) The text of the article must clearly support the use of the term "pseudoscience" by citation to authors who use this or an equivalent classification; mere inclusion in a table of contents does not suffice.
 * 3) Evidence that relates to demarcation belongs in this article. (We may have a demarcation issue with what evidence relates to demarcation, however!)

Citing Shermer's contention that X is a pseudoscientific concept is not presenting it as fact. As a notable skeptic and trained researcher, Shermer's opinion on what constitutes pseudoscience is simply being used as a criterion for inclusion in this list, not to make value judgements about X. Also, I think it is a bit absurd to assert that someone needs to be an expert in a particular field in order to objectively evaluate whether there is a scientific basis to the claims made in that field. Shermer is clearly an expert in general scientific principles and experimental methodology, which is all that is required to objectively evaluate most scientific claims. — DIEGO  talk 03:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Even if we get a specific citation from, say, Shermer, it is still a breach of policy to present his opinion as fact - especially when it is highly contentious opinion of a pejorative nature regarding subjects about which he is not an expert."


 * Above it is argued, "Citing Shermer's contention that X is a pseudoscientific concept is not presenting it as fact. As a notable skeptic and trained researcher, Shermer's opinion on what constitutes pseudoscience is simply being used as a criterion for inclusion in this list". This is simply wrong because what "inclusion in this list" means here is that X is psedoscinectific in actual fact. The general form of the argument: if you use A's contention that "X is a Y" as a criterion (a sufficient condition) for including X in a list of things that are Y, then you are straightforwardly saying that X can be regarded as Y just because A says that X is Y. If you called the article "things that A has said are Y" then there would be no problem, but you don't, you call the article "things that are Y".Davkal 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to say that X is regarded as Y becasuse A said it, but the intro paragraph certainly seems to indicate for incluson in this list, a concept must have been labeled pseudoscience by A. (A = notable scientific and skeptical bodies). Am I wrong? If not, and the introduction does imply that X is Y according to A, then you should be trying to change the intro if you disagree with this rationale for inclusion, or else your argument is a bit weak. By the way, I think that as head of the Skeptics Society and a PhD holding scientist, Shermer qualifies as an "A". — DIEGO  talk 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand the point completely, please reread it and respond. Davkal 20:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be an under-the-radar attempt to remove one of the verifiable critics of anthroposophy who was dismissed from a rather poorly argued Federal case. In any case, it's pretty clear that anthroposophy inasmuch as it argues for some sort of objective measurement of a human soul is pseudoscience of the same sort as other "scientistic" religions such as scientology or Christian Science. ScienceApologist 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hgilbert's proposal. Unfortunately, after reading the arguments on the talk page it seems that some editors want to use this list to discuss the validity of each individual concept, which would be better suited to the individual articles on the concepts. The introduction to this list makes it clear that concepts included in the list are "regarded as pseudoscientific by organizations within the international scientific community, and/or skeptical organizations." Therefore, any evaluation of sources should focus solely on whether the concept meets this criteria. If a reliable source within the scientific or skeptical community considers X to be pseudoscientific, then it should be included. Any contradictory evidence from a WP:RS supporting the claims of X clearly needs to be included in X's article in order to maintain NPOV, but is irrelevant to X's inclusion in this list. This list should not be a forum for competing sources. That said, inclusion in the table of contents of an encyclopedia of pseudoscience (without a statement in an article explicitly labeling it pseudoscience [or an accepted synonym]) does not seem to meet the burden of evidence. Surely, we can do better than that. If an item on the list is truly considered pseudoscience by the scientific and/or skeptical community, it shouldn't be difficult to find impeccable, easily verifiable sources to confirm this. — DIEGO  talk 03:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that someone needs to be an expert in, say, astrology to judge whether astrology is a pseudoscience; rather, that s/he should be an expert with verifiable credentials in a field that would allow him/her to make such a judgment. For example, the philosophy of science, sociology, or a corresponding field. But someone with no professional or academic credentials in any related field (as is the case for at least one of the authors of articles in the Skeptics' Encyclopedia) obviously has no expert standing. That ScienceApologist is defending such a case only makes me want to look into the qualifications of the other authors more closely.


 * In particular, if Dugan is allowed without any qualifications thereto, what standard are you applying? Sympathy with your POV? What about equally unqualified persons who express the opposite POV - what basis would you have to exclude them? Think it through, you're opening a can of worms.


 * Finally, this is not the place to thrash out subjects for which there are divided opinions. But the fact that such divided opinions exist should be noted here, according to the NPOV policy. Hgilbert 11:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to strongly recommend that the text that is being cited to verify inclusion is briefly quoted in the article or footnote, especially as it appears that inclusion in an encyclopedia's table of contents continues to be used to justify inclusion here (cell phones, etc.) Hgilbert 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done and done - do you disagree with my assessment or description of EHS? Eldereft 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the description is excellent - both clear and accurate. I especially appreciate the inclusion of and emphasis on the scientific basis for the critique. As far as I'm concerned, this can serve as a model (unless there are here unreported studies that report actual effects; I'm assuming the latter is not the case). Hgilbert 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Much as I disagree with Hgilbert in the debate, in the meta-debate these criteria seem reasonable (especially since I do not happen to have a copy of the Skeptic's Encyclopedia to check references). It is necessary, however, to avoid POV-loading in the (succinct) descriptions to each entry. Specifically, the note about anthroposophy and atopy is inappropriate as it deals with a particular aspect of the practice, not what it consists of or what it claims. Additionally, this reference is somewhat disingenuous; Lancet qualifies for WP:RS and the science seems sound (though I am neither a doctor nor a statistician), but it also notes that an "anthroposophic lifestyle" includes denying vaccinations to children, and that "[m]easles has been inversely related to atopy." Eldereft 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we can tolerate quite a divergence in the individual issues if we get the framing criteria right. On the specific issue: I agree with you about the atopy reference in terms of it dealing with a particular aspect of the subject; disagree in so far as it demonstrates that anthroposophic medicine is in fact subject to scientific analysis (but again through a particular example rather than through a meta-review). On balance, I will accept its departure gracefully. Hgilbert 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually - the EHS entry is clear and concise but missing a citation that supports its inclusion as pseudoscience. This should be added. (I hope everyone understands the distinction: citations to particular scientific work are not evidence for a meta-classification of the field.) Hgilbert 10:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that "scientific consensus that something does not work" + "people asserting the contrary without providing countervailing scientific evidence" = "pseudoscience", but in the interests of raising the bar I have added more direct quotes. This removes any potential ambiguity, and I do agree with you that it should be done wherever possible. Eldereft (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have clarified point 2 of the proposed consensus. Hgilbert 12:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When the article is open to edits again, the items in the list "awaiting wording that justifies inclusion" below should be tagged with requests for citation unless point 2 of the proposed consensus is met: evidence of text that clearly justifies inclusion here (the term pseudoscience or an equivalent). If no evidence is forthcoming, eventually the items should be removed. So let's do the research now and record any relevant wording from articles (not tables of contents) - this will minimize the points needing further discussion. Hgilbert 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly no long-lasting concensus can be reached as long as the article could be put in a similar list called "Wikipedia articles with a defamatory title" - see below. Harald88 11:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Title Again
What is the point of having an article with a title that says "things that are x", when it is necessary for the first three paragraphs in the article to explain why virtually everything in the article may not actually be an example of x at all. That is, the first para has the qualifier "regarded as pseudoscientific by organizations..." (which means someone has simply called them PS). And this is further qualified in the second para by: "they may have explicitly called a field or concept "pseudoscience" or used synonyms, some of which are identified in the references" (which means they may not have even been called PS, but something like it, some of which we'll tell you about). And this, unbelievably, is then further qualified in the third para by, "Some subjects in this list may be legitimate fields of research and/or have legitimate scientific research ongoing within them" (which is to say that they may actually be scientifically valid after all - ie, not PS). So, in short, we have a "list of pseudosciences" which contains things that have been called pseudoscience, except for those that haven't, and even those that have might not be PS in any event. As Butthead so succinctly put it: STOP in the name of all that does not suck!Davkal 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a valid point. The criteria for inclusion seem very noncommital (I would guess that it is the result of a compromise), but we do need some operational definition of pseudoscience to justify why concept X is on the list, while concept Y is not. For example, there are practices which have been labeled pseudoscience by notable experts and would seem to fit the criteria for identifying pseudoscience, yet are not on the list (e.g., reflexology, craniosacral therapy, aspects of massage therapy, dubious psychology [repressed memories, regression therapy, rebirthing, facilitated communication, 12-step programs, EMDR, Rorchach inkblots], etc.). In one particluar case, psychoanalysis, WP:NPOV specifically indicates that this should not be labeled pseudoscience (it is only "questionable science") because it is "has a substantial following". Plenty of the concepts on this list have a "substantial following"; that doesn't make them (or psychoanalysis) any more scientific. Psychoanalysis has been labeled "pseudoscience" by notable scientists and skeptics (Karl Popper among them), so based on the current criteria, it should be on the list (at the very least, in the "disputed" section). I am aware that this cannot possibly be an exhaustive list, regardless of the inclusion criteria, but if laundry balls makes the list, then important pseudoscientific concepts should also be included also. If this list is going to be useful at all, the criteria need to be clearly defined, and the majority of important concepts meeting the criteria should be included, whether they have a substantial following or not. — DIEGO  talk 04:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, Davkal, you are misrepresenting the situation. You are quoting the lead but putting your own comments to get your own results.  Do you think that people just walk around and call things PS all the time?  All of the things on this list have reliable sources for their inclusion as PS.  With regards to the actual name of PS, there are a variety of synonyms for PS, such as junk science which would still be the same thing.  Thirdly, just because there is ongoing research into a topic does not mean it is scientific by any means.  Research does not automatically convey a title of scientific.  I won't go to the trouble of listing examples, but I suppose if you are going to argue, I might have to provide some.  And Diego, I do agree there are many more topics that can and should be included in here but this is where the list is now.  There probably is not a reason that these haven't been listed just the fact no one has thought to do it yet.  The criteria is already clearly defined in the lead.  If we want to rewrite the lead in order to allow the reader to better understand it, that is a solid idea.  But the criteria is already there.  Remember, this is just a list and by no means exhaustive.  Baegis 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful, Baegis, if you focused in the points made rather than on other ones. The gist of my point is this: it is consistent with all of the first three paragraphs (the inclusion criteria) that not one single item on the list be PS. It is totally inconsistent with the title of the article that any item in the list not be PS. The certainty of the title is therefore completely undermined by the uncertainty of the inclusion criteria. You need to change the title to something more appropriate.Davkal 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current title is inacceptable for Wikipedia. Harald88 11:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence unrelated to demarcation
We need clarity about whether evidence unrelated to demarcation is allowed here. In the anthroposophic medicine and EHS entries, for example, studies are included that relate to efficacy or lack of effect found. Do all such studies belong to the articles on these subjects, and not here?

There are deeper questions here, some of which we can't go into due to our limited function as editors drawing upon others' conclusions: is something pseudoscience because it is not testable (in which case no empirical evidence, pro or con, could be brought by definition) or is something pseudoscience because it is tested and found wanting? Can something be pseudoscience if empirical tests show efficacy - do not positive results in rigorous, peer-reviewed trials provide scientific proof? Hgilbert 08:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosis
Hypnosis isn't a pseudo-science. Past life regression and other silly claims are, but hypnosis is a well documented subset of psychology, sometimes also called "altered state" or "suggestible state" in the literature. The mechanism of how it works might be disputed, but the fact it works is not. This is different to, for example, homeopathy, which has no mechanism and no proof of efficacy 88.172.132.94 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk pages are not for discussions about a given article's topic(s). <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 17:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's so out of line given the nature of this article. However, the point remains that we have to stick to what the sources say, and we can't just make our own judgments on these issues. We have a source saying hypnosis is pseudoscience, so it goes in. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The source given is the Skeptic's Encyclopedia. Do we has the exact text for the hypnosis entry in this book, so we can see if how it explains hypnosis to be pseudoscience? Currently, what we have in this article seems to just state that certain explanations of hypnosis are pseudoscientific while certain explanations are completely scientific. It seems that the practice of hypnosis is generally well-regarded in the science community even though the effects haven't been completely explained yet. As we begin to understand to working of the subconscious mind more and more, I would be more likely to call hypnosis an emerging science than a pseudoscience. But that's just my opinion and I don't have a source for that. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Once more: let's ensure that every entry actually quotes the cited text that states the field is a pseudoscience. This citation can be in the main text or a footnote. Citations stating that the field has failed to produce scientific proof do not show that the field is a pseudoscience; many scientific theories (string theory) are unproven. Citations stating that tests have shown no efficacy to a treatment do not show that the field is a pseudoscience; many proposed medicines have been tested scientifically and failed to show efficacy. These are all part of the scientific method. The text will have to relate directly to pseudoscience.
 * At the moment, it appears that the current entry for hypnosis should be revised to say, at most, "certain explanations of hypnosis" -- if there are supportive quotes for this provided. Finally, if there are citations that indicate that hypnosis is a topic for scientific investigation, these should go in too. (Remember something called the NPOV policy?) That's why we need a section for topics for which the categorization as pseudoscience is verifiably disputed. Hgilbert 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting wording that justifies classification here
I propose that, while the page is protected and we cannot enter new material there, we should gather the justifying quotations that are being used to classify entries here as pseudoscience. (It may be that we need to discuss criteria here too.) I suggest that we use this space to list quotations for each entry that does not already have a quotation (not just citation) that justifies classifying the topic as pseudoscience. I'll make a start with two categories that look like they contain controversial areas: Hgilbert 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Health and Medicine - list quotations here


 * 1) Anthroposophic medicine
 * 2) Attachment therapy - Please forbear on mass deletion without at least checking the main article for supporting references. Eldereft (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Bates method Eldereft (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Magnetic therapy - Eldereft (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Faith healing - NSF, CSI, Enc. of PS Eldereft (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Hypnosis
 * 7) Scientific racism - clear skeptical PS refs. with quotes, but could use a scientific body or review article reference as well. Eldereft 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mysticism, Religion and Belief - list quotations here


 * 1) Anthroposophy
 * 2) Feng Shui
 * 3) Meditation
 * 4) Neoshamanism
 * 5) Reincarnation
 * 6) Shroud of Turin While this is primarily a religious/mystical belief, claims of origin that do not account for the scientifically determined age of the cloth and other evidence must be regarded as pseudoscience. Eldereft (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eldereft has found citations for almost half of these. I propose that we give this one more week and then archive the remaining areas awaiting verification. Hgilbert 11:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like time to find references for Anthroposophic medicine (Anthroposophy I think should go, as it is as far as I can tell more like a religious/philosophical movement than properly pseudoscience), Faith healing, and hypnosis. A week sounds fair enough for anyone to raise further objections, but I do not know that I will have the time for reference hunting this week. Of course these three items should not remain simply on my say-so, but if whoever culls the list comments these out instead it would save me the time of finding the old text and perhaps inspire someone else to seek out justification. Eldereft 21:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We can keep anything that's actively being pursued, of course; I'd like to move really inactive and unverified listings out. Hgilbert (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Expanded list
 * I guess that makes this a good time to dump my own deletionist list. Generally I am in favor of inclusionism (e.g. the Shroud of Turin is itself a religious object, but certain claims have been scientifically disproven and pseudoscience is invoked in its defense), but a good-faith search has turned up nothing strong enough to - in my mind - meet the inclusion criteria for this list.


 * 1) Levitation
 * 2) Materialization - no, an article saying it works like on Star Trek does not qualify
 * 3) Séances - debunked by Houdini when he started the tradition of stage magicians promoting rationalism, but I have not found any scientific claims or investigation.
 * 4) Spiritualism
 * 5) Close encounters
 * 6) Out of body experiences
 * 7) Animal mutilations
 * 8) Tutankhamun's curse
 * 9) Laundry balls - notability?
 * 10) Stock market prediction - I think this fits better under garden variety fraud
 * Eldereft 21:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am cleaning up as discussed above. See Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts/Archive of unsupported items for archived items. Hgilbert (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw no consensus for this action, and so I reverted you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Category: disputed
I have moved mysticism et al. to the disputed area, as it is unusual to consider religious and spiritual phenomena pseudoscientific and because we have no confirmation of anything more than a listing in a table of contents in an encyclopedia as a verifiable source for most of these being included here at all.Hgilbert 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this decision. I think we are trying to lump too much into this list with too few sources. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree also. Are we back to a revert war after only 6 hours? It seems User:Hgilbert put forward a proposed consensus which was discussed and adjusted as a result of that discussion. Evidently some editors do not want to discuss and develop a mutually acceptable compromise, but merely revert anything (as a minor edit no less) that might be based on the consensus, citing a non-neutral point of view. --EPadmirateur 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On 2 November 2007 I requested verification that the entries above are actually cited as pseudoscientific. The need for such verification came about because previous "citations" had merely been to a table of contents; no support for classification here existed in the actual articles. I suggest that citations be provided that use the term "pseudoscientific" or an equivalent (this is what the introduction claims of the items included on the list) or else the topics should be removed from this list. Hgilbert 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly this is the way to proceed. Given that no one has responded however leads me to believe that the above items should be removed. If someone feels that one or all of them should be added back in, they should discuss it here in an appropriate manner rather than revert war. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been no response to this request for verification. I suggest that entries that remain unverified be removed to an archive for storage until verification can be provided. Hgilbert 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Go for it. If someone wishes to revert, they should discuss it here first. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why revert to "Topics related to pseudoscience by skeptical groups"? What's that supposed to mean in English?  Guettarda (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the entire subsection isn't even necessary; we should just stick to the topics with the most respected scientific bodies outright and consistently describe as pseudoscience (otherwise this list will remain a POV battleground). But I take it to mean that here are topics which some skeptical groups have related pseudoscience to. The problem with naming it otherwise is that some of the references don't provide an outright pronouncement that such-and-such is considered a pseudoscience but some skeptical group. With this ambiguity in the reference comes the ambiguity in the subsection title. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering the ambiguity of your response and the fact you inserted a header that not only would violate NPOV but is also quite poorly written (what does it actually mean in english?), I have reverted it. Baegis (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, better yet, sort the "big ones" list into the topical headings. I am not convinced (help with the references, anyone?) that e.g. Séances really count as pseudoscience, but I do not see anything not generally classifiable as non-rigorous fables. Eldereft (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eldereft, thanks for your vcontinued good work in finding better references to support this list. You are making the need to rename this section unneeded. Thank you. I agree with you that things such as Séances really have no place on this list as they are in themselves not really used/misused as a science. Supernatural? Sure. A pseudoscience? Not really. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 08:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The header was changed to reflect the fact that a number of entries are simply included in encyclopedias of pseudoscience, thus have some relation to the subject, but are apparently not actually called pseudoscientific - or at least there is no verification that the latter is the case. The above suggestions are excellent; there needs to be clarity about what is considered pseudoscientific by a broad consensus, what is called that (or its equivalent) by a narrow range of sources (often only one), and what nobody citable has called pseudoscientific and thus should not be included in the list.
 * Plaudits to Eldereft; the citation question is finally moving somewhere!Hgilbert (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Confused and confusing
This article seems a bit of a jumble at the moment. That is, it is split into various sections depending on the type of source for the entries, but then in many cases the entries in those sections don't match the sources, and the sources themselves are not alway really what they appear to be. Firstly, for example, Dianetics and Crystal Healing are in the first section, but do not have sources from scientific organizations and so should probably be in a different section. Secondly, almost everything on the list of "paranormal subjects" is sourced to skeptical groups and/or paranormal groups rather than scientific organizations - one of the few science links (32, the "NASA" link) is actually an advertisement for a radio program!. Thirdly, some of the main sources used in the first section could only euphemistically be called "assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science". They are, rather, a motley collection and it is therefore a bit of a stretch to move from these rather singular sources to the conclusion "The following have broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status". One source, (33 - a science source), for example, actually says "according to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include...", which means that the assertion of a mainstream scientific body has, in this case, simply reported (as a report) what "one group" (CSICOP) has said. And therefore this does not mean we have a mainstream science source asserting the pseudoscientific status of the entries, rather than merely reporting that others have asserted this. I've struck out the last section because it seems the source does then go to call many of those same things pseudoscience.

Having read the comments above, it seems that Hgilbert's suggestion should be extended to the rest of the article so that proper attribution can be presented here and the article can then be reordered accordingly. RedNishin (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted the radio program reference (one of four, makes little difference to the list). Hgilbert (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Extending Hgilbert's excellent suggestion for corroborating quotations in the body or reference - working on it, as I concur. You can too! I would not venture to hazard what sort of consensus was actually reached the other week, but it certainly makes the article better. These quotes should be from respected scientific bodies or notable skeptical organizations, and ideally may usually be found by checking the extant references or by consulting the main articles. My vision of a perfect entry would be: Name; brief description from main article (including legitimate scientific uses where applicable); quote with reference to scientific consensus (e.g. Multiple well-constructed studies have found no evidence for X, nor is there any known physical mechanism by which it might function.); quote with reference to sceptical organization (e.g. X is pseudoscience / quackery / fraud / woo / casuistry / lies / deception / sham / false / mumbo-jumbo / hoax / hocus-pocus / &c.). Also useful would be a parallel project to get multiple sources for each entry (no more "table of contents" arguments, yes?).

As for the WP:RS assertion of RedNishin - mainstream scientific bodies are usually much more concerned with evidence-based theories, so I expect quotes will be forthcoming only for those theories which have attained sufficient notoriety to require debunking (Apollo Moon Hoax) or spur a series of double-blind trials (electromagnetic hypersensitivity). The list certainly needs to be organized and pruned, but if you find a candidate for removal (an entry for which a reasonable search did not yield anything resembling a scientific/skeptical consensus), please at least consider discussing it here first. Eldereft (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if this article is to be a list of pseudosciences then the list of things cited above that can lead to inclusion ("X is pseudoscience / quackery / fraud / woo / casuistry / lies / deception / sham / false / mumbo-jumbo / hoax / hocus-pocus") might need to be considerably shortened. My point, and what I take Hgilbert to be requesting with his list idea, is that we cite here the entries along with the source and the relevant quote where each entry is labeled pseudoscience, or junk science, or bogus science, or maybe quackery. To simply cite a source saying something is false, or a lie etc., or to simply provide arguments to that effect, is not really appropriate. It is surely a given for Wiki that where a claim is made we at least have one source making that claim in a straightforward manner. RedNishin (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to suggest that this become some sort of repository for all manner of magical thinking and April Fool's Day stunts (the list is already somewhat unwieldy, and will probably always remain incomplete), but in the context of a statement to the effect that rigorous science denies a purported phenomenon or effect, more colloquial terms should be allowable. Put another way, a free energy corporation would be committing fraud, and backing it up with pseudoscience. A report describing the fraud and why the purported science just ain't so could be a relevant reference. Simply providing arguments to the effect is, of course, WP:OR. Eldereft (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as we don't drift into original research. Research that shows the absence of a claimed effect is not grounds for inclusion here, though it may well be grounds for a verifiable authority to conclude that the phenomenon is part of pseudoscience, at which point we can quote this authority. We would be doing original research in making the link ourselves. Hgilbert 15:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Applied Kinesiology
The addition of Applied Kinesiology based upon these references is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. None of these articles are peer review. 2 of these refs are written by partisan Quackwatch writers. One is a popular press book. There maybe good reason to include AK on this page, but these references are inadequate. --Anthon01 (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * QW is a reliable source for what skeptics consider pseudoscience. Peer review is not required for demarcation. See WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem as I see it is that Applied Kinesiology is in the wrong part of this page given the sources. The criteria for inclusion in the top portion of the page (where AK currently resides) reads as such: Indicative of this are assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science. Skeptics Dictionary nor NCAHF meet either of these criteria. Given these references, AK might be better suited under the section of the article entitled: Topics which skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific or closely associated with it. Here the criteria reads: The following are subjects closely related to pseudoscience by notable skeptical bodies such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. However, now that I am thinking about it, Skeptics Dictionary is just a book and not a "skeptical body" and NCAHF is a self-published site which may indeed (or may not) represent the opinions of notable skeptical bodies, but in itself, NCAHF is not a skeptical body. I am fairly certain that if we dig, we can find better sources (for either an Academy of Science level source or even a notable skeptical body) which explicitly states the opinion that AK is a pseudoscience. Until then, I would recommend striking this one off this list for failure to meet the inclusion criteria. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed --Anthon01 (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a CSICOP entry which essentially characterizes AK as pseduoscience. It's a little indirect but essentially it is there. Let me know if this is satisfactory. Again, I still think the entire "skeptic bodies" section of this article is pointless and essentially a WP:POVFORK within the article, and thus should be excised from the article. But while it is here, I will make it as good as it can be reference/inclusion-wise. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 04:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My problems with this citation:
 * Citation does not support the text of the article. The article's text states that
 * Applied kinesiology is a means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can give feedback on a patients health. The most common method, called the arm pull-down test, involves the patient lying down and holding up their dominant arm while the practitioner pushes against it.

The citation states that
 * ... procedure known as Applied Kinesiology that is used to test muscles for "weaknesses" caused by certain food or chemical pathogens. Applied Kinesiology is a scientifically discredited procedure. For example, Kenny, Clemens, and Forsythe (1988) found that those using the techniques did no better than chance in determining nutritional status using muscle testing. 


 * Applied Kinesiology is made up of many many procedures. Approved Procedures This citation discusses one procedures in Applied Kinesiology, that is muscle testing for 'weaknesses caused by chemical pathogens.' The Kenny et al reference used to discredit Applied Kinesiology in this citation is a study done on another procedure, testing for 'nutritional deficiencies via muscle testing.' In effect he used a 'nutritional deficiencies via muscle testing' study to disprove 'muscle weaknesses caused by chemical pathogens' or to disprove all Ak procedures.

I don't think we're going to find a citation that will discredit all AK. Perhaps one or more that call in to question a particular procedure. This is the problem with a young science, that is, a 'phenomenon' in the early stages of scientific study. Some procedures will be discarded or discredited while other may be substantiated. The same phenomena exists with conventional medicine eg. the history of coronary bypass surgery. Should we add a line for all those conventional medicine techniques that have been discredited? --Anthon01 (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The removed Atwood citation very much does indicate that applied kinesiology is pseudoscience: "'Many of [these procedures] are known to be absurd (oxygen traversing skin, wet compresses aborting strokes, water “memory,” the iris manifesting a homunculus, “transfer of neural energy” [ie, psychokinesis], etc.); others are highly implausible and easily explained by ordinary mechanisms (applied kinesiology by ideomotor action, colonic “cleansing” by the norm of reciprocity, etc.); and still others are barely plausible but highly unlikely and dangerous and, unlike aspirin, are without any empirical support (eg, St. John's wort as an anti-HIV drug).'"
 * Please consider also a quick search of PubMed results for "applied kinesiology", which easily reveals such gems as:
 * "When AK is disentangled from standard orthopedic muscle testing, the few studies evaluating unique AK procedures either refute or cannot support the validity of AK procedures as diagnostic tests." (Haas, Cooperstein, and Peterson, 2007)
 * "The working hypothesis was the assumption that the reliability of AK would not exceed random chance." (paper confirms) (Staehle, Koch, and Piotch, 2005)
 * "There is little or no scientific rationale for these methods [(cytotoxic food testing, ALCAT test, bioresonance, electrodermal testing (electroacupuncture), reflexology, applied kinesiology)]. Results are not reproducible when subject to rigorous testing and do not correlate with clinical evidence of allergy." (Wuthrich, 2005)
 * Conclusion: to the extent that it conforms to evidence-based musculoskeletal physiotherapy, AK works fine (though not for the reasons postulated). Any use to diagnose physical, chemical, or mental imbalances must be regarded as pseudoscience. If you can find a reliable source demonstrating any other evidence for applied kinesiology, by all means include it. Please do not, however, expect detailed debunking of "the vast number of A.K. procedures which have been described in the past 40 years" unless it can be demonstrated that they do not fall into the above broad categories. The above linked list of Approved Procedures (with selected descriptions) does not satisfy this.
 * Eldereft (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eldereft, I'm sure you'll recognize this when it's explained, but some of your wording above can be confusing. In your "Conclusion" you wrote: "to the extent that it conforms to evidence-based musculoskeletal physiotherapy, AK works fine...." I think you fail to distinguish between AK and scientific kinesiology, which is what PTs use (I'm one). AK practitioners use manual muscle testing (MMT) and take it a step further into diagnosis of various conditions, which is where they get into trouble. They have stepped through the rabbit hole and have joined Alice in Wonderland. MMT is fine, but they misuse it. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant, yes. Hopefully the final(???) article version will reflect the crucial distinction between evidence-based therapies and superficially similar pseudoscientific practices. The main article correctly makes note of this. Also, please do not be discouraged from sharing your experiences and expertise (within the bounds of OR and any applicable COI, of course) to ensure that the article accurately reflects reality. Eldereft 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please comply with WP:CON
 * My edit "Applied kinesiology is a pseudoscientific[48][49] means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can provide feedback on a patient's health through assessment of muscle response as various stimuli are applied. The practice of applied kinesiology can overlap with chiropractic and evidence-based orthopædic physiotherapy, but AK-specific procedures and diagnostic tests have no scientific validity."


 * You edit is "Applied kinesiology is a pseudoscientific[48][49] means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can provide feedback on a patient's health through assessment of muscle response as various stimuli are applied. While the practice of applied kinesiology is a commonly used chiropractic technique,[50] and scientific kinesiology (manual muscle strength testing) is a fundamental part of evidence-based orthopædic physical therapy, AK-specific procedures and diagnostic tests have no scientific validity.[51][52]" --Anthon01 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PTs also practice AK. In fact a whole host of practitioners use the questionable technique including doctors, dentists, chiropractors, osteopaths, naturopaths, physiotherapists, and nutritionists. I think it may show a conflict of interest on your part, Fyslee, that you keep removing your own profession from the description of this practice on this article. Please be aware of at least the appearance of this WP:COI.


 * On a side note, I think we are delving way too much into this in the list article. We should describe the technique provide a WP:RS to attribute the claim of it meeting the inclusion criteria of this list and simply Wikilink to the main article for more information.


 * I think Anthon01's version is more in compliance with how this list article should be written. However, I this it is unnecessary to state "pseudoscientific" in the description, especially given the inclusion criteria of the list. My version would read:


 * Applied kinesiology is a means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can provide feedback on a patient's health through assessment of muscle response as various stimuli are applied. [48][49] The practice of applied kinesiology can overlap with chiropractic and evidence-based orthopædic physiotherapy, but AK-specific procedures and diagnostic tests have no scientific validity.


 * I would even consider losing the last sentence entirely, if the matter is dealt with on the actual Applied kinesiology article.


 * -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed there are some PTs who use it. No one is denying that. Practically every profession has members who do odd things that the profession itself does not approve. The PT profession does use MMT (scientific kinesiology), but not AK. BTW, I didn't remove PT, I only clarified the normal use of MMT by PTs. As far as your COI charge, be very careful when you live in a glass house yourself, since you are the one who constantly deletes mention of chiropractic. The improved version is below and Anthon01 can explain his objections there. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Above you state both "there are some PTs who use it" and "the PT profession does use MMT (scientific kinesiology), but not AK". Which is it? It can't be both. Or am I missing something? As far as glass houses, you know well that I am not a chiropractor, I don't work for a chiropractor, and I'm hardly even a chiropractic patient. You are a PT, you maintain a very anti-chiropractic blog, you participate in very anti-chiropractic groups on and off the web, and your anti-chiropractic agenda has been clearly demonstrated on Wikipedia from the moment you arrived here until today. I am tell you that here you have the appearance of WP:COI and per your ArbCom decision which warned about this, I am telling you to be careful. Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are indeed "missing something." Rogue PTs can do things that are not part of what the profession teaches or approves, just as rogue MDs can practice quackeries the medical profession considers nonsense. That doesn't make their practices part of PT or medicine. As to the rest of your misplaced attack on me, you have at least as big a COI here, considering you have declared that you are here "to protect the reputation of chiropractic" and are definitely quite "partisan" in your attempts to do just that everywhere at Wikipedia, and especially on this article. (If Anthon01 wants to check it out, the history of this article contains some pretty good evidence of how far you are prepared to go to keep any mention of chiropractic out of the article.) That's why I cautioned you about glass houses. No one is innocent here and we both live in glass houses, so don't try to act holy. Keep in mind that your false charges at that ArbCom were noticed by many and it can backfire on you. So I suggest you stop mentioning it. BTW, I am not involved in any groups anymore, and haven't been for some time, nor do I maintain my websites or blog much at all. What you see here is what you get, just an ordinary retired PT who is a skeptic and enjoys editing Wikipedia. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 23:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You classified "the normal use of MMT by PTs" and inadvertently left out any references to PT use of it. I'm sure it was done unintentionally.(AGF) I didn't realize you have a possible COI issue. Your edit does sounds anti-chiropractic. --Anthon01 18:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I only corrected an inaccuracy (AK is not part of PT as was clearly implied by the previous version) and clarified that PTs use MMT (scientific kinesiology, which is another bird). There is nothing anti-chiropractic about stating that the American Chiropractic Association has found that 43.2% of chiropractors use AK. That is no surpise considering it was invented by a chiropractor and has been aggressively marketed to them ever since. Even individual members of other professions take AK seminars and fall for it. I know that some PTs have tried for years to get the Danish Physiotherapy Association to include it as an officially accepted and condoned PT technique, but they have failed, and will likely continue to do so until there is much better evidence (right now there is zilch) for its use as a scientifically verified diagnostic method. I hope that answers your questions and allays any concerns. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 23:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Has the Danish Physiotherapy Association by any chance issued a position paper on AK? They sound like a relevant professional body whose considered opinion would have to meet the standards for inclusion. Eldereft 08:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Include it where? Here on the talk page? --Anthon01 13:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit is a huge improvement over the previous text. --Anthon01 14:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the Skeptics dictionary is considered a RS? --Anthon01 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks like pretty substantial discreditation of AK, but we are still not justified in including it here without a source that links it to pseudoscience (as opposed to a disproved theory). Hgilbert 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are references that are used that identify it as a pseudoscience. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and the improved version looks like a very well done entry. I want us to hold to this standard! Hgilbert 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

New version
'''Regarding your heading (Improved version). From WP:TALK'''

I'm sure it was an oversight on your part. --Anthon01 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely an innocent oversight. I suspect, considering what is pretty much standard practice around here, that 95% of editors are unaware of this. Thanks for teaching me something. You made my day! -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is:


 * Applied kinesiology is a pseudoscientific means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can provide feedback on a patient's health through assessment of muscle response as various stimuli are applied. While the practice of applied kinesiology is a commonly used chiropractic technique, and scientific kinesiology (manual muscle strength testing) is a fundamental part of evidence-based orthopædic physical therapy, AK-specific procedures and diagnostic tests have no scientific validity.

Now what are the complaints? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please give me time to get back to you. I need time to read the citations. Please comply with WP:CON. Reverted text should be discuss on talk page first to achieve consensus, before continuing. See chart in WP:CCC section. This is policy page. --Anthon01 18:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First impressions. This is a little commercial for PT and an attempted derogatory at chiropractic. I'm sure it was unintentional. It also leave out the fact that PTs also practice AK. Your modification of the text written mostly by Eldereft is an unnecessary edit. You're filling the reference with a disclaimer of sorts, PT good, Chiro bad. I understand you have an anti-chiro website? Is that true? --Anthon01 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Anthon01. It does read with a lopsided POV and seems to further Fyslee agenda of chiropractic bashing while protecting his own profession. Further, I believe that the use of the word "pseudoscientific" should be left out because it asserts this description as factual rather than being a POV description. Further, the sources don't support this topic even being included in this list. The inclusion criteria is quite clear. If we are going to leave this entry in the "Skeptical Group" portion of this list, then I suggest we get a source from a notable skeptical organization such as CSICOP. (Again, I feel that the whole "fields that skeptical groups consider to be..." section should be completely excised from this article. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to continue the personal attacks. They only distract from the text and sources being used. There is definitely no chirobashing from me here. If you don't like the chiropractic(!!) sources that discredit AK, then take it up with them. These are good sources and this is an article about pseudoscience. Please don't be deletionist in your attempts to keep the word "chiropractic" out of this article. As explained above, your issues are really not with me, but with the ACA, Goodheart, and Haas, et all, all chiropractors. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 00:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just read the references; I had no clue what AK was hitherto. This is a case of something clearly identified as pseudoscience in the literature and scientifically demonstrated to have no validity. Good sources, solid case; but feel free to add any countervailing evidence from peer-reviewed sources. Hgilbert 14:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please modify title of section as it is a violation of policy.
 * Personal attacks? Where? I didn't see any.
 * This topic in 2 sections is very confusing. How do we simplify.
 * You said above "I only corrected an inaccuracy (AK is not part of PT as was clearly implied by the previous version) and clarified that PTs use MMT (scientific kinesiology, which is another bird)." The text before you edited it said "Applied kinesiology is a means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can provide feedback on a patient's health through assessment of muscle response as various stimuli are applied. [48][49] The practice of applied kinesiology can overlap with chiropractic and evidence-based orthopædic physiotherapy, but AK-specific procedures and diagnostic tests have no scientific validity." There is nothing inaccurate about that statement. They do overlap.
 * --Anthon01 14:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "personal attacks", the comments (which Levine2112 has leveled at me numerous times) were focused on my person, my POV, and my affiliations (and supposed affiliations), all of which violates WP:NPA and WP:TALK. They were not focused on the text and were thus a distraction, so let's leave it behind us and get back to the text...


 * NB: I only edited the last part, which read: "The practice of applied kinesiology can overlap with chiropractic and evidence-based orthopædic physiotherapy,.."

I did it because, as Eldereft realized (after I pointed it out), it contained a misunderstanding which I corrected. That wording mentioned both chiropractic and physiotherapy. I did not introduce that, but it is perfectly appropriate, it just needed to be tweaked to be accurate. AK is a commonly used chiropractic technique that is officially recognized by the profession. Here's just one example. The ACA even lists it and the percentage of chiropractors who use it (43.2%). The misunderstanding I mention is in regard to the wording that makes it seem like AK is a part of PT. Kinesiology (manual muscle testing, not AK) is part of PT, and AK has no part in PT, even if some few rogue PTs may practice it and any number of other unapproved and quackish practices. That doesn't make those practices a part of PT or an overlapping with PT.

I not only corrected the misunderstanding, I added to the understanding of the subject and provided some excellent references that everyone here will admit are certainly V & RS. The only part that could be considered an "overlap" is that all practitioners of AK use MMT, which is not what is unique to AK. The part that makes AK what it is doesn't overlap with PT at all. The only overlap occurs among chiropractors and AK practitioners: 100% of chiropractors use MMT and 43.2% use AK, and 100% of AK practitioners use MMT & AK. That is an overlap of (respectively) 43.2% and 100%. There is nothing critical or otherwise in that analysis. It is not my POV, but is pure fact based on extremely good references. Its accuracy is unassailable, and it definitely improves the section in several ways.

It should be noted that Hgilbert approves of my ("improved") version, as noted immediately before this section.

Levine2112 has unilaterally deleted it without any proper justification. You will notice that in doing so he has fulfilled his mission here, which is (using his own words) "to protect chiropractic's reputation." The entry no longer mentions it at all, even though AK is an approved chiropractic technique used by nearly half the profession. I will leave it up to others to label that type of editing and editor. (If I state the facts, I might be accused of a personal attack....;-)

I have also changed the heading above. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, Fyslee. Please stop your personal attacks. You have pulled a statement completely out of context. I encourage you and others to go back to the discussion you point to from two years ago in which you ask me if I am protecting chiropractic reputation from a false risk statistic which you have been trying to blow out of proportion and include in that article (and several other articles) since you arrived at Wikipedia. Please stop these attacks and false accusations. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement in question "The practice of applied kinesiology can overlap with chiropractic and evidence-based orthopædic physiotherapy,.." on its face does not conflate AK with PT. Applied kinesiology overlaps with PT, chiropractic and a number of other disciplines (eg. tx of MS disorders). The statement clearly states 'overlap.' It doesn't state that AK is part of PT. The statement is not inaccurate. I agree with Levine2112's deletion as a compromise until we can come up with consensus on the text of that second sentence. Your statement "(If I state the facts, I might be accused of a personal attack....;-)" is in itself a personal attack. --Anthon01 15:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no overlap. Period. AK may believe so, but PT doesn't. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The American Cancer Society disagrees with you: Today, practitioners who use applied kinesiology include chiropractors, naturopaths, physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurse practitioners. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss  17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No disagreement at all: "Today, practitioners who use" voodoo, necrophilia, believe in UFOs and Santa Claus, etc. "include chiropractors, naturopaths, physicians, dentists, nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, and nurse practitioners." Get the point? Lots of people use various practices without the practice necessarily being a part of their profession. It's just a part of their practice and no more. Authorized medical professionals who are inclined to use alternative therapies will often develop their own eclectic manner of practice that includes methods that are not approved by their profession. Such practitioners may become highly successful quacks and earn quite a bit before funning afoul of the law and getting busted for illegalities or other problems related to practicing substandard medicine. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Above you state that there is no overlap with PT and AK when according to the American Cancer Society there is. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by "overlap". Your above POV soapbox rant is frowned upon by WP:TALK. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not understanding me. What do you think the edit "overlap" means? Keep in mind that that edit is one editor's own word, and is not found in the sources. The ACA only lists a number of different practitioners who might happen to use it and says nothing about whether the practice is part of those professions or whether a majority or an extreme minority use it. What do you think "overlap" means here? What might be a better word so we can come to agreement on the matter? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "overlap" is vague, but I think so is the separation between what practitioners of a certain profession do and what practices are part of the profession. The ACS clearly identifies several professions in which AK is practiced. However, I think all of this are details which should be reserved for the actual AK article rather than trying to hash it out here. The point of these lists here are to identify a claimed pseudoscience and to provide an RS ref to support that claim. Again, as discussed above and below, if we limited this article to just the most encyclopedic sources such as the various Academies of Science rather than bogging it down with the opinions of skeptical societies, this article would be much more on point and less contentious.
 * Finally, just a reminder to contribute to this discussion page to try and seek consensus before making sweeping reverts on matters concerning this ongoing discussion. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The current version is very vague. I will restore the clearer explanation. Mr.Guru  talk  23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't restore as there is no consensus to do so yet. Please rather describe here your rationale and what you feel is vague and how it can be improved. Perhaps your rationale will help us reach a compromise. However, edit warring will not, so please refrain from doing so. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It can be improved by adding the clearer version. Everything is referenced and I do not see any problems with a better expalanation. Mr.Guru  talk  23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the issues which other editors have above. These need to be reconciled first before we can reach a conclusion here. For instance, to me, all that needs to be said in this list is a brief description of what AK is and an RS ref which shows how AK meets the criteria of inclusion. Anything else seems unnecessary and would be better served on the actual Applied Kinesiology article instead. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried moving it to the AK article and Anthon01 repeatedly reverted it even though it was extremely well-sourced. He got blocked for edit warring for doing that. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A better explanation would greatly improve this article. The current version is vague and seems POV. I think keeping the references in the article are necessary. Mr.Guru  talk  23:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What is vague about this? Applied kinesiology is a means of medical diagnosis which proponents believe can provide feedback on a patient's health through assessment of muscle response as various stimuli are applied. This is a pretty precise definition of it. If the reader wants more info, the can always click on the wikilink and go the main article on AK. What you have added in reads: While the practice of applied kinesiology is a commonly used chiropractic technique,[56] and scientific kinesiology (manual muscle strength testing) is a fundamental part of evidence-based orthopædic physical therapy, AK-specific procedures and diagnostic tests have no scientific validity. 1) This statement is misleading. 2) Describing MMT here confuses the issue and would be better served on the actual AK wiki article for this disambiguation. 3) The no scientific validity line is worded pretty definitively rather than sounding like the opinion of a skeptical organization. If this is a definitive conclusion of science, then AK should be listed in the top list with the proper scientific citations. Anyhow, what do you think should be made more clear here on this article? Please spell out your thoughts for us. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The clearer version is referenced and NPOV. The vague version is very vague. Mr.Guru  talk  23:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are being vague. I know you feel that "your" version is clearer and that "my" version is vague. But you are not explaining your rationale. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, you wrote above "1) This statement is misleading." in reference to this: While the practice of applied kinesiology is a commonly used chiropractic technique,[56] and scientific kinesiology (manual muscle strength testing) is a fundamental part of evidence-based orthopædic physical therapy, AK-specific procedures and diagnostic tests have no scientific validity.

What part is misleading? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Chiropractic
You references are not WP:RS. Chiropractic is currently being peer-reviewed. That process began in earnest in the early 1980's. The AMA lifted it's opposition to professional relationship between DCs and MDs in 1993 or thereabouts. --Anthon01 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The refs are reliable and meet the inclusion criteria. Mr.Guru  talk  23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Published peer-review studies demonstrate chiropractic is in some circumstances more effective the medicine, and you want to use a non peer-review source to challenge a peer review claim? The sources are not of equal weight. WP:Policy page states "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." --Anthon01 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The following are subjects closely related to pseudoscience by notable skeptical bodies such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP). Some of these items are not considered pseudoscientific by these groups in and of themselves: only certain aspects, explanations, and/or applications of them have been thus classified. (See an item's description text for more information on this.) The refs provided meet the inclusion criteria. Mr.Guru  talk  00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that the biggest problem with the refs you are using to make this demarcation is that they are over 10 years old. Much of the scientific research helping to confirm chiropractic as very much a science occurred in this time after the AMA was found guilty of conspiracy to suppress chiropractic research and unfair competition practices. See Wilk v. AMA for full coverage.
 * This conversation does hearken back to a point I made here several months ago. The notable skeptical bodies section should be excised from this list; and rather this article should only rely on the highest caliber of reliable sources (Academy of Sciences and peer-reviewed scientific publications). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with QuackGuru's addition:
 * It's too broad to just add "chiropractic". Chiropractic is a mixture, as stated by chiropractic professor and historian, Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD.: Chiropractic: Science and Antiscience and Pseudoscience Side by Side. It is only the pseudoscientific aspects that should be listed here, primarily vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, vitalism (yes, there are still a few chiros who are very active vitalists), and many of the claims made for spinal adjustments. Many other aspects of chiropractic would definitely not be appropriate to list here, so additions should be specific.
 * The sourcing could be much better. While the NESS is a good source for skeptical opinion, other sources of several types exist, including chiropractic ones like the one above by Keating. They should be used, in addition to the NESS.
 * The abrupt nature of the way it was added and readded (edit warring) is also a problem we have encountered before.
 * Until it can be done better it should stay out. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about finding some source less that 10 years old from something which actually meets the inclusion criteria laid out for us in this section of the article? Sorry, the NESS and Keating opinion pieces are over 10 years old; so old that it calls to question whether these opinions are currently valid. We keep running into these same issues with the "Skeptical Bodies" section. Again, I would move to scrap the whole section and only keep the top section which relies on reliabe sources of scientific consensus rather than weaker sources such as the often politically-motivated and financially influenced opinions of so-called notable skeptical bodies. The whole section turns this otherwise good article into a WP:POVFORK. Let's lose it and finally make this article into something of encyclopaedic merit. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you lay out an argument for removing this section? If so where can I find it. Perhaps it should be revisited. Other encyclopedias seem to take on the subject of pseudoscience in a different way. Are there any WP guidlines or policy statements that might help in this regard? --Anthon01 (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, nothing formal but the bulk of the conversations can be found in Archive 5, especially here and here. Your fresh input is most welcomed. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
As has been noted above, the current categorization ("Concepts" vs. "Topics") might be taken to be misleading, and at the very least reduces the utility of the article by splitting the alphabetical list. Pretty close to every entry is considered controversial by at least someone, else there would be nobody espousing these theories. I therefore propose that we: Eldereft (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) merge the "Disputed" section into the main article (and metaphorically salt the earth);
 * 2) merge "Topics" and "Concepts", keeping the subcategorization scheme present in "Topics"; if it is felt that this gives the appearance of elevating the standard of evidence against topics which have been denounced only by noted skeptics or skeptical bodies, we could alternatively rename and reorganize the sections to reflect more accurately that not every topic is significant enough to have drawn a statement from scientific bodies;
 * 3) integrate into each description at least two WP:RS justifying inclusion (including quotes in-line or as footnotes);
 * 4) note any evidence-based or scientific applications, as appropriate;
 * 5) Assume good faith with respect to the inclusion of current entries - at least check the main article and note any concerns here before summary deletion;
 * 6) accept that we are choosing to edit an inherently controversial page, and remember to treat co-editors as collaborators, not competitors.


 * This is an excellent basis. I would only add that at least one, and preferably both of the citations should include an explicit linkage of the theme to pseudoscience. One to pseudoscience and one broadly confirming an absence of effect found would also be pretty convincing. Hgilbert 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity added to Mysticism, religion and belief
I'm happy this entry was made. It just underpins something I've been considering for awhile. I'd say this article is out of control. Everyone get a chance to add whatever they don't believe. So next will add Buddhism, Judaism, Satanism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Muslim, Hinduism, Atheism etc ... I think maybe Levine2112 has the right idea or at least a better idea. Make the page just about what "mainstream, specialized scientific bodies" consider Pseudo and get rid of all this tabloid type stuff. Leave the rest to the wacky websites. --Anthon01 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see it has been deleted. It would be just as improper to add Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, as it would be to add Chiropractic. There are certain aspects of them that can be added here, but not the whole thing. It is only the parts that make unfounded scientific claims that belong here. If they don't make scientific claims, they are just beliefs. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So how does mysticism qualify? Hgilbert 14:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Christianity and Judaism have nothing to add concerning the understanding of pseudoscience, though prayer(for health) or similar may be. This is an encyclopedia after all. Its about explaining the sum knowledge of the world. Therefore, something like chiropractic would actually be a prime candidate for this article as there are specific parts that are definitely pseudoscientific. The term chiropractic itself is an obscurantism which makes the subject a pseudoscientific subject if not a pseudoscience per se, which would still have the subject part of this list. The core theory of chiropractic would actually be the main reason for assigning it the label of pseudoscience per se. Just because one of its interventions "works" it does not make the bulk of the mess as pure as the driven chaps in white coats. Please refer to the title of this article. The main reasons for keeping christianity and judaism out is because they are beside the point. Subjects such as homeopathy and chiropractic are totally in the core of the point of pseudoscience, even if they are marginally effective (just one alternative and high risk option) for treating stiff joints in chiropractics case, and dehydration:) in homeopathy's case. Docleaf 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But how does mysticism fit here? Hgilbert 13:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some mystics attempt to give their fields the appearance of scientific credibility. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say it would need to be more specific than mysticism. Myths tend to be used, and a lot of pseudoscientists do try to mystify their activities. New age mysticism could qualify but only if it were specific to a particular element, such as left right brain mystification (yin yang dichotomania). Docleaf 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ritual invocation of genii loci probably not, but any mention of crystal resonances that is not discussing phonons, plasmons, polaritons, et al. probably qualifies as PS. Eldereft 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Loci are interesting in the context of this discussion. Drawing magical circles while including the four directions and five elements of the pentagram, and possibly the more superstitious elements of mnemonics are related to the PS associations relevant to loci. Sure, crystals are the most glamorously flaky pursuit.  I truly love the babblingly pursued notion that crystals have some sort of beneficial resonance. I grew up in an area where certain parts of the countryside (glades etc) were good for your tripes etc (who didn't?). Nothing better than reading a good book to raise the spirits though:)  One could speculate that the brilliance of the author (eg, Richard Dorkins) is captured between the lines and when you open the book it just blows your hair back with the invigorating wind of inspiration  - (probably something to do with the bards and drewids of the previous milleniums, the silk road, Atlantis, qi, the good side of the force and so on).  I believe the pseudoscience related articles of Wikipedia could be about the most engaging pages on the internet as long as certain financially concerned editors didn't try to sanitize them so thoroughly.  The wierd and wonderful beliefs of the world seem to be what vives le difference. I would truly love to report the chiropractic beliefs about levitation of the spine, NLP beliefs of the communicational field, and scientology beliefs concerning the aura. Or is it just the spirit of alcohol talking? What's the difference? Mysticism in general I suppose! Will it happen? Fat chance! We'll just have to put up with mediocrity until we get the web marketeers under control. Docleaf 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Astrology
I would like to delete the current subheadings under astrology. At the very least, the wording which seems to imply that the only reason Western astrology qualifies as pseudoscience is its lack of a sidereal calendar smacks of nNPOV and needs to be corrected. Both of the references I added tonight explicitly do not rely on any particular tradition. Alternatively, a better list of subheadings could be generated using List of astrological traditions (checking against Category:Astrology for completeness), but I think the current main heading text would suffice. Possibly another sentence could be added briefly outlining why this cannot be scientific. Eldereft 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object to an assumption of consensus on this issue? After, say, another week to allow sufficient time for any opposing viewpoints to be expressed, of course. Eldereft (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say there's consensus, but I would say that Be Bold gives you leave to go for it, especially at this point. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say go ahead and delete the subheadings. A link to the main topic is fine.  Linking to every subtopic would be excessive clutter, imo. --Jim Butler(talk) 07:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me, I just expected contention given its popularity. Eldereft (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing Skeptical Groups... and Disputed... sections
The idea has been toyed around with of limiting this list to just items which the highest level of scientific resources deem to be pseudoscience or pseudoscientific. These highest levels would include what is currently described as the inclusion criteria of the top-most list: ''The following have broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status. Indicative of this are assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science.'' This list article has been contentious since its inception and the edit history makes it clear that the most of the contention is not derived from the top list, but rather the subsequent lists including "Topics which skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific or closely associated with it" and "Disputed subjects". In my opinion, these sections will never be free from contention because they are highly subjective, violate NPOV and come off making the rest of this article seem like a POV Fork. My proposal here is to remove these sections. Thoughts? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since we are often dealing with fringe subjects which science ignores, we can't give these fringe practices a free pass and let them go without comment. We use the best sources we have, attribute them, and that's it. This constant attempt to raise the bar to unreasonable heights only serves to let them get away with their practices unnoticed. Wikipedia covers all subjects, including fringe subjects and the criticisms that are leveled at them. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fyslee, consider stepping back from yourself and reading what you wrote here. It reads to me like a mission statement where you want to use Wikipedia to attack topics which you deem "fringe". You say that raising the bar to an unreasonable height (which is actually the height set by WP:RS) only serves to let "them" get away with their practices unnoticed. Who is the "them" you are referring to? This isn't about a free pass; this is about making an article which adheres to WP:NPOV (among other core policies) and does not become a WP:POVFORK. Per your comment here, it seems to me that you are or want to use it as just that... a forked article in which you can push your POV of what you consider pseudoscientific and/or fringe. If it is a "fringe" subject which science is ignoring, then perhaps it isn't notable enough to include here. In essence, "pseudoscience" is a pretty major label to slap on something and I don't think we should be bandying it about lightly; especially in a serious encyclopedia. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss  03:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Additionally, conflating concepts with broad consensus with fringe subject reduces the stature of the page and Wikipedia. Anthon01 (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you choose to focus on my own briefly worded opinion which came first, then let's just reverse the order of what I wrote and modify it a bit so you understand what I really meant and so you don't miss the part that shows how it is in harmony with the purpose of Wikipedia:


 * Wikipedia covers all subjects, including fringe subjects and the criticisms that are leveled at them. Since we are often dealing with fringe subjects which science generally ignores, we can't give these fringe practices a free pass and let them go without comment here. We use the best sources we have, attribute them, and that's it. This constant attempt to raise the bar to unreasonable heights only serves to let them get away with their practices unnoticed because this prevents them from being covered by Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia should cover them if there are V & RS, then we should cover them here. In all other areas skeptical sources other than peer-reviewed research and statements from national organizations are allowed, and no legitimate reason for making an exception here has been proposed.


 * As to "conflating" (blending) subjects, the subject of pseudoscience is large and includes subjects that are widely known by the scientific community, such as homeopathy. It also includes fringe subjects that aren't yet as well known by the scientific community, but are notable and can be properly referenced. These subjects are condemned as pseudoscience by scientific skeptics based on their understanding of what is and is not science. Scientific skeptics are the scientists and professionals who are in the trenches and who are often the first to examine and condemn these practices. It also includes areas where there is significant debate and lack of agreement within the scientific community, such as acupuncture, but where there are still V & RS that label it as pseudoscientific. They can't be ignored or left out of articles. The articles on such subjects should deal with all aspects, both the aspects that may possibly be scientifically credible (needling), and the aspects that are clearly pseudoscientific nonsense (meridians and acupuncture points). There are a number of such practices that are blends of good and bad. Here we present the criticisms of the pseudoscientific aspects.


 * There is no reason why this list can't cover both large and small subjects. It's not a question of either/or, but of both/and. Let's not leave any bits of notable knowledge out of our coverage. We don't want Wikipedia to have any "knowledge holes." -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with Fyslee on this point. It is not our position to weigh in on whether these topics are pseudoscience or not, but this is similar to the approach proposed by Levine.  I know that you mean well, Levine, but the standard for inclusion here is not truth, but verifiability with reliable sources.  Personal feelings should not play into the matter, but they often do so.  And the labeling of these topics as pseudoscientific is often done on the actual article page and not here.  We should take a cue from the actual articles in order to judge if they should be included in this list, as these articles are much more exhaustively researched than this list.  And further to that point, this list will never be complete.  It would be simply impossible to include every pseudoscientific topic, as not only would that list be unwieldy, it would also be impossible to construct.  Using the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience as a main reference should also not be frowned upon, as it is one of the best sources available to us regarding these topics.  Not the only one, but a very good starting point.


 * With regards to removing the Disputed sections, please do not do so. In doing this, you are clearly showing a bias towards the concepts in this category.  These articles were classified as pseudoscience on their own pages.  If you want to argue that point, the place to do it is not here, but at the actual article.  The exception to this is the organic farming, which is not currently classified as pseudoscience on the article page.  I would be up for discussing the merits of that particular point, but none of the others.  In fact, the disputed section should be cleaned up as much as possible and Homeopathy and Biorhythms placed in other sections.  Baegis (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep saying that we are trying to raise the bar to an unreasonable height, but this is exactly what is outlined by policy: Wp:rs:
 * The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
 * Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
 * Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.
 * How do you see skeptical societies fitting in this paradigm? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. It is not "policy": it "is a guideline, not a policy"


 * You also leave out the sentences immediately proceeding what you quote above: "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic."


 * It includes scholars and researchers, and certainly not only of the scientific type, otherwise many articles would be impossible to write and most would be emptied of references since they are not on scientific topics. You are attempting to demand scientific research quality sources on these topics, when such is not always available, simply because the scientific community generally ignores nonsense. There is no good reason for requiring better or other sources than is required in other types of articles. This interpretation would even leave us without newspapers as sources! If this article was dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific matters like anatomy, physiology, and physics, it would be another matter, but we are dealing with nonsense here. Such matters only need the ordinary sources required for all articles here.


 * The only other limitation on what types of sources should be used are based on the nature of the topic itself. "Pseudoscience" is a judgment call based on the opinion of sources friendly to modern science, IOW scientific sources, scientific skeptics, and allied sources. Pseudoskeptical sources should not be used to justify inclusion of topics to which the fringe objects (antibiotics, vaccinations, etc.) just to make a POINT violation. This has happened a number of times here when pseudoskeptical editors get frustrated by their failures to get their favorite nonsense deleted from the list - they start adding subjects that science has long since considered perfectly good and scientific. That's why some discretion and commonsense (not fringe sense) needs to be used. This topic is a POV statement from science. We can't get away from that fact and that is no reason for failing to cover the subject. We just need to state the facts using good sources.


 * This artificially high bar is another type of straw man that we should ignore as a diversionary device. V & RS, that's where it's at. That's all we need. No subject should be allowed to fly under the radar because some editor demands that the radar aim right over that subject's head. Such precise aiming (a "sin of omission" designed to miss the target) demands prior knowledge of the location of the target and a desire to spare it from coverage here. In court such a sin of omission would be good enough evidence to bring a judgment as to the intent of the person who missed the target. As long as ordinary V & RS have picked up the subject on their radar, those sources can be included and the topic will often have become notable enough for inclusion. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for wanting an actual scientific source to call something pseudoscientific. Honestly. Like a good skeptic, I demand proof from the best sources. Pseudoskeptics are those whose faith is satiated by sources which merely tell them what they want to hear. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 05:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The lower half of the list absolutely should not be removed. For one thing, some items in this section have references indicating a broad scientific consensus, making the division of the list arguably POV itself. My main argument against deletion, however, is that many of these theories are closely enough related in their proposed (un)physical basis that the scientific community is unlikely to issue a statement against every minor tweak or change of name. See my recent additions to the Astrology section for an example - there is no known or suspected physical mechanism by which it could possibly work, and it has been shown to have zero predictive power; renaming the constellations or dating by conception instead of birth would not mystically move the new system in to the realm of science. Certainly there are differences, just not meaningful ones. Similarly, every couple of years someone comes out with a new device which purports to violate one or more of the laws of thermodynamics. Invariably they are ignored by the vast majority of physicists, as we have been through this before. Eldereft (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, catching up on the excitement in the article, I see that User:Fyslee has just demonstrated exactly why it is a little bit silly to maintain two separate lists. Certainly entries should (briefly) outline legitimate limitations, contentions, and concerns, but making a whole separate section is overkill and can lead to confusion in anyone actually trying to get information out of the article. Eldereft (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that the "lower" list should not be removed. We need all these topics there (perhaps even organic farming) if the list is to act as a meaningful and useful article. Not to list them would be a form of censorship or POV-pushing. Perhaps the right approach would in fact be to remove any distinction between "accepted by all as pseudo" and "described by some as pseudo", and lower the bar to include all on the same footing, as long as there is a verifiable and reliable source which categorizes the topic as a pseudoscience. Snalwibma (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectable skeptical societies cover the gaps between what is published in the articles you describe. Some of these topics are so laughable (in the eyes of the scientific community) they would never be throughly vetted in order to meet what I can only assume is an unreasonably high level that you are advocating.  Skeptical societies and organizations give us reliable sources for inclusion.  Eliminating them will only serve to trim the list and harm the neutrality of the article.  But again, I will go back to my previous point which you failed to address, Levine.  If you want to debate or argue for a topic being included in pseudoscience, take it to that specific article's talk page.  It will surely not be excluded if it is marked as pseudoscientific on it's own page.  That would just be inane.  Nearly all the items listed in the noted section have a big ole pseudoscience tag on the article page.  Baegis (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well let's test this. I pick a topic at random which I know nothing about... Graphology. Yes there is a category:pseudoscience label on the article, but I just read through the article and this is the only mention of pseudoscience throughout the article. Sure there is discussion about the scientific validity of graphology, but nowhere do I see a RS declaration that it is indeed pseudoscientific. So I don't understand. Who is labeling graphology a pseudoscience? Is it the scientific community? Is it a skeptical organization? Is it a consumer group? Or is it just the POV of some Wikipedians? In my mind, "respectable" skeptical societies are not reliable sources for anything other than their opinion. I am a skeptic but far be it from me to join a group of people who get together to decide on what they don't believe. It seems kind of silly. Again, pseudoscience is far to contentious of a label to allow editors to slap on articles or items on this list based solely on the opinions of skeptical organizations (often times feeling the pressures of political or financial motivations). Pseudoscience is an absolute term that should be dictated by science, not by whim of skeptics. To me, it is clear that this section of this article weakens it and turns it into a POV Fork and therefore must go. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fyslee recently said that chiropractic didn't belong on this page. According to a 2002, CSICOP article chiropractic belongs on this page, due to its lack of scientific validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I did not say that all of the tags were correct. It is not the place of this list to make judgment calls about pseudoscience or what we believe constitutes it. That is the place of the RS'. If you have an issue with Graphology being placed in pseudoscience, discuss it on that article's talk page. Not here. I am still confused by your mention of the "whim of skeptics". Do skeptics run about and mark everything pseudoscience? Last I checked they did not. As they have been used as RS in other articles, they surely have some method for determining pseudoscience. And in regards to bowing to political whims, I'd like to actually see proof of the statement. And with regards to the comment about chiropractic, that is a giant can of worms. Baegis (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a can of worms and is the "elephant in the room". As the flagship for all of alternative medicine and one of the most criticized forms of alternative medicine, with a long tradition of attacks and accusations for pseudoscience and quackery, it is peculiarly odd (but definitely not by chance) that it is not included here. Strong efforts have been directed at keeping it off this list, and such unwikipedian actions that violate a purpose of Wikipedia (to cover all subjects as thoroughly as possible) needs to stop. It will take a superhuman effort and intense work to counteract the disruption that has and will occur whenever an attempt to include it is made. That's all in the history of this list.


 * I have indeed previously stated that chiropractic (as a whole profession) should not be on this list, but I have also stated the opposite because the whole profession is based on and identifies itself with vertebral subluxation. In fact its legal basis for billing and existence in the USA is tied to it. That is definitely a pseudoscientific belief leading to unscientific, quackish, and illegal practices within the profession. The reason I have equivocated was my own cowardly and unwikipedian attempt to compromise, calm troubled waters, and spare the feelings of honest, hard working, chiropractors, some of whom don't believe in it. Yes, they do exist and don't deserve the criticism their profession gets because of such beliefs.


 * The term "chiropractic" could be included by using the V & RS of scientists, scientific skeptics, journalists, and others, but an editor is trying to exclude such sources in an obvious attempt to protect chiropractic's reputation. This list has included chiropractic at various times and he or his close allies have always removed it. If he couldn't argue against the sources, then he has tried to exclude all such sources (as he does right above), thus also protecting others of his favorite topics.


 * The chiropractic topics that can be included are:
 * vertebral subluxation,
 * Innate Intelligence,
 * Vitalism, and the pseudoscientific claims made for
 * spinal adjustments. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Too bad this isn't a list of things which Fyslee deems to be pseudoscience. This just highlights what a WP:POVFORK this article has become. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 07:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if chiropractic qualifies here, then it should be included. Are you referring to Levine?  Yes, it does seem quite strange that a "skeptic" appears to whole heartedly support a wide variety of interesting topics.  If chiro has the sources, put them in.  Baegis (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A wide variety of interesting topics? What do you mean? I think you'd be surprised at what I think is bogus and what I believe to be valid. But just because I think something is bogus doesn't mean that I am going to do what I can to make sure that it is labeled "pseudoscientific" here. It's called "writing for the enemy" and - in my case - I do so to help make an encyclopedia which is worth a damn and is neutral, rather than a POV attack platform. Baegis, make sure you know who Fyslee is. This is an editor with such contempt of topics such as chiropractic, that I once busted him for trying to add items such as "scientific chiropractic" to the example list of the Oxymoron page. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Innate intelligence" would appear to be quite an obvious pseudoscience... Jefffire (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That would depend on your interpretation of it. A historical definition might very well be. However, today it is used to describe your body's self-healing abilities (homeostasis). If you cut your finger, the healthy body tries to heal itself. If you get an infection, the healthy body fights the disease. Et cetera. There's nothing unscientific at all about the modern usage of the word. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I try to explain my opinion by starting with an astonishing example.
 * According to the definition given in pseudoscience, one can prove that mathematics is a pseudoscience.
 * Actually, mathematics applies or pretends to apply the scientific method on things that mathematicians cannot prove to be true. Mathematicians use to call "axioms" those things that they only claim to be true; but they do not prove them and they cannot even prove them.
 * Mathematicians can teach the properties of 1000-dimensional spaces, even if nobody ever proved that these spaces exist.
 * One can even state that mathematicians are harming knowledge, because millions of students of primary school worldwide are taught by mathematicians that the parallel postulate is true even if nobody can prove it; only a restricted group of "adepts" that reach graduate or post-graduate education are taught that the parallel postulate may be false.
 * Anyway, this does not invalidate that mathematics is an encyclopedic item. One can describe mathematics and its axioms, one can describe the methods of mathematics and the results of it; anyway, one is free of not to believe in the axioms of mathematics (such as the parallel postulate, for instance) but this is just one's personal opinion or one's personal belief.
 * The same holds for astrology or graphology (for instance): one can describe the "axioms" (or the fundaments) of both astrology and graphology, one can describe the methods and the results of both disciplines, as both are encyclopedic items. But it's just up to one if to believe or not in the fundaments (or axioms) of these disciplines.
 * The given definition of pseudoscience implies that mathematics is a pseudoscience, and this fact is a hint that the given definition of pseudoscience is still to be perfected. The "study of pseudosciences" has its own axioms or fundaments, just like mathematics, astrology and graphology; one can believe in these fundaments, totally, partially or not at all. Anyway this "study of pseudosciences" is for sure an encyclopedic item, it has its methods and has its results; one of the results of this discipline is the article we are talking about. Assuming that the "study of pseudosciences" is an encyclopedic item (and it is), then this article is an encyclopedic item; if one believes in the fundaments of the "study of pseudosciences", then one believes in the results written in this article, otherwise one does not believe or believes just up to one's personal level.
 * The skeptical section in this article actually adds other "axioms" to the "standard fundaments" of the "study of pseudosciences". This means that the results appearing in the skeptical section may not conform to the "standard study of pseudosciences", and these results can be viewed as being the results of a "fringe science" instead. My opinion is that keeping the skeptical section on this article results in an "WP:Undue Weight". This means that the topics in that section should be treated as that, having possibly their own article and having just a correctly weighted summary in this article.
 * The disputed section should not be present at all in this article for the same reasons.
 * [Off Topic] A last thing that I would like you to notice is this discussion about deleting Category:Pseudoscience. The result was "keep" and I agree; but please note that a significant minority (6 out of 14) agree that the category should not be used to label disciplines as being a pseudoscience (3 by voting "delete"; 1 by requesting to include only those articles that refer to the concept of pseudoscience; 2 by requesting a strong case for including the subject in the category).
 * --Achillu (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with separating the article. It's kinda of like mixing science with pseudoscience. The analogy isn't perfect. The point is that the classifications in the first group are of a much higher order, then let's say the beliefs of a skeptical group. Anthon01 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not quite the issue here. There's a reason why certain subjects merit mentions from "higher order" societies: Because they've tried to infiltrate mainstream science or education, they've achieved some huge level of notoriety, etc. The question is, are these reasons they should be separated? When a user comes through here, is it relevant for them to see a separation of pseudoscience based on whether or not their proponents have made an effort to infiltrate mainstream science? Because that's essentially the break we're giving them.


 * When we start dividing subjects up on the basis of the type of source used, we have to think of what dividing line we're really using, and how this appears to the average reader. In this case, it isn't a relevant issue to most readers, so we should leave them all together. Those readers who do care which source claims something is pseudoscience can always simply click on the tags and check the reference themselves. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
There has been extensive discussion about needing clear citations that point to the pseudoscientific nature of subjects listed here. This included the need to remove items that do not have such citations. If verifiable citations cannot be found - and there have been months to do this - the items should be archived and brought back in when/if verification is possible. The discussion has been sitting on the talk page for several months and no one has expressed any doubts about the policy. I proposed on Dec. 4th to wait one more week and then begin archiving. It's 12 days later, and I began. One editor is reverting the archiving. What do people think about this? Do we want unverified items on this list? Hgilbert (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be deleting items that are sourced. Is it because you don't consider the sources good enough that you are doing this? I think you should deal with them one at a time right here, since discussions may vary depending on the item. Make a header for each one and discuss the sourcing. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. It was implemented a month and a half ago, however; see Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts. We had a problem that many "citations" were absent any reference establishing the relationship to pseudoscience beyond the fact that the subject had an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience (as do meteorites, vaccinations and a host of other non-pseudoscientific fields). So we asked that the actual terminology linking the fields to pseudoscience be included here, and suggested that if this was not able to be found there was a problem with verification - and that the items should then be removed from the list. This was 6 weeks ago, and no one objected at any time; several editors got involved and began finding verifiable connections to pseudoscience. We can take a little more time, but if there is no one claiming a connection why should a field be on this list? Hgilbert (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All you need to do is read the entry in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience to figure out whether the item is an actual pseudoscience or not. Do you have a copy? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a WP:UNDUE violation and mere mention in this book doth not a pseudoscience make. Again, before identifying something with the pejorative "pseudoscience" label, let's push ourselves to find the best sources out there (i.e. peer reviewed literature and Academies of Science). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The original reason for including skeptical groups
Several months ago, someone (me!) got the idea of only using sources from science academies. We immediately ran into the problem of a horribly-underpopulated list. It turns out that these academies only denounce the pseudosciences that make their way into business, education, and government. So next went to works from mainstream skeptical bodies, which are in the business of writing about any pseudoscience that pops up on a very sensitive radar. We didn't think it appropriate to throw them in with the academies, so the pseudosciences that only received attention from the skeptical bodies were separated out. Save for a couple people who didn't want their pet hobby on the list no matter what, everyone was happy with this solution. But of course, new Wikipedians visited the list and started objecting without reading the pages of compromise that went into the present version of the article. And here we are today! <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not quite the full story. We discovered that many items are here simply because they have an entry in an encyclopedia, without the actual text of that entry in any way supporting inclusion here. We made it very clear that a table of contents is not verifiable support for inclusion, and also gave clear examples of why not: meteorites, Thomas Kuhn and vaccinations all would qualify otherwise. So get on it: give some actual terminology that supports a linkage - that's all we're asking. I'm not demanding that science academies be used, though I think supporting evidence from them would be more convincing. I'm just asking that there be some verifiable source that actually links these items to pseudoscience - and no, the present citations to a table of contents are not sufficient. Hgilbert (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Can you name one instance where the actual text of the entry of the subject that was included here did not support inclusion here? I'll note that the strawman of Thomas Kuhn and vaccinations is not a strong argument: we include items here not just because they are in the table of contents. Anyone who has a copy of the book can read the entries and figure out whether something included in the encyclopedia has the properties of pseudoscience or not. The encyclopedia is a perfectly good source for this endeavor and trying to disparage it as you are doing is a bit tendentious. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the encyclopedia is specifically about pseudoscience, and nothing else, the burden of proof is on Hgilbert to show that the encyclopedia has mentioned an item, not because it was considered by them to be a pseudoscience, but was mentioned for some other reason. Such a thing is a possible "exception to the rule," but it needs to be shown to be the case. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This was shown to be the case with ball lightning (see Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts), where Simoes claimed this was cited as an "important topic of pseudoscience" and it turned out that this citation was from the table of contents, which was subtitled "important topics of pseudoscience". We thus asked that a concrete citation from an article be given for all these entries, as many of them seem to have been added on the same basis. If you have a copy of the encyclopedia, it should be easy to quote the wording that supports inclusion here. If you have only looked at the table of contents, they should be removed until a verifiable source is found that supports inclusion. Alternatively, the person who added them can at least certify which, if any, were added on the basis of actual article wording. Then this can be checked and the person held accountable.


 * My main point: topics added here on the basis of the table of contents page or equivalent should be removed. If this is done, the article will be in better shape. Hgilbert (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The section in the encyclopedia where ball lightning is found is entitled "Important pseudoscientific concepts." Yes, the section title is listed in the table of contents (as one would expect), but I'm not seeing why this fact makes the source unusable. <b style="color:#006400;">Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hgilbert still has the burden of proof. If an exception is found, then of course it should be easy to show it here and then we will all agree to delete it. Otherwise the default assumption is that the list of topics discussed in an encyclopedia exclusively devoted to pseudoscience will be pseudoscientific subjects. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem we're facing here is that this book isn't too widely available. It's out of print, and not all libraries would have it. I believe there is one Wikipedian who's come around here occasionally who has a copy, so it would be best to ask them, if they have some time, to provide confirmation that all subjects listed as pseudoscience with that book as a reference are characterized as such within the actual chapters. That will be good enough for the reference; we don't need to quote the actual part of the book to meet WP:V. After that threshold is met, it would be fair to say that any dissenter has to show that the book doesn't say that. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Acupuncture
I know that this has been on the list in the past and is guaranteed to be contentious, but acupuncture is probably the most commonly practiced and researched pseudoscience (with the possible exception of chiropractic). As such, this list suffers disproportionately by this omission. Supporting references include the NIH, Mayo Clinic, and AMA, as well as preeminent skeptical organizations. As with every entry, it is of course necessary to outline the legitimate scientific enterprise associated with acupuncture. Please find below for your 'let us please bring this to consensus without an edit war' pleasure, my attempt at an immpeccably sourced NPOV entry:

Acupuncture is a form of vitalism in which fine needles are inserted and manipulated at specific acupuncture points to rebalance the flow of qi. Within the context of evidence-based medicine, acupuncture has been used successfully to treat a variety of conditions, mostly related to pain or nausea. There is less evidence of its efficacy against a variety of illnesses and physical ailments for which it has been used. No scientific evidence exists for the traditional metaphysical mechanisms of action, anatomical theories, or precise clinical placements of acupuncture. Patient response rates and magnitudes and neurochemical and biophysical responses are all consistent with placebo response.

Note that this includes only pure needling; heating, lasing, applying current and suchlike modified modalities would to my mind be better served as subheadings. I also omitted any reference to the dangers of relying solely on acupuncture as a medical diagnostic/treatment tool, as that strays perhaps outside the purview of just a list entry. I also also omitted direct citation to a couple of well-designed studies on sham acupuncture (no statistical difference) and neuroimaging studies (people feel better when we think we are being treated) to avoid any possibility of WP:OR by cherry-picking studies. The issue of lack of worldwide and historical agreement on the placement of acupuncture points, however, might be added to the entry if anyone thinks it useful. Eldereft (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Eldereft

Appreciate your work on the proposed entry, though some of your statements (e.g. re placebo) are not consistent with sources cited or with other sources. For example, you say "Patient response rates and magnitudes and neurochemical and biophysical responses are all consistent with placebo response" and cite the NIH statement, but that source says "the quality or quantity of the research evidence is not sufficient to provide firm evidence of efficacy at this time" in reference to "many other conditions (that) have received some attention in the literature", not all conditions. Indeed, that report says (albeit arguably a bit too boldly, cf. Cochrane et al) that "There is clear evidence that needle acupuncture is efficacious for adult postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting and probably for the nausea of pregnancy" and "There is evidence of efficacy for postoperative dental pain", etc. If you want a source arguing acu is just placebo, the NIH statement isn't it. Have a look also at the sources under Acupuncture.

However, the main problem with your proposed addition is that I don't see any source from any body of scientists or so-called scientific-skeptical groups stating that acu is a pseudoscience. Per WP:NPOVFAQ, attributable evidence of scientific consensus is necessary to use Category:Pseudoscience, and evidence of a sig POV that the topic is pseudoscientific is necessary to mention PS in the article. For this list, we have agreed upon an intermediate threshold (an agreement consistent with WP:CLS): a statement by a group. I see essays by individuals (Carroll) and a piece on the UK Skeptics site, but not a group statement. Perhaps an entry from Shermer's "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" would suffice, since we have agreed that that publication represents some degree of consensus from the Skeptics Society (I guess by virtue of that group having an editorial board and board of advisors).

So, if we can find such a group-based source, and tweak your entry here and there, sure. Does this make sense to you? Criticisms of aspects of acupuncture as pseudoscience do exist in the article, btw (I put some of them there myself), so the issue is not being ignored. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your careful reading of this proposal. Looking back, I would seem to have been too hasty in the NIH ref. you mention - lack of evidence is only evidence against if there is sufficient reason to expect that an effect would have been observed. I would also like to stress, as Acupuncture (and I suspect you) seems to understand, that a placebo response is not no response. And yes, I leaned heavily on Acupuncture and references to try to make sure to fairly represent scientific consensus. Additional RS are of course welcomed, but I believe that those provided indicate a significant POV justifying inclusion:
 * Ref. 20 appears to be a statement of position endorsed by the UK Skeptics, authored by John Jackson (see link on their site); should this be cited differently to make this clear?
 * Ref. 19 is from a policy advisory body in the American Medical Association. The paper is from 1997, but is the most recent treatment I could find. While they are not a scientific body per se, they are a professional association with a vested interest in providing accurate advice to their members and the public at large.
 * Similarly for the Mayo Clinic . I would also appreciate a second opinion on using this reference in support of acupuncture=placebo. They actually say "sham acupuncture" - is it WP:OR to equate this with placebo acupuncture? Several discussions of how to conduct a proper double blinded acupuncture study cited the need for a sham control group to sieve out placebo response.
 * Ref. 15 is from the CSI newsletter, which is presumably endorsed by the organization. Eldereft (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Eldereft, I was just informed by my wife that I need to relinquish the computer, so please bear with me one more day and I'll reply. :-)  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 03:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means take your time - I did not plan to add anything to the main article without consensus - at least a couple weeks :). Eldereft (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rereading your comment on the NIH position paper - citing this in support of the placebo sentence would be quoting out of context given their conclusion, yes? Eldereft (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree, it would be out of context and not consistent with the spirit or the letter of that source. --Jim Butler(talk) 13:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) OK, finally some time for a reply. I still don't see any of these references making the cut, for various reasons: i.e., the sources don't say acu is pseudoscience, a/o they are individuals rather than groups, a/o they fail WP:SOURCES. I don't think a bunch of "not quite" sources taken together suffice, any more than it's possible to become "a little bit pregnant" from a series of near-misses. There is a certain threshold to meet.

The one statement by a scientific body group (AMA ) does not say that acu is a pseudoscience or anything in that ballpark (e.g., a pretend or spurious science, or that it is misrepresented as science). It appears that you are making the leap of assuming that a treatment whose efficacy is unproven or disputed must be pseudoscience. This sounds like WP:SYN to me, and it also leads to the absurd result of including any and all treatments lacking gold-standard EBM backing (see last paragraph here, from the Institute of Medicine). Same goes for Mayo Clinic, but even more so given context, as with NIH.

John Jackson, at UKSkeptics, does call acu pseudoscience. However, there is nothing there to indicate that his essay is a statement by the group, or a list of editors or advisors. Nor does UK Skeptics appear to meet WP:N, and our inclusion criteria do specifically say "notable skeptical bodies". Additionally, the source does not appear to meet WP:SOURCES, being self-published, and has no references. A pretty bad source, imo, also because it is factually wrong on the origins of the idea of qi in TCM (it did not originate with Soulie de Morant), and to boot, it looks like the author may have lifted (with minor modifications) some of the WP article (see Acupuncture) without attribution. This source is a great example of why we need V RS's. Really kind of ironic not to be rigorous here. (I agree with WP:INDY that articles on fringe topics, with little more than self-published sources, can suffer from vanity and NPOV issues, and thus require balancing with a Quackwatch-type, self-published source. But for notable topics like acu, we should use notable sources, and stick close to them.)

The Stenger article at CSI (formerly CSICOP), similarly, is not evidently a statement by that group. (Are CSI self-pub as well? It gets hard to tell.)

There is one source, NCAHF, that comes close to our criteria. As above, I don't accept the idea that disputed efficacy = pseudoscience. Nor is it clear that their characterization of acu as non-scientific equates to pseudo; classical Chinese medicine predates science and never pretended to be science. But more importantly, WP:SOURCES says that NCAHF's self-published stuff should be used primarily in their own article, and in this case, it is: NCAHF.

OK -- I don't mean to be dense or to wikilawyer here. Just arguing for adequate sourcing. Even from the biggest-picture, WP:IAR standpoint, I don't think that dubious sources on skepticism are good for either scientific thinking or for this project. I don't doubt that characterization of acu (or aspects of it) as PS exists, but I don't see enough to meet this list's criteria.

I did consider suggesting that we loosen the inclusion criteria, and allow the second tier to include not just statements by groups, but statements by any source meeting WP:N and WP:V. I think we should not, per WP:DIRECTORY. I don't think it's within the scope of the project to include every opinion any notable person has expressed on pseudoscience, bad politicians, restaurants in Paris, etc. The "group" threshold is important to meet WP:V and WP:WEIGHT, and we should make sure that in the case of skeptic groups, they meet both WP:N and WP:SOURCES. Otherwise, we just get a random collection of stuff related to pseudoscience, and for that, the reader can simply google or check Special:Whatlinkshere/Pseudoscience. regards, Jim Butler(talk)
 * P.S. Need to go on wikibreak for a few days. reprieve!  Thanks for the good discussion and not rushing things.  cheers and Happy New Year, Jim Butler(talk) 05:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)