Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 9

Topical organization
In light of recent improvements in sourcing and descriptions (if I do say so myself), I would like to re-open the issue of leaving this list organized according to notability of demarcation source instead of sorting related topics together. As has been pointed out before, this system decreases the utility of the article by making it more troublesome for the average reader of this encyclopedia to find relevant information (for instance, homeopathy). Though some degree of housecleaning remains to be done, to a large extent the entries describe their topics and sources well enough for the current somewhat artificial division to seem more troublesome than it might be worth. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, this represents a huge weight problem, a bit like having a list of terrorists according to the U.N., George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Hamas all in the same group. There is no objective demarcation we can rely on.  The problem is exacerbated by the title remaining as it is without the "alleged" caveat.  It might be OK if we explicitly stated the source along with each entry, and not in a footnote, thus:  Astrology .... (source: California Academy of Sciences).  --Jim Butler (t) 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Jim Butler here. I consider the entire article (sorry, list) to be of little value as it merely cites a long list of opinions, and derogatory ones for that matter. Re-titling the article something like "List of topics accused of being pseudoscientific" would be more accurate. Further, listing the entities who have made these claims next to each subject would be much better than hiding them in footnotes.Wikigonish (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this change. Let's do it according to the ArbCom rules, from obvious to questionable. There are quite a few questionable sciences lacking on this page. Economics, for example, has been widely criticized as a pseudoscience (by Soros, Taleb, Richard, and rightly so, as it uses more a priori deductive reasoning than it can justify (e.g., the "efficient market hypothesis" -- which is violated daily in the financial markets, and its Wikipedia article notably has no evidence for it). It needs to be included here, along with other social sciences, although it is in my mind the most pseudoscientific because it makes the strongest claims, and tries to fool with fancy mathematics. II  | (t - c) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Primal Therapy proposed addition
I request the consideration of primal therapy to be listed under one of the lists on this page. I consider it to be pseudoscience, and I wondered if I could get a consensus. See the criticism section on the wiki primal therapy section. AN argument is made for primal therapy being a pseudoscience on debunkingprimaltherapy.com. I will wait for your advice before I list it here, Zonbalance (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "The theoretical basis for the therapy is the supposition that prenatal experiences and birth trauma form people's primary impressions of life and that they subsequently influence the direction our lives take... Truth be known, primal therapy cannot be defended on scientifically established principles. This is not surprising considering its questionable theoretical rationale." - I think you have a winner. That ref. is I believe by the same Timothy Moore as the one at Glendon, and is currently absent from the article. I have enough edit wars on my WatchList right now, but feel free to incorporate it. Note also that the website you linked probably does not qualify under WP:RS, as it appears to be self-published. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

EMF (2)
Did anyone remove the EMF reference?--Area69 (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I provided above two solid references, the WHO factsheet on electromagnetic hypersensitivity and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences report on EMF(pdf), as well as some discussion asserting that the current entry is in accord with scientific consensus. I am also unclear from the previous discussion what precisely you think should be removed and why. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

agreed on pento water and bates method

 * seconding Eldereft's excellent recent additions, there is a scientific consensus on these. Zonbalance (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Propose deletion of biased and damaging list (not even an article)
I just came across this list and my immediate reaction was: "How is this an encyclopedia entry??!" I then looked over the discussion page and found that there had been requests to delete the page, but that this was voted down. I want to add my voice to those who do not think this list should be on Wikipedia. My reasons agree with some of the complaints already lodged against the list. Firstly, it is a list and Wikipedia discourages lists. Secondly, the entire list represents a POV (I won't add the -ish because it is more than POV-ish!). I will add to this that the entire concept of pseudoscience is not only subjective (ie. there will always be debate over whether a given subject is REALLY pseudoscientific or not), but it is a negative label. To apply the term pseudoscientific to a subject is to attack the credibility of that subject. Quite simply, the term is an insult.

I will go further in noting that many of the topics in the list are themselves unclear. For instance, out-of-body experiences are on the list, yet the brief description notes that they are "real experiences" and that some theories invoke the paranormal. What is really being labeled pseudoscientific here? The theory that a soul might leave the body is by definition not scientific, so where is the pseudo-science?

Another example, ESP is listed as pseudoscientific, though ESP could not claim to be a science in and of itself. The science that studies ESP, however, is likely what is being indicated as pseudoscientific here, though the list does not include parapsychology. Parapsychology is a field of research that uses strict scientific methods. I note here that the Parapsychology Association is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, lending the field credibility and destablizes an argument for "scientific consensus" that might declare parapsychology a pseudoscience.

Now, if the science of parapsychology cannot deemed a pseudoscience by scientific consensus (though there will always be those who disagree), then how can certain subjects of the field's research be deemed pseudoscientific on their own, like out-of-body experiences and ESP?

Finally, I will note that most of the citations in this list come from recognized "skeptical" sources. These sources are by nature biased and cannot be deemed to speak for the scientific community at large. So, in effect, this is a list of subjects that biased skeptics deem unworthy of attention. What is the value in a list like that?

Quite simply, this list is flawed in its design and does damage in giving the impression to the uninformed reader that certain topics or subjects ought to be rejected out of hand because some people consider them wacky.Wikigonish (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the ArbCom ruling at the top of this page? This has been discussed and ruled upon at the highest level. Doug Weller (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read the ArbCom ruling, based on a rather limited discussion. I add this note because the points I mention above were not all discussed in the Arbitration discussion and I think that the list remains problematic.Wikigonish (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One way of making an immediate and effective change to this list would be to simply change the article title. The title presently implies that the subjects in this list ARE pseudoscientific. Instead, the article actually lists subjects that have been labeled pseudoscientific by some group or another. I suggest that the title be changed to something along the lines of list of topics or concepts that have been accused of being pseudoscientific. This suggested title would be more in line with what the list actually includes, and would represent an objective overview of the list for potential readers. As is, the biased POV begins from the title itself in assuming that the list includes concepts that are all definitely pseudoscientific, a claim that cannot be sustained. I do not know how to change the title, but this would be one major step towards cleaning this list up.Wikigonish (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wikigonish that this article is VERY biased. Also, Creation theory is listed here, yet the Evolution theory is not. Even though the Creation theory has been proven (multiple times) and the Evolution theory has been disproven (multiple times), Creationism is listed under psuedo science. If it goes here, then Evolution should go here as well. Proofs of Creationism: If we were an inch closer to the sun, we would all burn up. If we were an inch farther away, we would freeze. The earth is tilted at a 23 degree angle. If it was one degree in either direction the earth would spin out of its orbit. Xen Steel (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right, we should put Evolution as pseudoscience and remove creation theory as it's a solid science..... No, that's not gonna happen. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nooooooo! you cannot delete the only funny article in an otherwise desert dry encyclopedia! Said: Rursus (☻) 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific

 * The entire "Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific" is WP:POVFORKish and should be deleted. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a fork and should not be deleted. Doug Weller (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Doug above, the notable sceptics section is not a POV fork. I'm also against the "accused" suggestion. Verbal   chat  21:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to delete the section as per Levine2112's suggestion, but I was "undone". Why is anyone against the suggestion to change and improve this article by making it more objective? This list is of topics that have been "accused" of being pseudoscientific. If you think there is some kind of objectively scientific way to prove an accusation like that, then let's add you to the list as well. Seriously, this list is completely biased and will not get better with biased editors trying to protect it.Wikigonish (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The second, better organized, part of the article is not only not a POV-fork, it is not even clearly demarcated from the first. For instance, the American Cancer Society is cited to support the non-functionality of Applied Kinesiology, but the closest the cited article comes to saying pseudoscience is to itself cite QuackWatch. Is this sufficient to promote the practice to the favored first section?
 * Consider also the case of Autodynamics. Arguing the Lorentz transformations is about as productive as arguing the Noether theorem - not quite disputing the second law level, but next to it. It would of course be original research to list it here based solely on my understanding of physics, but neither do we. However, the APS will likely never issue an official statement, leaving it to languish in the second section. This adds an unintended element of social notability to a categorization scheme that was supposed to be based solely on level of non-acceptance.
 * There is definitely a valid WP:WEIGHT argument against organizing this article according solely to field. It is my contention, however, that properly documenting the sources used for inclusion more accurately and more precisely provides the same information that the big ol' dividing line does.
 * Also, adding an accused or similar qualifier to the name and inclusion criteria could significantly decrease the utility of this list by opening it up to all manner of nonsense. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikigonish is confused. Wikipedia articles are not a place for editors to prove things, scientifically or otherwise, but for editors to report what reliable sources have said about a subject. Doug Weller (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not deny that this list does have me confused. The title of the article implies that all of the topics in the list are pseudosciences, or "pseudoscientific". Yet, the list includes something like out-of-body experiences, which the list itself defines as being a genuine human experience. How is this pseudoscientific? In response to Doug Weller, surely editors have the responsibility to prove why something is even listed in this list and explaining how it fits the bill. Furthermore, in response to Eldereft's suggestion that changing the name to indicate that the list is a list not of actual pseudosciences (which would be impossible to codify being that the term itself indicates POV), but is rather a list of topics designated as pseudoscientific by skeptic or scientific organizations would leave the list open to all manner of nonsense, I reply that the list already is filled with all manner of nonsense. Changing the label will only help the uninformed reader understand that this is a list of topics that have been deemed/labeled pseudoscientific by some groups or individuals. Presumably this would not change the content requirements (however loose they already may be).Wikigonish (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Out-of-body experiences are included, as stated but should be expanded, because some explanations for the real phenomenon delve into pseudoscience (or, more properly, are described as such by sources reliable to make such claims). We also have Ufology in spite of the fact that many reported UFOs are spy balloons and the like. This is how a list is more useful and nuanced than a bare category. - we are able to describe the level of evidence and particular attribution.
 * By changing the article to List of topics which have been accused of being pseudoscientific, we would be changing at least the apparent inclusion criteria to cover anything which has notably been described as pseudoscientific rather than only things that have been described by relevant reliable sources as pseudoscientific. For instance, evolutionary psychology has been described as pseudoscientific by some observers, but on the whole is unquestionably operating (or at least trying to operate) within the fold of science. But including such fields might by connotation give an incorrect impression of, for instance, the considered opinion of the scientific community regarding the face on Mars. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should really focus how the "Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific" is not only a WP:POVFORK (in that it only allows for the presentation of one-side of controversial and disputed opinions), but also how it may be in gross violation of WP:PSCI. This section of this "list" article has always been contentious and perhaps with good reason. Maybe we should all really consider whether or not this section should be removed. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need to keep in mind that lists need to be NPOV and needs to follow list naming and list content rules. Arbcom's PSCI also applies. I haven't looked at the list under discussion, but does it follow these guidelines? -- Dēmatt  (chat)  15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- That's a good point re: NPOV and LIST. This is from WP:LIST: ": Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.

Difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus and to ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced and that the page on which the list appears as a whole represents a neutral point of view.

The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed."

In my heart of hearts, I feel that the "Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific" section of this article is contentious, and the definition of the subtopic itself is disputed; however, I don't feel that this list represents a neutral point of view because it doesn't describe competing views. Rather, it just gives us the views of some notable skeptical organizations or individuals.

So now, aside from possibly violating WP:FORK and WP:PSCI, we can also add WP:LIST and WP:NPOV to the pile. I am in favor of just outright deleting this section of the article. Other options might include providing the competing views, but I think that will make this article even more unwieldy. Does anyone have any other thoughts on how to correct the FORK, PSCI, LIST and NPOV violations in this section of the article by doing anything other than deleting this section outright? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've suggested renaming the list itself. As I've argued, the word pseudoscientific is by nature not a neutral word and so designating this a list of topics which ARE pseudoscientific automatically biases the entire list, not just the sub-section that Levine2112 is referring to. I still think that changing the title of the article itself will be a good first step in clarifying the contents of the list. This is a list of topics that are considered pseudoscientific by some, which is entirely different from saying that these things ARE pseudoscientific. Those who have rejected this solution have not yet given any good reason for their objection.Wikigonish (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, just my cursory reading of naming conventions of lists sounds like the list's name should be List of pseudosciences with a lead that explains the contents specifically and then everything is NPOV from there, but I am willing to listen to a really good reason it's not called that considering that it might be related to the ArbCom requirements. -- Dēmatt (chat)  17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious concepts
I recently listed Christianity as a pseudoscientific concept given the supernatuiral nature of many of its claims. This was removed, however. Why? If it is because religions are not usually considered pseudoscientific, then there are several other concepts that need to be removed: Dianetics is a religious concept stemming from Scientology; feng shui is a religious concept stemming from traditional Chienes religion, etc. Again, given the vagueries of this list's raison d'etre, I do not see its value. This list must be overhauled or removed.Wikigonish (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't claim to be or is not labeled as scientific by others, it can't really be pseudoscience. Christian Science, despite the title, doesn't make any scientific claims in the usual sense.  Creation Science and "auditing" by Scientologists are pseudoscience because they make a pretense at being the real thing.  SDY (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so one of the criteria for inclusion in this list is that the subject claims to be scientific? If that is the case, then why are out-of-body experiences on the list? An experience cannot claim to be scientific. Furthermore, what about the small list of paranormal subjects? Does ESP claim to be scientific? No. ESP is not a science nor is it a pseudoscience. Again, I am pointing out here how flawed this list is.Wikigonish (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Those subjects are subject to scientific analysis, and have been found wanting and are hence pseudo-scientific in their presentation. Religion is a different kettle of fish. Verbal   chat  21:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If qualified scientists call it pseudoscience, then that's enough for me. It seems that we don't have a really good word for "wacky theories which don't work" besides pseudoscience. II  | (t - c) 05:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Qualified scientists often disagree amongst themselves. There is never a uniform consensus and theories are constantly updated and changed to reflect new observations. Some scientists might call some topic pseudoscientific, but there are at least two problems with this: 1) Not all scientists will agree, so the list is a list of what ONLY SOME scientist(s) call pseudoscientific, and 2) the label "pseudoscience" is a derogatory label indicating that the subject in question is not worthy of attention. This is not the same thing as a topic which requires further attention, or is "wanting" as Sesquipedalian indicates. When something is termed pseudoscience, the intention is not to indicate that more work needs to be done in the area, but to indicate that no work ought to be done in the given area since it is a wacky area to begin with. This is not a scientific approach in itself since it attempts to shut down scientific investigation.Wikigonish (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic and New England Skeptical Society
That link appears to be citing the NESS newsletter. Things may have changed, but my recollection from last time I wanted to cite something there is that I could find no indication that the articles presented are the considered opinion of the organization rather than the considered opinion of Dr. Novella. I would be surprised if the collective organizational assessment were any different, but sadly my opinions have not yet been declared WP:RS. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a closer look at the website. Dr. Novella is the presedent and co-founder of New England Skeptical Society. Novella's view represents NESS.  Q ua ck Gu ru   16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but Dr. Novella is writing as a notable skeptic, not the official mouthpiece of NESS. We could, of course, change the consensus inclusion criteria for this page to include notable skeptics or people otherwise expected to know what they are talking about. Have you considered adding innate intelligence and subluxations? - Eldereft (cont.) 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Chiropractic Chiropractic: Flagship of the Alternative Medicine Fleet, Part One and Part Two - by Steven Novella MD, and President of the New England Skeptical Society
 * Innate intelligence
 * Vertebral subluxation
 * Here are a few refs. Dr. Novella is writing as a notable skeptic and is running NESS. Keating is a notable chiropractic historian.  Q ua ck Gu ru   02:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not questioning the claim or the source reliability in the normal sense. Unfortunately, consensus on this article is that inclusion requires the considered opinion of a scientific body or skeptical organization. Once the inclusion threshold is met, normal WP:RS applies. Personally, if Sagan, Tyson, and Singh agree on something then I feel pretty confident of its status with regards to reality, but what can you do? Ooh, here we go:
 * Ontario Skeptics (now Skeptics Canada) has analyzed chiropractic and found it bunk (PDF). In 2001 they recognized Paul Benedetti, Wayne MacPhail for their investigative journalism of chiropractic; the authors later published Spin Doctors.
 * The producers of Scientific American Frontiers gave a fairly excoriating but calm review of the evidence, theoretical base, and medical opinion of chiropractic, quoted here. The original should be tracked down and checked against WP:RS for the claims made.
 * At least two universities have in the last decade rejected serious proposals to establish chiropractic programs. These rejections resulted at least in part from widespread antipathy in the biomedical community towards the antiscientific and pseudoscientific attitudes rampant in modern chiropractic: FSU story; York University, Toronto story. The latter saga comes with a statement from The Council for Scientific Medicine.
 * There are also a number of organizations and advocacy groups who consider chiropractic fully or mostly unfounded in science. For instance (in no particular order): NCAHF, http://www.chirowatch.com/, http://www.neck911usa.com/, http://www.voicesusa.org/, http://www.vocact.com/, http://www.chirovictims.org.uk/, http://www.chirobase.org/.
 * Having established that the inclusion criterion is met, we need to discuss nuance. Our fiercely contested chiropractic article indicates that some chiropractors, notably NACM and CAMT, reject the pseudoscientific origins of their profession, preferring instead a view of the body in accord with anatomy. There is some modicum of evidence for spinal manipulation and lower back pain (e.g. Cochrane and Bandolier). It is hardly stellar, but should be acknowledged. Other points of interest should include subluxations and innate intelligence; the rational and demonstrated lack of efficacy for several other conditions, such as asthma or allergies; the lack of plausibility or quality evidence for several other claims made by practitioners (a study of claims); and the dangers (leading cause of stroke in young adults, dangers to developing bone structure, overuse of x-rays, &c.) of irresponsible practice. Widespread use of homeopathy and applied kinesiology, ambivalence or worse towards vaccination, and similar attitudes among practitioners may or may not be deemed relevant. It seems too early to mention the Sandra Nette v. Stiles et al. lawsuit in this article until it has run its course.
 * Unfortunately, this stuff gives me a headache, if someone else wants to draw up a draft for discussion before I get around to it, I would appreciate it. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the headache; imagine being one! Chiropractic itself is well established in science and has a large following similar to psychoanalysis which means it should fall under the part 4 of PSCI above or 'questionable science' at the very least, which shouldn't be classified as pseudoscience. Although I agree the Innate Intelligence is wacky, I don't think anyone has called it pseudoscience by itself.  Most of the critics have just called the whole chiropractic field pseudoscience, which brings us back to my first point.  Subluxation is a broad subject that does have some mainstream science concerning the musculoskeletal components that everyone treats (ie adhesion, sprain, pain, etc.) but for some it includes the Innate Intelligence which entails the vitalist components that at one end just means that the "the body is greater than the sum of its parts" to the other end that has a theology entwined in it as it invokes some "soul" and "spirit" concepts.  This, of course, is hard to evaluate, but I am not sure if anyone considers it pseudoscience or just religious.  It brings us back to not having a reliable source that says that Innate Intelligence is pseudoscience.. I spent a year looking for it. -- Dēmatt  (chat)  15:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing. Dematt wrote in part: "Most of the critics have just called the whole chiropractic field pseudoscience, which brings us back to my first point."
 * Per ArbCom ruling at top of page: Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
 * We can include information that critics say are pseudoscience which includes chiropractic per WP:PSCI.  Q ua ck Gu ru   19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave it a try and added the information per WP:PSCI and according to the inclusion criteria in the WP:LEAD.  Q ua ck Gu ru   17:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Disparaging list
I am moving forward with attempts to see this list deleted since my calls to have the title changed have not yet been met. Pseudo-science is a label applied to theories and methods deemed to be "fake" science, or that stem from false science. The determination that something is fake science is not something that can be objectively made, especially in the context of paranormal phenomena. There is a lot of scientific research being done in this area, yet labeling the work of these scientists as pseudoscientific is spurious and libelous. Calling the list a "list of pseudosciences" implies an objective and factual basis for inclusion whereas what is really being listed are the inflammatory opinions of only some members of the scientific community. The list needs to be deleted or have its title changed to reflect that this is a subjective list. Perhaps, "List of concepts labeled pseudoscientific by skeptics" or something.Wikigonish (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The list is ineligible for speedy deletion, both because it is not a page that exists exclusively to disparage its subject, as the "Attack Pages" criteria would require, and because it has been the subject of an Articles for Deletion debate. The last AFD was over 18 months ago, so I would have no objection if you wished to nominate the page for deletion, but I note that the consensus to Keep last time around was fairly strong, by my read; You'll want to provide very strong policy arguments that support deletion, with specific examples of the article's flaws and a very clear discussion of why those flaws cannot be remedied through the normal editorial process. But I stress that editwarring on the article is not a great way to further your position, nor is it likely to convince others that your rationale is sound. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that this page does exist solely to disparage its content since the term "pseudoscience" itself is disparaging. It is like having an article titled List of people who are idiots and then including third-party references to anyone who has ever been called an idiot by someone notable. The list is problematic because it makes the disparaging opinions of some skeptics appear to be factually objective. I have been trying to make my case for either a title change to reflect the lack of objectivity in this list, or to have the list deleted, but this list is supported by several ideologues of the same ilk as the sources they cite within it.Wikigonish (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and boldly changed the title in order to mitigate the bias inherent in the list. I am satisfied with the name change, and hope others will recognize that what I am doing here is an attempt to improve Wikipedia. The former title implied a factual basis for something's actually being pseudoscience, whereas the new title explains that this is a list of opinions.Wikigonish (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed it back. Please establish consensus first. If you want to change the name against the consensus here I believe there are proper procedures for this. Your recent activities are bordering on disruptive. Verbal   chat  16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikigonish, the attack pages criteria exists specifically for pages where the entire article is an attack on a subject, or where such attacks are unsourced and make up the bulk of an article, or where there is obvious bad faith. In this case, it looks to me that there is good faith effort on the part of quite a few editors to improve this list and ensure that it is as neutral as possible. The lead seems to be a good attempt at acknowledging that items on the list are likely to be items of controversy. Since there's good faith, and sources (whether questioned or not), it doesn't meet the standard of a "Pure attack page". You seem to have valid points, and - if you wish to see this article deleted - you will need to do so through a properly formatted and well-reasoned deletion nomination through the AFD process. But continued disruption could well undermine your valid points about the article, which isn't your intention, I'm sure. Please take a deep breath and relax. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 16:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not attempted to be disruptive here, and I have certainly NOT committed any act of vandalism, contrary to Verbal's unfounded accusation. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. I explained my rationale for the name change. How is this vandalism? I have already discussed the need to at least change the title in order to mitigate the bias of the list. In the discussion pages above there has been some indication of support for a name change. Thus, I changed the name. How is this vandalism?? As of yet, no editors have changed the page to deal with my concerns, nor have they come forward with valid arguments to counter what I have been pointing to as serious issues with this list. Unless things are fixed, I will go ahead and file for another deletion review; I note that the discussions on the last reviews did not involve any of the arguments that I've raised, nor satisfactory replies to them. Calling me a vandal is just the type of false declaration that many skeptics make when they declare this or that concept to be pseudoscientific.Wikigonish (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There was an extended discussion earlier this year on the issue of naming this article. As I read it, there was no consensus about anything other than the long-windedness of the discussion. If you would like to revive the issue, please read that archive and couch your arguments accordingly. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a good one to read from the archives. And here's a thought: What if we split this article into at least two pieces? In this one, we keep the list of the "obvious" and the "widely considered to be" pseudosciences (as per WP:PSCI). This is essentially the top section: "Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus". And then, we take the "Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific" section and turn that into its own article. I suggest this because it seems that no one has a problem with the first section of this article and it would be a shame to lose this encyclopaedic information to an AfD. And then with the newly created Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific article, we could take that to AfD and see how it holds up alone. Reasonable solution? -- Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion continues below (now as an RFC). -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Split this article into at least two pieces
Here is a good one to read from the archives. And here's a thought: What if we split this article into at least two pieces? In this one, we keep the list of the "obvious" and the "widely considered to be" pseudosciences (as per WP:PSCI). This is essentially the top section: "Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus". And then, we take the "Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific" section and turn that into its own article. I suggest this because it seems that no one has a problem with the first section of this article and it would be a shame to lose this encyclopaedic information to an AfD. And then with the newly created Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific article, we could take that to AfD and see how it holds up alone. Reasonable solution? -- <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 22:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Not a bad idea at all! Very Solomonic. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 02:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since my support of a compromise in this situation is being used to further the aims of those who wish to delete well-sourced skeptical=mainstream POV, I will withdraw my support for this RFC. Wikipedia's RS policy does not make any distinction between mainstream sources, and we shouldn't make special rules here. Any groupings here should not be done on the basis of sourcing. RS is the only sourcing rule that has binding authority here. (See my reply to Levine2112 below.) -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It would bring clarity and greatly reduce the (cyclic) argumentation. Hgilbert (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Something needs to be done to fix this list, and this sounds like a good start. I still think the first section will come across as more objective in its designating "pseudoscience" than it ought to, but moving some stuff into a different and more nuanced list is entirely acceptable. Thanks.Wikigonish (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What makes a "notable skeptical group" different from "scientific consensus"? Do we have a source which clearly disambiguates skepticism from consensus? If not, then this is essentially a WP:POVFORK proposal, which is forbidden by Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would guess that "scientific consensus" would have to refer to agreement between many and various groups of scientists, ideally from different countries and cultures whilst "notable skeptical group" would refer to one or two groups, probably from the same background.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and say that this kind of guessing is problematic. I think that the whole idea of "scientific consensus" about pseudoscience is ludicrous. Most scientists don't care a lick about pseudoscience and wouldn't bother to get a "representative" group to say anything on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I might throw in a wildcard suggestion for a third section which would be 'scientific ideas based on religious belief'. Religion is outside the scope of science and many religious concepts are not entirely compatible with scientific observations.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Such a split would only lead to endless arguments about definitions and grades of nonsense ("astrology is more nonsensical than reflexology" - "oh no it isn't"), and will tend towards inevitable original research and POV-pushing. The only solid basis for this list is that it consists of topics that are described in reliable sources as pseudoscience. It is not the business of Wikipedia to atempt to define grades of garbage. Much better (as a tertiary source) to keep it as it is, with all the stuff that has been described as garbage in one big heap. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. That any of these concepts are being declared "nonsense" is problematic as it represents a particular POV and one that is degrading and defamatory to adherents of these concepts. There is no factual basis for designating this or that concept as nonsense since scientific theory is constantly changing and being updated. Given the inherent bias in the designation, I've suggested changing the title to reflect the nature of the list more accurately: something like "List of concepts labeled as pseudoscientific by skeptical groups," or something. To use your terms, remember that one man's garbage is another man's treasure; a "List of concepts that are garbage" is obviously biased. A better title would be "List of concepts that skeptical groups consider garbage."Wikigonish (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Notable skeptic groups represent scientific consensus. The article is good in its present form, there is no need to split this article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll add here my response that notable skeptical groups do not represent scientific consensus. For one, ScienceApologist has it right above that most scientists wouldn't bother to engage in that kind of name-calling. Further, look at the spokespeople for notable skeptical organizations. The Amazing Randi is a magician, not a scientist. Skeptical orgs. are ideologically motivated, that's why they and not most scientists have no compunctions against name-calling.Wikigonish (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Refusing to accept skeptic groups as source for what constitutes pseudoscience is, IMHO, a very bad idea that doesn't seem to have any base on reality. I have seen no reason for why a skeptic group would make an inacurate or false accusation of pseudoscience!


 * I have seen these accusations of POV before, and, on their more transparent encarnations, they are the ridiculous position that skeptics groups, for some reason, will want to accuse theory X of being pseudoscience, not for having all the indications of being a pseudoscience, but for dark hidden motivations that only they are able to spot. I have seen this position before, saying, for example, that the traditional medical associations attack alternative medicine not because clinical trials are failing to validate it, but because they want to keep their privilegues and stomp on anything meacing the status quo, even if it could sav millions of lifes.


 * This is just the position that skeptic groups are composed by bitter or jealous individuals that want to stomp any alternative stuff that that they believe that could work, in order to preserve the status quo of The Man. It's the typical position taken by scientists and inventors accused of pseudoscience that "The Man is trying to take me down", while roundly refusing to examine the reasons for the accusation.


 * Also, skeptic groups are the only ones that regularly publish scientific analysis of the more obscure pseudoscientific topics, so that's the place where scientists will go to publish them. For example, Skeptical Inquirer will publish stuff written by scientists not associated with any skeptic group. If a scientist wants to blow steam about some theory, they will go there (as an example: Ray Himan about Remote viewing, years after he made a review of it for the US Government that killed a multimillionary government project on it). If you can find reports on skeptic magazines that X is pseudoscience, and you can't find any study on science magazines validating X, then that's a very good indicator that X is most probably a pseudoscience. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Enric Naval - he summed it up very well. Vsmith (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose seconding Vsmith. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Enric and in any case I don't see it as feasible for various reasons already stated.


 * Oppose I gave this some thought, and I initially thought it would be a good idea. However, I can't see how it would be an improvement, and I agree with most of the other arguments against. Verbal   chat  18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion WP:PSCI definitely notes a huge distinction between what has been deemed pseudoscience by scientific consensus and what has only been so labeled by skeptics (critics) and hence the distinction which we have made in this list-article. That noted, we do seem to be split here in terms of this RfC. Certainly, let's give it some more time (a full week?) and let's see if an agreement can be formed. If not, I suggest that we actually do split the article as suggested and then immediately nominate the newly created Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific for deletion. Then, everyone can vote to Delete, Keep, or Merge back to here. In my experience, AfDs seem to attract wider attention from the community than RfCs. Plus, it will make clear the issue of how we would be splitting this article. 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 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That parsing of the PSCI Arbcom is questionable. For one thing you are using "skeptics (critics)" rather than "some critics", as the wikilink reveals. It does not refer to scientific skeptics at all, and uses the more general "some critics" wording, since using the word "skeptics" could imply that the criticism was coming from the scientific skeptical side, IOW from the mainstream. (Those who claim to be "skeptics", but who criticize the mainstream position are categorized as "pseudoskeptics" by Robert Todd Carroll, an expert on the subject of skepticism. "Critics" can be anyone, including fringe, pseudoskeptical sources who support and/or defend pseudoscientific POV and criticize mainstream positions. The four points made by the Arbcom decision create two distinct groupings: (1 & 2) are clearly pseudocientific (A) groupings recognized by the mainstream as such, while (3 & 4) are groupings within mainstream science (B) of less than certain status, but not considered pseudoscientific by the mainstream. Here are the groupings:


 * A. Here we are dealing with territory outside mainstream science, IOW in PSI territory defended by pseudoskeptics:


 * 1. Obvious pseudoscience
 * Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
 * 2. Generally considered pseudoscience
 * Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.


 * B. Here we hop over to the other side, into mainstream territory that is often criticized, mostly (but not exclusively) by fringe sources:


 * 3. Questionable science
 * Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
 * 4. Alternative theoretical formulations
 * Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.


 * Your parsing blends the two groups (A & B) and risks misclassifying skeptical=mainstream criticisms of PSI subjects (1 & 2) as fringe criticisms (3), if they are made by scientific skeptics. The proposed AFD would then conveniently be used to eliminate the POV expressed by those skeptics, which would certainly please those editors who don't like those skeptics. Skeptics are mainstream and express mainstream POV. Their criticisms of PSI are no less valid than any other mainstream views published in peer reviewed research. Anything in groups 3 & 4 should not be in this list at all, although notable fringe (or rare mainstream) criticisms of 3 can be noted in their individual articles. Since my support of a compromise in this situation is being used to further the aims of those who wish to delete well-sourced skeptical=mainstream POV, I will withdraw my support for this RFC. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 03:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose this split. WP:PARITY and WP:VALID indicate that there is no reason to separate the list as it is. We could be more explicit in stating our sources inline, but we should also keep in mind the WP:ASF and Let the facts speak for themselves sections so the NPOV policy. These latter suggest that statements of how each entry diverges from reality should be included. Such statements may be sourced to relevant scientific organizations, further blurring our artificial line of demarcation.
 * We might, however, at some point wish to create subarticles from this list, as it is currently 76 kB. Whether it would be better to organize strictly alphabetically for this purpose or to split by subheading I leave to some future discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Such a content fork would just give another article with the same problems. Having 2 sections within this article is more than enough, having 2 articles will just confuse the issue (which i guess is sourcing? How will splitting this article solve this - the disputed sources will just continue to be disputed in the fork).Yobmod (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Counter proposal
Stop with the attempted tiers of pseudoscience (one tier for scientific consensus, one tier for "skeptical groups", whatever the fuck that means.) Instead just find sources that are reliable that have called some aspect of an idea pseudoscientific and group topically. Trying to demarcate within pseudosciences as we are currently doing is silly. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this illustrates the problem we are facing; there is a jump in the above from "sources that have called some aspect of an idea pseudoscientific" to "demarcate between pseudosciences". If even an editor of this article is concluding that because some reliable source has said "x" about some aspect of "y", then - regardless of the level of support for or controversy around this statement - "x" is true of all of "y", we have a very problematic situation. The article is, even if technically accurate, leading readers (and editors, apparently) to (logically, and surely in a number of instances empirically) false conclusions. 'Course the title reinforces this; it is simply not reflecting that there is a second tier of concepts included here, for which "some x said pseudoscience about some aspect of y" is verifiable, but "y is a pseudoscience" is not. The fork would be between:
 * areas for which the claim "x is a pseudoscience" can be reasonably held to be verifiable (and which thus belong under the present title) and
 * areas for which the claim "some people say x, or some aspect of x, is pseudoscientific" can be reasonably held to be verifiable.
 * These are clearly differentiable, not a POV fork, and their confusion is the cause of endless argumentation here - for good reason. Hgilbert (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Some aspect of foo is pseudoscientific" is linguistically equivalent to saying "foo is pseudoscientific". While this isn't a formal logic argument, rarely are people in this murky area speaking in absolutes. Is all of ufology pseudoscientific? Certainly not! Even though ufology is pseudoscientific, when someone simply reports on stories someone has told that is not pseudoscience... and arguably still an aspect of ufology. So why is ufology listed as considered pseudoscience by scientific consensus?


 * No, the real reason for this attempt at demarcation between things that are pseudoscience and things that only have "aspects" that are pseudoscientific is that dedicated believers in the subjects of this list are active on this page. For example, I notice that anthroposophy is listed as something which is in Tier II of pseudosciences despite some pretty good indications that most of it is high-grade baloney. Nevertheless, we have some dedicated anthroposophy soapboxers active here who want to make sure that it isn't put in Tier I next to creation science, moon landing hoax accusations, etc. for fear that it be sullied by its natural association with other high grade baloneys. Likewise with various alternative medicines showing up on this page.


 * So we're dealing with two issues here: one is people with not-so-laid-bare agendas trying to remove the association of their pet idea with the pseudoscience defamation despite the reliable sources which indicate it as such. Two is the issue of what amount of credulity we are applying to various sources. We have people active on this page who are disparaging some of the best sources we have and using arbcom rulings out-of-context (in the case of Quackwatch, for example) to say that we should look at scientific academy statements differently from the statements of individual scientists. Well, obviously, the people who are making these accusations have never looked deeply into how scientific academies make "statements". Rarely are they voted on in anything more than a committee sense and even that is ridiculous because, as our own article on scientific consensus and scientific community reads, there is no singular body that speaks for all scientists. Nor does there have to be. We can rely on individual scientists to comment on pseudoscience as they see fit. Trying to make some segregation of sources is artificial and merely, as I see it, a way for POV-pushers to continue their campaigns to attempt to own various aspects of this encyclopedia.


 * ScienceApologist (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am agree with ScienceApologist. Notable skeptic groups and notable scientists are reliable source. They represent the scientific consensus. Thus what they say is fact, not view.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we're dealing with fuzzy logic. An example of your syllogism above ("Some aspect of foo is pseudoscientific" is linguistically equivalent to saying "foo is pseudoscientific".) is: "Quantum mysticism is an interpretation of physics"; "Quantum mysticism is pseudoscience"; therefore "Physics is pseudoscience". (Cold fusion would work here, too.)
 * Because a particular interpretation or aspect of a subject is considered to be pseudoscientific does not imply the whole subject can be so considered.
 * Because one individual opinion classifies a subject in a particular way does not mean that there is consensus on the subject, especially when there are contradictory opinions (or evidence) of equal notability.
 * Do remember that meteorites were declared to be pseudoscientific by one of the greatest scientific authorities of the late 19th century. This is opinion, not scientific evidence, and the two should be clearly demarcated. Hgilbert (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should think about what you are saying. Even if quantum mysticism is an "interpretation of physics", the fact that physics is in the predicate means your attempt at a syllogism represents the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Comparing that to my example, which says that some aspect of foo is pseudoscience therefore foo is pseudoscience is quite different. What you are saying is something like "some aspect of foo is pseudoscience", "bar is an aspect of foo", "therefore bar is pseudoscience". Yeah, that's a fallacy, but it is manifestly NOT logically equivalent to my point. In short, the comparison belies predicate logic. Now, as for your meteorite issue, I have to say that if Wikipedia were written in the 19th century, meteorites would certainly appear on this list. Wikipedia changes as reliable sources change. That's the beauty of this encyclopedia. WP:V explicitly says that the standard is reliability and not truth. Now that myself and others have dispatched your erroneous arguments, would you like to try again to explain how a two-tiered system of pseudoscience is supported by reliable sources? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See above; my point is, indeed, that both syllogisms are fallacies, yet are used to justify topics' inclusion here. Hgilbert (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the first isn't a syllogism: it is a statement about the character of pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A major problem here is highlighted by this comment from Otolemur crassicaudatus: "Notable skeptic groups...are reliable source[s]. They represent the scientific consensus. Thus what they say is fact, not view." No true scientist would ever agree with this statement. For one thing, take a look at the spokespeople from some of the notable skeptical groups: one of CSICOP's front men is James Randi, a professional magician, NOT a scientist. Sure, he sometimes makes sense, but how can the statements of a professional magician be taken as reflecting scientific consensus, first off, and then expanded to fact? Quite simply, the designation of an idea as pseudoscientific does not represent a factual explanation of that concept, as per the meteorite example above, and the example of hypnosis recognised in the list itself. Scientific theories change constantly, that is the nature of science. To label a thing as "factually" pseudoscientific is a hyper-conservative approach that defames (as recognised by ScienceApologist above) and stifles scientific progress.Wikigonish (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Randi is an expert in investigating claims that defy scientific consensus about physics, chemistry, and other sciences directly affecting reality. He's considered so much of an expert that he was hired by Nature to review claims of water memory by certain credulous scientists and came back with a report that blew their credulity out of the water. Just because someone doesn't have a PhD doesn't mean they are useless. And also, our goal here should not be to attempt to characterize scientific consensus about what constitutes a "pseudoscience". As I point out above, this is really a meaningless exercise in original research, forbidden by Wikipedia. What we should do is report the opinions of reliable sources about what is pseudoscience. Reliable sources, I might add, are reliable by reputation not by credentialism. Brian David Josephson has some pretty impressive credentials, but his credulity has been criticized from enough corners to make his position as a reliable source on many of these subjects to be questioned. Therefore we don't use him. Randi, on the other hand, is a good source for skepticism and evidence-based proposals, though ironically for our conversation he is actually quite cautious about not calling things "pseudoscience". For that reason, I think that disparaging him on this page is a bit of a red herring.
 * I think what we can say is that when something is considered by reliable sources to be a pseudoscience, this is a fact. This is the only fact that is relevant for this page. I think that we need to avoid any further demarcation as to how "authoritative" the source is. We have a standard for authority here: it's called WP:RS. If the source calling something a pseudoscience is found to be reliable for making such a claim, then we list the pseudoscience here. We can include the appropriate caveats and argumentations as well. Reliable sources we have a-plenty and their continual disparagement here is extremely problematic.
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinions are not facts. Or was it a fact that meteorites were pseudoscientific until the end of the 19th century, when they suddenly became a scientific phenomenon? (Same for continental drift a little later.) The only fact is that certain notable authorities have made this evaluation. This fact can be reported. Let the reader draw any further conclusions for herself. Hgilbert (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what you are saying Hgilbert. Actually it makes no difference whether it is a "fact" or "opinion". We just state what the sources say and reference it. We report the facts about opinions. We don't express the opinions as facts, or express them ourselves. That would be editorializing. We let the sources speak. IOW, we are not concerned with whether foo is pseudoscience. We are stating that so-and-so says it is pseudoscience. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 00:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, or in the case of a list, I'd think it might be important to say that these items have been called "pseudoscience" or have had aspects of them criticized for being pseudoscientific by reliable sources. We don't need to engage in a two-tiered system. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Meteorites existed in the 19th C, fact - meteorites were considered to be terrestrial by the "consensus" of the day, that too, is a fact. The possibility of an extraterrestrial origin was "pseudoscience" of the day -- until additional factual evidence changed the "consensus". Same holds for continental drift, during the half century of debate, the "consensus" was that it was akin to pseudoscience - that debate and consensus were facts. New evidence changed the picture and the "fact" of scientific opinion. The "opinions" of reliable sources are "facts" in the current debate about any pseudoscience. The status of some few of those pseudosciences may change in the future with new factual evidence and the opinions of reliable sources may change. Vsmith (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the matter is one of listing things that have been labeled as pseudoscientific by recognized skeptical organizations, which is what this list essentially is, then the list needs to be titled accordingly. Presently, the list's title implies that it is a FACT that all of the concepts contained within the list are pseudosciences, NOT that they are ALLEGED to be pseudoscientific. This is a crucial difference, and is at the crux of my problem with the entire thing. Comparing the Amazing Randi (professional magician known for the awarding of Flying Pig Awards) to Brian Josephson (Nobel prize winning physicist with some unconventional theories) is exactly the problem with this list. Those who consider some paranormal theory as pseudoscientific (like Randi) will likewise see Josephson as a kook...however, when it comes to the inner workings of advanced physics theory, I'm going to go with the Nobel prize winning physicist over the Amazing professional magician. Opinions are opinions, and that is a fact. The list should accurately be titled to make clear that it is a list of opinions.Wikigonish (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to read wikipedia policies again. If you believe anything here is labeled as pseudoscience using fringe source, then you can object. Otherwise when these are published in reliable source, the information is ok.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikigonish writes "Skeptical orgs. are ideologically motivated," -- what does this mean? That skeptical groups follow a scientific ideology (whatever that is)? And that's bad? Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why of course fringe groups, quacks, frauds, etc. certainly have no ulterior or ideological motives .... never! I don't think pointing fingers is going to get us anywhere. Holding a POV is not inherently wrong, and acting from legitimate ideological motives is certainly not wrong either, especially scientific ones which are self-correcting and follow the evidence, in spite of personal feelings and/or (lack of) profits. Acting from ignorance or from hatred implanted by so-called "health freedom" advocates is in another class altogether. Let's move on and away from this type of discussion. Accusations of "ideological motivations" help nothing. Keep in mind that "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." is considered a personal attack. Don't use other's (editors or sources) POV as an attack against them. That only diverts the discussion. 'Nuff said... -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per my reasons in the preceding section and the futility of maintaining the current artificial, unsupported by RS, and POV split. Adequate sourcing should be treated as adequate sourcing, not openly disparaged. The current article structure is not the most useful to the reader, as it requires sifting through two lists with no obvious distinction to distill useful information. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 *  Neutral . As long as the source for calling it pseudoscience is clearly stated, a single list would work, if good faith editors are working here.
 * Looking at the article as it is now, there is no reason that each entry cannot have a sentence stating if dedicated skeptic groups have called it PS, or if it is more wide ranging (governments, science acediemies, WHO). Hence is Support a single list. The current "levels" of quackery seems only to be there to make some of these activities seem more accepted by science, which they are not - they are just more ignored by mainstream authorities apart from the skeptics who seek them out. 11:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of well documented, reliable sources on the basis of papers with detailed examination and argumentation. Per above, Reliable sources, I might add, are reliable by reputation not by credentialism. I've seen a number of publications nominally highly reliable, where an editor-in-chief abuses his post to print non-technical opinions to disparage personal enemies or camps that are simply embarrassing. WP:RS includes scientific substance.--I&#39;clast (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda
I am puzzled to see Ayurveda‎ is not considered a pseudoscience in wikiepdia. This branch of alternative medicine relies on the concept of Tridosha system which has no scientific basis. Can anyone add it in this list? One can quickly review these two references.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also used this review of an anthropological book as a source --Enric Naval (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The list itself mentions how religious systems ought not be considered pseudoscientific, yet several religious systems are on the list, and this latest one is being added despite ongoing debate on the quality of the list itself. Yet another example of the flaws of this list.Wikigonish (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? How is ayurveda a religious system? The sources I found called it a "alternative medicine practice" which is in turn based on the traditional medicine of India. A quick google scholar search only lists sources calling it a medicinal system, including in-depth stuff like an analysis of "the potential and role of ayurveda [in the discovery and development of medicine]"  and an analysis of how  "empirical indigenous medicine" in Sry Lanka are being obscured "because Ayurveda is commonly approached as a single coherent tradition of medicine" . A quick google book search turns out books on medicine and some non-religious stuff like a book on numerology. Searching books for "ayurveda religion"  I get the Ayurveda Encyclopedia, which calls it a "spiritual science"  (to get the correct page, search for "religion" on the right side and click on the third result) And Prakruti: Your Ayurvedic Constitution, page 7 "If Ayurveda were a religion, its goddess would be Nature"  --Enric Naval (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikigonish, you wrote: "yet several religious systems are on the list." Without even looking at the list, any religion or religious system that is based on (pseudo)scientific claims, or has scientific claims as a substantial part of their foundation, can potentially qualify, just like any other field of knowledge that makes scientific claims can potentially qualify (if they are pseudoscientific claims). A couple that come to mind are Christian Science and Scientology. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 00:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And you can target only the pseudoscientific part of the religous belief. For example, Creation science is on the list, but Christianity is not on it despite creationism being part of its dogmas. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Jehovah's Witnesses also have some beliefs about blood transfusions, but I'm not sure that fits exactly here. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 14:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting discussion, not directly related, but relevant.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations to articles with unknown content
The inclusion of three fields (under religion) was supported here by the existence of articles on these subjects in an Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. It was pointed out long ago that many fields have articles in this encyclopedia, and not all are pseudoscientific, nor does the mere existence of an article provide support. In the many months since then, no one has found any wording in the articles that actually supports inclusion here. Absent any such support, I have removed them; note that if there is any supportive wording found they can certainly be replaced without any objections from me. Hgilbert (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OR tag
There was a original research tag at the top of the article. I have removed it because the sections which are unbsourced are properly tagged. There is no need for overtagging.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The tag was placed by me because the sectioning in this article is essentially an original desynthesis (that is, there is an attempt to disambiguate reliable sources being done by certain groups active on this page). I have placed tags instead. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed my support for the RFC above for this reason. Skeptical=mainstream sources are being targeted yet again, and I won't support that. We should remove the present sectioning, since it is not based on subject alone, but on sourcing. There should be no special sourcing rules here. V & RS are the ony binding and authoritative sourcing rules at Wikipedia. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try again
As far as I understand, this article's structure has two primary sections in order to differentiate:
 * areas in which experts in a particular area (say, physics) have identified a subject related to that area (say, quantum mysticism) as pseudoscientific; and
 * areas in which non-experts have identified a subject as pseudoscientific.

This seems to me to be a legitimate, indeed, an important distinction to maintain. Is this a point we can agree on? (It would be ironic indeed if self-declared "science supporters" denied that scientists working in a field have more expertise in the subject than lay persons.) Hgilbert (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends. A great deal of lay people have more relevent expertise on subjects like homeopathy or parapychology than the majority of people involved in directly researching the subjects. See Jacques_Benveniste and Project_Alpha for just two examples provided by a mere conjurer. Jefffire (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jeffire, each has to be looked at on its own merits. I would rate a scientist who has studied homoeopathy much higher on the expert list than a simple practising homoeopath, and Randi is an expert in extraordinary claims. Verbal   chat  12:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed; these are people who have achieved some expertise in the field, or have used their own expertise to evaluate very particular claims where this expertise is relevant. Would you agree that Randi's comments on quantum mysticism (imagining them to exist) should be given considerable less weight, for example? The point is that, at least historically, the second section has been for non-expert testimony, and it may be worth acknowledging the considerable difference. Hgilbert (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That depends on the basis for these hypothetical statements. If it is mere unsupported opinion in an area outside of relevant expertise then sure, it should be treated like any other human-on-the-street opinion. If, however, the source indicates that it has reason to believe that opinions expressed or facts asserted are in line with scientific consensus (with the usual caveats on scientific consensus), then the degree to which we can trust that claim is more relevant than the individual's specific expertise. Randi has a great deal of reputation riding on his ability to make statements within the scientific mainstream, and can be trusted to have shown due diligence in researching such assertions. Moreover, Randi's expertise in the ways people fool each other and themselves is quite relevant to many of these entries. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reiki and others
I haven't worked on this page so I didn't jump into edit. I was wondering why Reiki, Morphic field, and Water as Fuel are not currently listed?--OMCV (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Water-fueled cars are an instance of perpetual motion, which is listed; in addition to the article, User:SteveBaker has posted a cogent analysis of the claims on the WFC talk page. The other two are categorized PS, which ideally indicates that the sourcing is more than sufficient to be included in this more nuanced list. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check mark for water-fueled cars. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific work vs. skeptical critique
I'm still concerned about possible POV bias here. If, for example, there is a field in which scientific work is being done; this work is reported in scientific journals and published by academic presses; it is studied in mainstream universities; and in all this is treated as a valid science - but an individual skeptic has (or even several have) made disparaging comments against it - is it to be treated as a pseudoscience or a science? Keep in mind WP:Undue. Hgilbert (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an issue here of masquerading. I know of more than a few pseudosciences that have been able to publish more-or-less under the radar screen in out-of-the-way journals (and even occasionally in not so out-of-the-way journals) that have not received any independent review in the journals because other scientists don't want to waste their time. There's a lot of crap out there, even with peer-review and academic standardization. The real thing that we look for is not some laundry list of publications but how noticed the idea is in the relevant academic community. A marginalized idea is a marginalized idea. If someone calls this idea pseudoscience, then someone has called it pseudoscience. If this person is a respected scientist, then far be it from us to dismiss her simply because the proponents of this idea have been able to publish in the International Journal the Publishes Anything For A Price. That's the key point here.


 * I have yet to see a case where the pseudoscience moniker was knocked around by legitimate, respected scientists where the idea being attacked was so "not pseudoscience" as to be questionable as to its inclusion on this page, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Show me a counter-example. Do you have something in mind?


 * ScienceApologist (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm speaking of the opposite: when the respected scientists are publishing material on a subject in mainstream journals and a scientifically unqualified skeptic publishes critical material without peer review. Just how far are we stretching WP:Undue? Hgilbert (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ideally we are reporting the content of reliable sources and enforcing NPOV rather than stretching one of its provisions. One or the other of those should cover the situation you describe. Do you have a specific case where this occurs so we can speak in specifics rather than vague generalities? - Eldereft (cont.) 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I too would welcome a specific examples. I've seen many a case where the "scientifically unqualified skeptic" is a far more robust source than the "respected scientist. Jefffire (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Me three. I too would like to see some specific examples. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthroposophic Medicine
OK, here goes - a test of our ability to overcome our personal prejudices in the face of overwhelming evidence. I have created a page of links to and summaries of scientific work on anthroposophic medicine. Note that all studies are published by mainstream medical journals. This list does not aim to be comprehensive, only to demonstrate that the subject is in fact well within the realm of science, is treated as such by mainstream scientists and journals, and has supportive studies. Hgilbert (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to your comment above. Surely science can investigate pseudo-science? The fact that a PS is being investigated doesn't make that PS field scientific. For example, homeopathy is pure P(yes P)S but is investigated by scientists. As far as AM goes, I haven't looked into it. I freely admit I might have misunderstood you here. Verbal   chat  14:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, anybody could investigate anything. The point is that these studies are all investigating anthroposophic medicine as a science; they support its classification as a science; they support its scientific efficacy. Not one indicates that it should in any way be treated as anything but a scientific field. Hgilbert (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem. I just wanted to check that you weren't saying that investigating a topic makes it legitimate; it's the results, repetition, and acceptance of those results which is important. Verbal   chat  14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthroposophic Medicine is pretty clearly a pseudoscience. It's based on a whole quack load of spritualism and religious BS and commonly uses homeopathic preparations. Jefffire (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you believe this, Jefffire, but the scientific community doesn't treat it as such, and that's what we need to represent here. Did you actually look at the page referencing scientific publications? My question is and has been: how far are we willing to stretch WP:Undue to match our prejudices? Hgilbert (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a list of cherry picked studies that you've put together, not an indication that the scientific community has decided to consider a faith based pseudoscience as a legitimate field. One can find pretty much the same level of "evidence" for just about any prominant pseudoscience.
 * If you want to argue that the scientific community has somehow taken leave of it's senses and decided that magic and mysticism are legimate, then provide a reputable citation where they say as such. Till then, kindly stop pushing your religion here. Jefffire (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that magic and mysticism are being promoted by the scientific community; this appears to be your claim. I have demonstrated that the scientific community is treating anthroposophic medicine as a valid area of science. Hgilbert (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not demonstrated that, and your claim to have done so is frankly laughable. Bring us a cite to show explicately that this is regarded as a legitimate area of science, otherwise kindly stop PoV pushing your personal religion. Jefffire (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, can everyone stay calm. No one will convince anyone by talking past each other. Verbal   chat  13:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For an insightful examination of the larger issue of complementary and alternative medicine, see this testimony from the NIH Director of the Office of Alternative Medicine: Testimony on Access to Medical Treatment Act by Wayne B. Jonas, M.D.. Hgilbert (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like where it says "Thus complementary and alternative practices are not used to replace conventional medicine, but instead, to fill in where conventional medicine requires supplementation and support", as if it was a good and desirable thing :P


 * Well, anyways, let's distinguish between Anthroposophy (a spiritual philosophy) and Anthroposophical medicine (a complementary medicine). Only the second one claims to be based on science, so that's the only one we can call pseudoscience.


 * Also, Hgilbert, I stumbled upon one of the studies on your list, and it's about the "Lifestyle factors associated with anthroposophy " reducing the risk of allergies. That's not an endorsment of anything, they might as well have studied how the yuppie style affects allergies.


 * Also, can someone with access to Lancet articles read this article "Complementary medicine: time for critical engagement" and quoate us the sentence(s) that refer to anthroposophy? As a paper criticizing complementary medicine, it should be the perfect place to find all the problems that it has. I think that "Uncommon Schooling: A Historical Look at Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf Education"  could help us a bit, as well as "Beyond Rationalism. Chapter 2: Beyond Vodou and Anthroposophy on the Dominican-Haitian Bordelands . If those first two articles have gems like this: "The Anthroposophists echo Latin American traditional views on culture in which 'traditional' culture is seen as threatened by 'modern' cultural substitution (...) The anthroposophical approach is holistic: they introduce biodynamic farming techniques, Waldorf pedagogics, eurhytmics (...) anthroposophical medicine(...) During anthroposophical meetings in Montaña Antigua in 1991, the peasants were presented with 'occult explanations' for the rise of global capitalism, the industrial Revolution, allopathic medicine, industrial agriculture, enviromental destruction, nationalism, totalitarian regimes, religious fundamentalism and ethnic mobilisation". Actually, this is an example of a school of thought making a good sociological work to help people inmersed on traditional cultures get used to modern culture. It's a good labor and it has nothing to do with the scientific validity of Anthroposophical medicine. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hgilbert makes a good point here, but the POV criticism is further emphasised by the reaction to his point. If a skeptical group specifically says a concept is pseudoscientific, then that is enough to establish that the concept is FACTUALLY pseudoscientific, according to these people, and then only a claim that specifically says "this is NOT pseudoscientific" is enough to contradict? Of course, those who "believe" in this list will reject any contradictions to the label of pseudoscience unless it comes from notables that they themselves approve of. Ridiculous.Wikigonish (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is easily contradicted by the fact that "Invasion Biology" was just removed from this article, despite there being a source. The problem was the source isn't good enough. The problem with "AM" (the medicine part) is different, and not as simple as you suggest. Verbal   chat  16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is rhetorically problematical to prove this point with a mere literature search. There are isolated instances of homeopathy and magnet therapy and the like in even the serious journals (i.e. not just Homeopathy and Medical Hypotheses), but there is strong consensus in the scientific community that these practices have no basis in observable reality. It is further important to distinguish between a study which considers the Anthroposophic approach a scientifically valid hypothesis, a study which takes an agnostic position on the theoretical justification for a practice, and a study which uses the Anthroposophic community as a ready cohort. The Alm Lancet atopy study is of this third type (and, incidentally, concluded that the observed lower instance of atopy in the community was, in fact, probably causally linked to an Anthroposophic lifestyle, but that this link was at least partially mediated by undervaccination; the fact that having had measles reduces atopy later in life does not validate any Anthroposophic hypothesis). Only the first type of study validates the idea that reliable sources treat Anthroposophic medicine as a scientifically valid approach. Additionally, studies of the "Anthroposophic lifestyle" need sufficiently to deconvolute the approach as a whole system from various healthy (some of the diet recommendations) and unhealthy (restricted use of antibiotics, antipyretics, and vaccination) factors.
 * As I recall, we removed Anthroposophy itself from this list for reason of being a religion. The associated medical system, however, makes demonstrably false claims about the workings of observable reality and falls under the same rubric as faith healing. A statement from Cincinnati Skeptics, who meet the weird RS conditions set for this article, agrees with this assessment. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If a web-published set of anonymous "blurbs" meets the conditions for this article, then there's the answer to my question how far Undue Weight can be stretched. By the way, what are the demonstrably false claims about observable reality that anthroposophic medicine makes? Hgilbert (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sure the Cincinnati Skeptics are nice folks, but it seems really silly that a statement from them meets the inclusion criteria for this article as written (unless they do not pass as a "notable" skeptical body), but statements from individual medical doctors who have investigated the system do not. To be perfectly honest, I just ran across the position statement while looking for something else. So long as we can agree on a reasonable definition of "notable skeptic", I think that basing entries on the rendered analyses of multiple such would actually improve the sourcing of this article. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A point to consider is that as far as alternative medicines go, AM is pretty minor and insignificant. Just as a rough example that's not meant to be persuasive, google hits for the subjects:
 * "anthroposophic medicine":10 300
 * "orthomolecular medicine":77 800
 * "homeopathic medicine":730 000

Also of note is that the first result for "anthroposophic medicine" is the entry for skeptics dictionary. This is pretty far from a common and respect field. Jefffire (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic ideas references
I've added some references to this section, mostly gleaned from the associated wp articles. If people could help me finish this job, check these references for suitability, and also find some more refs that firmly place these topics in the "idiosyncratic" area, I'd be grateful. Thanks Verbal   chat  14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

invasion biology
Under "Earth and Earth sciences" the "invasion biology" entry doesn't have an article and, out of its 4 references, 2 are to Theodoropoulos D. I'm not sure if this is a notable/reliable source, see his personal website. Someone knowledgeable on biology please take a look at it. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced this should be included in the list - as it says a paradigm shift may be happening, which implies it hasn't yet. Verbal   chat  09:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was of the understanding that "invasion biology" was to do with the study of invasive plants and animal. This is just some nutter who's gone off on a rant. Jefffire (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yah, the publisher "Avvar" has a grand total of 6 books, including hard and soft back versions. That pretty much rules out reliable source. Jefffire (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble-there is no unbiased empirical criteria that defines biological "invasiveness"; therefore the notion of invasion biology is by definition pseudoscientificPinus jeffreyi (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the previous remarks were on the merits of the claim but more on its notability. This subject doesn't seem to pass the required criteria. --McSly (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; the concept of "invasiveness" is applied to numerous biological concepts (Invasive species, list of invasive species, category:invasive species, invasive species in Australia, category:invasive fungus species, zebra mussel, list of Minnesota fish, genetic pollution, etc. as if the term were scientific. Yet the concept has been demonstrated to be biased by psycho-pathological "nativism" and whose fundamental assumption (homeostasis) has been shown to be unreliable.  I can provide a number of references outside of D. Thodoropoulos; too bad it was already taken down. 70.144.88.59/Pinus jeffreyi (talk) 09:56, August 23, 2008 (UTC)


 * If a subject isn't notable enough for the creation of a Wikipedia article, it hardly deserves mention here. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

like, for instance, invasion biology terminology?Pinus jeffreyi (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when does not having an "unbiased" definition make a subject pseudoscientific? Jefffire (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pinus, that article is a set of terms for some related stuff inside the field of biology, and it doesn't state any scientific or pseudo-scientific theory about invasion biology. It's useless for the purpose of making an entry here because it doesn't explain the theory itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Self evidently pseudoscientific
The second sentence of the second paragraph currently reads: Also included are important concepts associated with the main entries, and concepts that, while notable and self-evidently pseudoscientific, have not elicited commentary from mainstream scientific bodies or skeptical organizations. Why do we have the second half of that sentence, and do we really need to keep it? - Eldereft (cont.) 04:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure where you're headed with this. Please propose a new text and explain more. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I figured it out - the wording "self-evidently pseudoscientific" covers Obvious pseudoscience as defined by WP:PSCI. It looked when I was tweaking the wording last night like something left over from an old fight about categorization and sourcing or something. I think that this list is at present pretty well sourced (thanks, Verbal), but see no harm in leaving the introductory text as is. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Importance of This Project. Thank-You
One of the challenges on wikipedia is distinguishing pseudo-science from science. Even when there is a peer review process of professionals, vetting knowledge is not always done perfectly. But wikipedia is more informal and is still learning and developing a process. It is potentially a fertile ground for crack pots, especially if there is a well organized group of zealous supporters (e.g., the untouchable page on Heim Theory) or a powerful commercial venture (e.g., "The Secret") that seeks to blunt criticism.

Science is portrayed as conspiratorial, which is simply not true. If for exmaple, a theory really existed that could predict and explain the masses of elementary particles, someone, a professor, a graduate student, would take advantage of that to further their career. They would not engage in a conspiracy to suppress the truth for the benefit of some other scientists.

The follower of pseudo science or conspiracy theory is often unreachable. This is not because they are stupid people, it is because they have a feeling of elite knowledge. A would-be scientist, who has never really mastered the topic or accompished anything, can feel superior to Nobel Prize winners, because he knows Heim Theory. Someone who has built the Large Hadron Accelerator is inferior, because he does not know the "truth". It's a sad delusion. But if someone's self esteem is based on a cult-like belief, you can't shake it. All you can do is prevent them from corrupting wikipedia, posting bogus pages, and driving away experts with verbal abuse or other tactics. Sadly, it still happens.

Nothing could be worse than for someone innocently seeking knowledge on wikipedia to be actively misled. It takes a concerted effort by diligent editors and experts to prevent that. Thank-you. DonPMitchell (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I whole-heartedly agree - which makes me wonder why the POV tag has been removed from this list, which is in itself a list of notions declared pseudoscientific (itself a loaded term) from one point of view or another. I remain unconvinced that this page has received a level discussion since none of my main criticisms have been adequately countered. It does not matter how many references this page has, the fact remains that the title of the list suggests that those items in the list are ABSOLUTELY pseudoscientific, which is not a claim that any true scientist would ever make about anything. I still maintain that the list is biased as presently titled and it would be more clear to the "innocent" reader just what the list contains if it were titled something along the lines of list of concepts labeled pseudoscientific by skeptics or scientific orgs. This title change, as I've said repeatedly, would make clear that this list represents a collection of OPINIONS and not fact.Wikigonish (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikigonish, as I mentioned above, a title change of this nature was discussed extensively not all that long ago. If you have additional points that were not addressed in that discussion, please moot them. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "about":<ul> <li>From Russian Academy of Sciences: General information about the Academy (in Russian)</li> <li>From Brain Gym: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed and given a better ref name than about. Thanks, AnomieBOT. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops - thanks for fixing my mistake. I've given the reference a more useful name in the Brain Gym article too.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 10:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples
There is a discussion at Talk:Pseudoscience which may interest editors of 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 19:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Read, agreed, and, I repeat: "WP:PSCI". Said: Rursus (☻) 16:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Shouldn't wikipedia belong to the article too? It's not a scientific work, but it alleges as such, and might be mistaken for science, while it in fact only repeats pseudofacts that are written outside wikipedia? Said: Rursus (☻) 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as you can find a pair of good WP:RS sources for that... :D --Enric Naval (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, OK, I'll see what I can do. Said: Rursus (☻) 06:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose that Brittanica should also be listed then, I mean it fits your definition above. Just for the record, wikipedia does not claim to be a science, nor does it even claim that to tell the truth; it claims to report what verifiable sources say. Finally, whether, or not, it can be mistaken for science is irrelevant to its status as pseudoscience. Phoenix1177 (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda?
I don't see a source meeting this list's criteria (in the "skeptical groups" section or any other). AMA doesn't call it anything at all close to pseudo, and I think we've already established that Quackwatch is unsuitable for our purposes here: it's been called a partisan and unreliable source |by Arbcom (who, in that ruling, were right to criticize Quackwatch but wrong to criticize the editor who had used it in good faith as a V RS, as many had prior to that ruling). The final cite calls unlicensed practitioners "quacks", which is a term that can be fairly applied to unlicensed or otherwise improper practitioners of any medicine, including the modern kind (c.f. chelation therapy). --Jim Butler (t) 12:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (Disclaimer: I wrote that entry with those sources, see Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive_9). The AMA source is only sourcing statement-of-fact explanations of what Ayurveda is. The Quackwatch source was added later, and it was repeating some of those statements, so I added it also there. (Mind you, the AMA source cites Carl Sagan lamenting "the rise of pseudoscience and superstition")


 * If the complaint is that it should be sourced from the CSICOP, then see that their newsletter had an article where Ayurveda was given as an example of the "scientification" of pseudoscience, and Skeptical Inquirer had an article on how alternative medicine misrepresented alternative medicine (aka pseudoscientific claims) (it cites ayurveda as the source of certain beliefs). Would that be enough to verify CSICOP's opinion?


 * Other sources that could possibly be used: the Skepdic Dictionary lists Ayurveda as an example of "pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims" website online version of paper book. The Skeptic, the journal of "Australian Skeptics" group, mentions it tangencially page 40, bottom half of middle column, and the same group listed two promoters of Ayurveda as valid reader-submitted nominees for their Bent Spoon Award (search "ayurveda" on the 2005 nominations and 2006 nominations) The Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking has an article mentioning Ayurveda while reviewing the pseudoscientific aspects of an article on alternative medicine. The National Council Against Health Fraud gives zero scientific legitimacy for Ayurveda, albeit all mentions are either cites of other authors or tangencial mentions. James Randi also criticized it on his newsletter (ok, Randi is neither a "body" nor a "group" :D ) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Enric, thanks for gathering all those sources. For purposes of this list, my concern is that while there are quite a few of them, they don't appear to be the right kind.  They (i.e., all the sources saying Ayurveda is PS) are all comments by individuals.  Regarding CSICOP, while it's probably true that they wouldn't publish something that the editorial board violently disagreed with, the same is true regarding the Massachusetts Medical Society and NEJM.  However, we don't assume that papers published in NEJM necessarily reflect the views of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and therefore we don't accept such sources for the first, "sci consensus" tier.  Obviously (well, to most people), one author's opinion is not self-evidently the same thing as consensus of a scientific or skeptical group (it's maybe even kind of the opposite).  The opinions of even prominent individuals do not suffice for meeting WP:PSCI; cf. Carroll's observation that Karl Popper called psychoanalysis pseuodscientific: WP:PSCI spefifically says that that topic should not be so characterized (and nor should any topic that is neither trivially obvious PS nor "generally considered PS by the sci community").  Putting a topic in category:pseudoscience or on this list, presently titled "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts", in fact amounts to characterizing a topic as PS.  That is indisputable.


 * So, if we can't cite Popper in this particular case (i.e., saying a topic *is* pseudoscience), we can't cite some random dude writing for CSICOP either. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't necessarily use those sources elsewhere on WP:  e.g., in a topic's own article, or in a list like this but with an appropriately qualified title, e.g. "List of alleged pseudosciences" or "List of fields or concepts that have been labeled as pseudosciences and pseudoscientific" or something.  Do you see what I'm getting at?  Under the WP:PSCI part of NPOV policy, we can't designate topics as pseudoscience without being able to hit a certain threshold of source, i.e. one showing general scientific agreement.  (See also WP:RS; NPOV and VER are completely intertwined.)  This issue has been a point of contention for practically the lifetime of this article, despite WP's mission to present facts about opinions, not opinions as facts.


 * To be honest, I'm also pretty dubious that the "statements from skeptical groups" are really indicative of general scientific agreement. I've been willing to live with including them as a sort of metastable solution, i.e. one that's the least offensive to most editors, but I would have significant problems with loosening the inclusion criteria even more, e.g. by taking articles attributed to single authors as being the voice of the publishing org.  I still think the best solution would be to either retitle the article as above, or have two articles and only keep the first section (and maybe the trivial examples, following the curious logic of WP:PSCI) here.  However, experience shows that such proposals always degenerate into polarization and the forwarding of proposals even worse than what we have now.  So I think the best thing is to hold the line and keep the inclusion criteria from getting much broader or narrower.  regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, noes, not this again, please. That section is clearly labelled as "considered by skeptic groups" to clearly separate it from the part that has statements from scientific bodies and academies, there was already a RFC on splitting the list where all those arguments and some more were put forward. About why it's silly to dismiss the statements of skeptic groups when talking of pseudoscience, see my comment at the RFC. (as an example, search for the "Hongcheng Magic Liquid" entry, which only has a book by Sagan as source, as nobody on academia commented on it)


 * About WP:PSCI, it looks like a strawman in this case: Popper also called Marxism a pseudo-science for the same reasons as Psychology, and nobody argues to list marxism here (among other things because 1962's Popper's definition of pseudoscience differs a bit from 2008's CSICOP's definition). Also, you ought to show that Ayurveda has a "substantial following" on mainstream, so you can show that it's only "some critics" that are saying that it's pseudoscientific....


 * About using statements by individuals, you see, as far as I know, CSICOP doesn't have an editorial stance (apart from a very general list), so I can't really point you to a CSICOP-sanctioned statement. We will have to do with pointing at what articles they decide to publish on their official journal and newsletter, or pointing at statements by founding members like Randi or Sagan, unless you can think of a better way to decide it. Also, it's pretty clear to everyone that CSICOP considers pretty much all of alternative medicine to be pseudoscience, and ayurveda is an alternative medicine, so I don't think that this part is open to debate... unless you want to argue that CSICOP actually considers Ayurveda as serious science :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Oh noes"? I don't think you understood my statement:  I said that while I had serious reservations about the skepticial society section being included in this list as currently titled, I'm cool with keeping it as a compromise, but not with expanding the inclusion criteria further to include statements by individuals.


 * The point with Popper is that statements by individuals don't suffice, per WP:PSCI (part of NPOV, not quite a strawman). It's pure original synthesis, not to mention utter absurdity, to argue that "hey, no one contradicted that guy, so his views must represent sci consensus".  That's why this edit of yours is wrong in practically every respect possible (WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SYN).  We may have to go to article RfC over your fanciful attempt to redefine scientific consensus.


 * There's a very fundamental point you're just not grokking, Enric: verifiability, not truth.  Sure, lots of scientifically-minded types think lots of things are bullshit, if they even consider them at all.  Guess what?  We don't say, "hey, no way CSICOP could possibly think Ayurveda is for real, let's put it on the pseudoscience list".  There's this thing called WP:V that says we have to find a suitable source.  And we follow NPOV, which includes WP:PSCI.  Topics like Ayurveda (which, from a worldwide view, certainly have a substantial following) don't necessarily have to be assumed pseudoscientific until proven otherwise, or assumed scientific until proven otherwise.  They don't have to be characterized as one or the other at all, unless we can find the proper source saying so.  If you can't find that source, you don't "make do" with what you have just because you really want to list as many pseudosciences as possible:  instead, you work those sources into WP where you can, in ways that are consistent with NPOV.  regards, Jim Butler (t) 23:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. The Hongcheng thing clearly belongs on a list like this, but we should tweak the inclusion criteria of that section to include statements by groups (like governmental organizations) that aren't official scientific bodies, but that do, like sci-skeptic groups that are composed of both scientists and laypeople, carry some weight of consensus. --Jim Butler (t) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I opened an article RFC below, as it seems the best course of action. I agree that statements by bodies like governamental organizations can be added.


 * About Ayurveda, I need to check other sources and tweak that entry, can't do right now. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the entry to "Maharashi's Ayurveda", as that's the most pseudoscientific part of it. I need to check some stuff, like a JAMA article destroying Maharashi's and Deepak's version of Ayurveda. It seems that Maharisihi's version of Ayurveda is probably different from what traditional ayurveda was, but I'm unsure on whether the Ayurveda being teached at India's medicine schools is based on Marasishi's version or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We should be careful about government statements, though: slippery slope, especially from dictatorships, or for that matter highly idealogical governments that have taken anti-science positions for political reasons (cough Bush administration cough).  IMO, Hongcheng Magic Liquid falls under WP:PSCI's "obvious pseudoscience", so we don't have to worry about the specific source.


 * However, the Ayurveda entry, Maharishi or not, still lacks a source fitting the inclusion criteria of the section it is in, or indeed any section on the list; and more importantly, it lacks a source fitting either of the two categories permitted under WP:PSCI. That's a simple fact; the only thing to debate is whether to expand the list's inclusion criteria, or whether to include such information someplace else on WP in a way that doesn't violate WP:PSCI by "characterizing" them as pseudoscience, as inclusion on this list plainly does.  Our discussion seems to be hung up on that point, as well as the RfC below, and to some extent the very existence of the skeptic-group section; so perhaps the next thing to do is ask ArbCom for a limited comment clarifying the relevant ruling, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.  I think there's an avenue to do that, someplace... I'll try and find it.  Let's discuss the wording before submitting it.  (I thought you did a very nice, neutral, accurate job of presenting the issue in the RfC, btw.  I just want to make sure we include all the relevant issues so we don't have to pester ArbCom more than once.)


 * A bit more re Ayurveda: (1) No, Maharishi's style isn't taught in Indian med schools, fwiw.  (2) If we have a suitable source for "quantum" stuff, then whatever Chopra said might go under that.  --Jim Butler (t) 09:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, government statements have to be taken in context.


 * Chopra is already under quantum mysticism, search for "Quantum Quackery" on the article. For CSICOP's position on Chopra, see . On the meeting of the American Physical Society, a panel was presented by CSICOP where he was talked about while explaining "some of the wackier attempts to misuse physics".


 * For CSICOP's position on Maharishi's Ayur-veda, it seems that CSICOP centrates mostly on his TM and not on his ayurveda, see . However, it turns out that "Maharishi Ayur-Veda is a registered trademark for a line of TM products and services. Dr Chopra had been the sole stockholder, president, treasurer, and clerk of the company that sells Maharishi Ayur-Veda products". So, I'll be damned if skeptic groups like CSICOP don't consider it as clear pseudoscience, as it's owned by Chopra and thought out by Maharishi, and CSICOP considers the ideas of both of them as pseudoscience, even if there is not any "smoking gun" that I can point at. (And the Indian CSICOP published on "Indian Skeptic" two articles relating Maharishi Ayurveda with TM and Chopra respectively: "From Spiritual Sadhana to Maharishi Ayurveda: Transcendental Meditation Evolves" and "Deepak Chopra and Maharishi Ayurvedie Medicine"). And the list is about stuff that groups like CSICOP consider pseudoscience, while WP:PSCI is about what wikipedia should consider pseudoscience.


 * Traditional Ayurveda would not be considered pseudoscience, as I initially believed. For example, an article on Annals of Internal Medicine explicitely includes it on a different section (I need to tweak the entry again to reflect that and make what it makes reference to).


 * See also "The authors misrepresented Maharishi Ayur-Veda to JAMA as Ayurvedic medicine, the ancient, traditional health care system of India, rather than a trademark for a brand of products and services marketed since 1985 by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's complex network of research, educational, and commercial organizations." --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement in a nutshell (re: title a/o inclusion criteria)
(de-indent, continuing from above) Enric, I think this comment of yours sums up our disagreement:


 * "And the list is about stuff that groups like CSICOP consider pseudoscience, while WP:PSCI is about what wikipedia should consider pseudoscience."

Ah, but this list falls under Wikipedia's rules, and its title unambiguously states that the topics are pseudosciences, not that they are "considered pseudosciences (according to certain groups)". Do you see?

To clarify: If this list is about what groups like CSICOP, then it should have a title reflecting that, e.g. "List of topics considered pseudoscientific by skeptical organizations". Instead, it has the title "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts": in other words, its title explicitly says "this is what Wikipedia considers pseudoscience". The present inclusion criteria violate NPOV, which is why I intend to seek comment from the ArbCom.

For the last two years or so, we have had quite as few editors who believe their own views about pseudoscience, and not WP policy, should dictate what goes on the list. Some (not you) have tended to !vote with little or no explanation of their reasoning, and at least one editor, ScienceApologist (cf. below and recent edit history), has additionally engaged in varying degrees of incivility, WP:TE and edit warring to try and get his way. In a situation like this, there's only one thing we need: ''' more cowbell! ''' more WP:DR, specifically a limited ArbCom comment on how the relevant ruling, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, applies to this and perhaps a few related articles.

(Footnote re Ayurveda and CSICOP: I still don't see a group statement from CSICOP, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)  regards, Jim Butler (t) 04:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed alternative, re RfC above: keep the wording, different section
Proposal: include the disputed wording (italicized below) under the section Idiosyncratic ideas, in the spirit of WP:PSCI's "obvious pseudoscience":


 * The following concepts have only a very small number of proponents, yet have become notable; or have enjoyed popularity as fads or otherwise received attention but have become discredited. An indication of this can be that one or more expert scientists have challenged the legitimacy of these ideas and no other expert scientists have contradicted them.

I think it makes sense to put the wording here, because the topics it covers should indeed be on the list, but by definition there will be no scientific consensus for non-notable topics. (The exception would be for topics that are just obvious variations on a theme in the first section, e.g. various kind of "creation science" which we include without an academy-level statement for each one: pseudoscience is indeed a many-headed hydra.)  Thoughts? -Jim Butler (t) 08:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree per arguments in RfC above. Verbal   chat  08:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the part where you explain "There are no NPOV, V, or RS problems with current placing or usage"? Gee, thanks for clarifying. --Jim Butler (t) 08:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Snark aside, it would be helpful if you could explain the reasoning behind your opinions. It's very hard to pursue compromise without knowing why other editors agree or disagree.  regards, Jim Butler (t) 02:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Basically, this proposal has the opposite effect of the previous one, so it's unlikely to work as a compromise. The relaxed consensus definition (which I reject) might have allowed us to move some topics from "Idiosyncratic ideas" to "Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus"; this proposal has the effect that a topic that is not even discussed by a single expert must be dropped from "Idiosyncratic ideas". I think that would be a good thing, since not being discussed at all is a good indication for not being noteworthy in this article. But I don't really care. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hans - Regarding the "Idiosyncratic" section, I didn't mean to suggest that we start excluding stuff like "Time Cube" that no scientific RS has deigned to comment upon. I just meant we might add some more stuff to that section.  But anyway, I like Enric's idea below to have these things in their own section.  And I absolutely, 100% agree that we should not relax the definition for scientific consensus; if we do that, we might as well quit pretending WP is an encyclopedia at all. (Ironically, I bet a large plurality of scientists and academics, if not a majority, already don't take WP very seriously.  Wonder why.) --Jim Butler (t) 09:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hum, I don't like the idea of mixing it with "idiosyncratic ideas", but only because it seems to be a different thing. Maybe, as a compromise, we can make a separate section for "topics called pseudoscience by individual scientists (and not covered by neither scientific bodies nor skeptic groups)" or something --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, as long as we stick to relatively "obvious pseudosciences" per WP:PSCI and don't start including "questionable sciences", as I mentioned above under the RfC. (That simply means we wouldn't use Popper for psychoanalysis, or Andrew Weil for chiropractic, etc.:  we'll have alter the wording somehow to be explicit about WP:PSCI's distinction from the start, or else we may see "criterion drift" as some editors start adding anything that a single scientist has commented on, despite WP:PSCI.)  Otherwise, sure:  since my other concern is that we not put it under the "sci consenus" section (or any section implying consensus by a group), it would be fine to put it in its own section. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 08:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to go down the list and pick a few examples, so we can discuss them --Enric Naval (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR for ScienceApologist
I've posted to WP:AN3 and notified our friend on his talk page. --Jim Butler (t) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed request for clarification with ArbCom
Following up on comments I've made above (e.g.diff; subsection above): Here is the apparent venue for asking for ArbCom's clarification on how a prior ruling (in this case, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE) would affect present disputes regarding this list: I will propose wording here and we can file it after others have had input. I ask that we all show good faith and a collaborative spirit and refrain from filing the request until we've all commented and there is agreement that we are framing the dispute(s) in a neutral manner. Thanks, Jim Butler (t) 05:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Requests_for_arbitration.
 * I doubt you'll get a straight answer from ArbCom on this. It's a question about ranking sources, and Kirill recently declined (in the Cold Fusion case) to even make a general statement about ranking scientific sources: Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Workshop. Pcap ping  19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Sources are important, but secondary to WP:PSCI and highly circumscribed by same.  Here is how I'd planned to frame the issue: in terms of WP:PSCI, asking that ArbCom clarify that it not just apply to category:pseudoscience, but to any unambiguous characterization of a topic as pseudoscience (e.g., this list as presently titled; use of a pseudoscience infobox etc.).  (WP:PSCI does invoke sources when it mentions "Generally considered pseudoscience by the sci community", and ArbCom shouldn't need to expend too much brainpower in agreeing or disagreeing with the arguments editors have presented here, I think.)  Que será... --Jim Butler (t) 21:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Offensive WP:POT nonsense included in your formulation, Jim. Arbcom does not rule on content and they will not rule on content in this case either. You can file a query at WP:AE to confirm this. The pseudoscience ruling applied solely to a general principle of categorization. That's it. Arbcom does not rule on content. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Categorization" and "characterization" apply to lists and series boxes, not just categories; and sourcing matters when we say anything is "generally considered pseudoscience". Call that content or whatever; it still was and is under ArbCom purview. --Jim Butler (t) 09:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guarantee you that argument will not fly. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles
I have started an RfC: RfC: Mass removal of "Category:Alternative medicine" from most articles. Please comment on this important subject. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm replying with this to everywhere Fyslee has put this request, though you are of course welcome to comment on what he's created.  I need to write where he has put this because the title of this thing, started without Fyslee bothering to talk to me about it at all on my talk page, is inaccurate because as I would have told him if he asked, all I'm doing is moving things into the subcategories, (where they should be) which are still in the category. The reason I'm doing this is because at the top of the page it says (the bolding is the page's, not mine, and it's also in a red box This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories. So I did what it said. Controversial and shocking "mass deletion" eh?:):):):):) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

New list
Announcing a new list:


 * List of alternative medicine subjects

-- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 08:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a good list and we would do well to implement something similar here. Many of the individual statements about pseudoscience can be included separately at pseudoscience in article rather than list form. I'm very amenable to this. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean, but the list is not for commentary. Its only inclusion/exclusion criteria is that the wikilinks must be to articles that are in the Category:Alternative medicine, which is a very objectively verifiable and non-POV criteria. In fact, if someone finds a wikilink they think shouldn't be in the category, the list is not the place to discuss it. That discussion should occur at the Category talk page. So far the only objections have been to a legitimate use of the See also section by a prominent pseudoskeptic, who immediately after his block has returned with a vengeance to his usual anti-skeptical activities. (Oddly enough, he claims to be a skeptic. Go figure.) -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)