Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 14

National Science Foundation
An example of characterization as pseudoscience by a national scientific body is provided by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), whose statements are generally recognized to harmonize with the scientific consensus in the United States.[28] In 2006 the NSF issued an executive summary of a paper on science and engineering which briefly discussed the prevalence of pseudoscience in modern times. It said that "belief in pseudoscience is widespread" and, referencing a Gallup Poll,[29] stated that belief in the ten commonly believed examples of paranormal phenomena listed in the poll were "pseudoscientific beliefs". The ten items were: "extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channelling."[28]

The National Science Foundation stated that, in the USA, "pseudoscientific" beliefs became more widespread during the 1990s, peaked near 2001 and have declined slightly since; nevertheless, pseudoscientific beliefs remain common in the USA.[51]

The source is being used in at least two different sections in the article. We don't need to repeat a summary in another section.

"National Science Foundation has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.[67][not in citation given]" Verification was never provided for this text and it does not add much to this section. There is a very usable source that covers this. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't undestand the reason for the deletion of sourced text by Ludwigs2. QuackGuru (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Me neither. The assertion that the poll shows "belief in pseudoscience" appears in the main text of the document, not on a footnote. And it's not even a footnote, it's a figure with a graphic. And he says "The section deals with science educations", but I can't see any section that fits this description? Maybe he was thinking about a different source? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Full Protection due to Edit War
Hi all,

There has been an edit war going on so I have fully protected the page for 2 weeks. Please discuss all issues before making any more changes or requesting unprotection.

Kind Regards,

The Helpful  One  19:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit war? Really?  I think you need to defend this decision.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See recent reversion cycling in Pseudoscience. Joja  lozzo  19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Gee, I wonder who that involves... -- Ludwigs 2  00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another personal attack on another editor. You really adore being the bully.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to outdent since an editor chose to utilize an editorial comment rather than allow me to actually see what was going on. Joja....I appreciate what you're saying, but seriously, you're not the admin who decided to protect the article, so I'd like to know his/her opinion, and secondly, I don't see that much reverting going on. I've seen lots worse around these parts. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 00:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OM@ In my view you are personalizing the discussion as much as anyone. This is one of the reasons we've had so much difficulty with this article in the last few months. If you have come to help the article, name calling is not going to do it. Please keep the article as your top priority, not the editors.  Joja  lozzo  02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

the 'ten pseudoscientific things' issue
Enric - re this: Please check the source - this really is a quote from a footnote to a section on public education. Assuming this is meant as an analytical statement by the NSF is a huge stretch of the imagination, and the quote itself doesn't really add anything to the article (aside from the bit about the problem in public science education). the ten things bit really should go, unless you have some credible reason why you think it's necessary. -- Ludwigs 2 00:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The text continues "The largest declines were in the number of people who believe in ESP, clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling. Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items", so they the NSF is very clearly making an analysis that is directly based off that list. The section is "Belief in Pseudoscience" in "Public Knowledge about S&T" in chapter 7 "Public Attitudes and Understanding", the content is described page 3 of this pdf. It's about public knowledge, it's not about scientific education. As for the reason, I think that a section called "identifying pseudoscience", should list those pseudoscientific beliefs that are most believed by people, as identified by the NFS. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * alright, let's be perfectly clear. in this 46 page document, references of this sort are made in the following places: on page 7-3 (part of the overview) where it says "Belief in various forms of pseudoscience is common in both the United States and other countries", and on page 7-21 of the Belief in Pseudoscience section where it discusses things more broadly.  Note however, that what the document refers to as 'pseudoscientific beliefs' actually refers to survey items on a gallup poll ("Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific  belief; i.e., they  believed in at least 1 of  the 10 survey items" - pg 21), but the Gallup poll, shown on page 7-22, actually asks people about their beliefs in the paranormal, and asks questions which are more consistent with superstition and mythology than anything resembling overt pseudoscience.


 * Clearly what the authors are trying to say here is that large sections of the public hold beliefs that are inconsistent with scientific understandings or are analytically unjustifiable. This is a very good point that ought to be included in the article, so to this extent you and I agree.  However, the term 'pseudoscientific belief' is clearly a gloss, since it is used to refer to things that are not pseudoscience (such as witches and ghosts) and does not refer to things that actually are pseudoscience (such as cold fusion).  In fact, if you look at the chapter overview on page 7-5, the authors spell out their intent specifically.  They say:The second part of the chapter covers knowledge of S&T. It explores three indicators of scientific literacy: familiarity with scientific terms and concepts, understanding of the scientific method, and belief in pseudoscience. BiP is introduced here not because this document is trying to define or outline the nature of pseudoscience, but because BiP is taken as an indicator of scientific literacy.  What I'm trying to do is make sure this quote gets used in a way that highlights the author's stated intentions - as a negative indicator of scientific literacy - and that the quote does not get used to make direct authoritative claims about pseudoscience itself.  The authors were not trying to talk about pseudoscience qua pseudoscience (outside of some functional definitions of the term); they only wanted to highlight the need for better handling of science in public fora.  do you see what I'm getting at?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The NSF report clearly says pseudoscientific beliefs, that they use those beliefs as an indicator of science knowledge is a different matter. You are just doing your own original research to undermine the conclusions of the report. I also want to be clear on this: you can't use your own original research to dismiss directs assertions in a NSF report. I am not going to discuss our personal beliefs on the pseudo-scientificness of ghosts, witches or cold fusion, but only because they should have no weight in writing the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Enric: paying attention to the context of a quote and the intent of a source is not original research, it's proper scholarship. Taking quotes out of a source's context and using them to assert something the source cannot reasonably be assumed to mean is original research, and moreover it's disrespectful to the source, to the topic, and to the encyclopedia.  I'm happy to clarify this as a project principle in any forum you like - shall we go over to wp:V and write up an RfC?  I'm really tired of this particular misconception and the needless drama it creates, and I'd like to settle it once and for all.  Let's agree on a properly neutral phrasing for the RfC, and then run it.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, all those interpretations of the context are OR, the context looks very clear to me. Also, I'm going to be 5 days without Internet. Feel free to start that RfC. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, will do. -- Ludwigs 2 23:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Political implications

 * We now have: "The term is used frequently in political, policy-making discourse in allegations of distortion or fabrication of scientific findings to support a political position." In accord with QG's ' ' I propose we delete the word "frequently" so it reads: "The term is used in political, policy-making discourse in allegations of distortion or fabrication of scientific findings to support a political position."

Joja lozzo  16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We now have "Pseudoscience can be used to erode public support for scientific research and development." In accord with QG's ' ' I propose we change the phrase "can be used to erode" to "erodes" so it reads "Pseudoscience erodes public support for scientific research and development."


 * The first point seems fine, the second odd - I'm not at all sure what the latter means. the general public (as a rule) does not support, approve, or even consider scientific research and development (aside from being consumers of the distant end results of such research).  About the only way I can make sense of that relates to fringe medicine in a very bass-ackwards way (i.e. expenditures on fringe medicine takes money away from drug and medical supply companies who then have less to spend on R&D...), but that's an issue of economic competition, not pseudoscience.  Pseudoscience probably erodes public understanding of scientific research and development - is that what that's supposed to mean?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Our source for the second point, "Pseudoscience plagues the health of our nation", is an opinion piece by David Meyer (Ph.D., president and CEO of Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center) in which he says:
 * ''"Ridicule of researchers and clinicians has been used as a vehicle for political advantage, contributing to the public denigration of science and medicine.
 * In the 2008 presidential election, Sarah Palin criticized federal funding for research using fruit flies as having "little to do with the public good." She may or may not have been aware that research using fruit flies has yielded huge conceptual breakthroughs in biology and medicine - and five Nobel Prizes.
 * It has to be made clear that science has molded and will continue to shape the world in which we live, to everyone's benefit. Failing to do so will enable the popular will - fueled by pseudoscience and vague, exaggerated and unverifiable claims - to strangle the financial support for the research and development that will lead to improved quality of life for us all.    "
 * Joja lozzo  01:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * lol - so, Sarah Palin is now a pseudoscience advocate. wunnerful.
 * lol - so, Sarah Palin is now a pseudoscience advocate. wunnerful.


 * Look, I don't know what's in that ellipsis, but the second given paragraph does not have anything to do with the first. Sarah Palin may be poster-girl for people with bad science educations, but her apparent ignorance about the role of fruit flies in biological research has nothing to do with pseudoscience.  In fact, the key element of this passage seems to be in the reasoning in the last paragraph, which is roughly:
 * science makes the world a better place
 * research funding depends on a public perception that science makes the world a better place
 * public perception is influenced by some fairly brainless people and concepts
 * Setting aside that this opens a weird COI concern (should wikipedia editors be involved with efforts to shift public funding to scientific research?), we are back again to the ever-present confusion: 'pseudoscience' and 'poor understanding of science' are very different things. Many, many, many people in the world (apparently including Mama Grizzly) have poor understandings of science but have no connection with pseudoscience; Ms. Palin does not consult astrologers, drink colloidal silver, or believe in UFOs to my limited knowledge.  Poor understanding of science is the culprit here.  It's not like political figures are taking money away from scientific research and giving it to to support funky fly-by-night fringe organizations.  ignorant politicians want to take money away from research and give it to the army or to pay off the national debt: it's short sighted, but unrelated to pseudoscience.  So either there is something in that ellipsis which makes that last line more meaningful, or it's what it looks like - a closing line that's higher on artistic feeling than on analytical rigor.  If the latter, it's a long stretch to fit on this page; if the former, there's got to be a clearer statement of the idea in the ellipsis.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you are busy and have accurately assumed that I included what I thought the most pertinent parts of the article I can understand your not wanting to read the rest of it. However, I probably did not extract the most appropriate sections and would encourage you to read it in full - it's not long. For example I left out (this was not in the ellipsis but came before the previous quote): "Our dilemma lies in the fact that vast segments of the population lack scientific literacy, not fully understanding scientific principles and methodology. Rather than consult scientific professionals for expert medical advice, they increasingly place their faith in pseudoscience, with its unsupported and untestable claims. Today, outright distrust of science is common." You will be better at parsing the connections between science literacy and pseudoscience and support for science research in this but it sounds to me like he is saying that pseudoscience is trusted more than science and therefore undermines support for science. Joja  lozzo  17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The author is using pseudoscience as a synonym for science literacy. That is a reference to a recognizable brand name; an appeal to the celebrity of the idea of pseudoscience rather than saying that the people do not have the necessary training to make decisions about science. Two very different things but understandable considering how the Skeptics have pushed the idea of pseudoscience into popular wisdom ... which is being facilitated by this article.

Pseudoscience as an evil thing has become a guiding concept for both the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Their references tend to be skeptical publications. Although these are supposed to be science-oriented organizations, they are government and therefore a political tool. Tom Butler (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience is evil if you think the concept exists. How could such a misrepresentation not be?  I'm not sure NCCAM and NSF are really political organizations.  They're federal organizations, but many branches of the federal government are only moderately politicized and they usually resist it strongly. Ocaasi c 20:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Joja: I'm sorry, I just assumed you had presented the most pertinent points. I went back and read the article, and while I largely agree with what it says, I still think the confusion I pointed out in my last post stands.  As I see it, what we have here on wikipedia is a question about how to cope with a fact of life, to whit, that many people make stupid choices for stupid reasons.  Whether it's failing to get your child vaccinated, indulging in some faddish weight-loss program, buying products that contain poisonous materials because they are cheap and shiny, tying an elastic cord to yourself and jumping off a high bridge, doing deep water oil drilling with equipment that's not tested under those conditions...  It's just not uncommon to find someone, somewhere, doing something brainless, or to find some notable person yapping about the great fun or moral necessity of doing that brainless thing.  Lots of people (and corporations, and governments) like to feel like they have an 'edge', and having an 'edge' often means doing something that makes other people shake their heads in disbelief.  As I said, it's a fact of life.  On wikipedia, however, that fact of life leaves us with a difficult paradox: we can't advocate for the stupidity, obviously, but we also can't advocate against it.  All we should be doing is reporting the various positions and leaving it up to people to make their own decisions, however stupid those might be.  This may mean that people choose to follow celebrities over scientists and refuse to vaccinate their children, and that may mean that ten years from now Wikipedia will need to write a set of articles covering the increases in child mortality from preventable diseases. That would be horrible, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it's not a scientific research organization; it's an encyclopedia, which is supposed to report things in an unprejudicial way.


 * Scientific literacy needs to improve, no question. If wikipedia wants to improve scientific literacy it should model scientific thought - i.e., be cautious, reserved, analytical, fair, unbiased, unwilling to commit itself to extravagant claims in any direction, uninterested in politics.  it should not indulge poor reasoning, because that will not in any way encourage its readers to reason better.


 * The article you pointed to is a political article. It doesn't deal with pseudoscience.  nowhere in that article does it describe the research that lies behind the anti-vaccination claims.  nowhere does it explain why that research is flawed or pseudoscientific.  Even the article presumes that if people reasoned better pseudoscience would not be an issue (since no one would be ignorant enough to get sucked into it), so clearly pseudoscience itself is not the real issue here.  The only danger to the public here is public ignorance.  Now if you want to make the argument that scientists think there should be better public science education so that people can make better, more informed choices, I'm with you - that seems to be what the source is saying - but trying to turn the source around to make pseudoscience a culprit (e.g. pseudoscience erodes public support...), is a misreading of the source and the kind of advocacy against attitude that we should not be engaged in.  do you see what I mean?


 * @ Tom: just as an FYI, the NSF is not against pseudoscience in the way you mean. They've been misrepresented on wikipedia that way, but in fact they are mostly concerned with public science education and media representations.  If anything, the NSF wants scientific debates to be moved back into academic settings where they can be analyzed clearly, on the well-justified assumption that most of the silliness that flies well in the public domain will fall flat on its face in the halls of science.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize. I'm glad you've taken time to help stir the pot here. I will presume to summarize your POV: that poor science education (and poor science learning), not pseudoscience, is eroding public support for science research. However, my POV is that it is both working together. But our POVs don't matter and it doesn't much matter whether we agree or disagree with the writer. Our job, as I see it, is to figure out: 1) is the source reliable, 2) how can we best summarize it, 3) does that summary belong in this article, does it present an important viewpoint on the topic, and 4) what other sources should we consider to maintain neutrality. I see the purpose of the "impacts and concerns" section to make explicit why pseudoscience bugs people, what harm people think it does and how they think it does it. The rest of the article defines it and philosophizes it with implicit negativity but exactly what problems arise from it are not addressed. Pseudoscientific claims against scientific findings leading scientifically illiterate people to distrust science and withdraw research funds appears to be one of those problems. Joja  lozzo  23:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I was actually trying to describe what I thought the source said as well as the problem wikipedia has with such sources. if you just want my simple summary of this article, it is saying this: "Proper understanding of the role science plays in our culture, and of the methods that scientists use, is important for people wanting to make informed choices about their welfare.  The contemptuous disregard for science displayed by some public figures and the media can reduce funding for vital research, spread unscientific or pseudoscientific ideas, and ultimately damage the public's scientific literacy and destroy the credibility of valid research".  I'm reading between the lines a bit, obviously - the problem with this article is that it's so obviously an opinion piece, and the author is jumping all over the place (from vaccinations to creationism to political pandering to lack of science-based television).  it's clear he mostly wants to talk about medicine (e.g. "Rather than consult scientific professionals for expert medical advice, they increasingly place their faith in pseudoscience"), but he's painting in such broad, grumpy strokes that it's hard to bring it into a consistent focus.  I think this article is usable here if it's made clear that he's talking about (a) scientific literacy, and (b) medical pseudoscience (noting that he doesn't specify precisely what that means).  But I don't think that this article constitutes a meaningful discussion of pseudoscience itself.  In other words, we can use it to say that "pseudoscientific ideas are spread through public ignorance, with some deleterious effects", but we can't use it to say that "pseudoscience cases deleterious effects" - the latter is not really supported by the article.  do you see the difference?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

To Ocaasi: I am not sure what you intend by "Pseudoscience is evil if you think the concept exists." The concept is that there are ideas that are based on false science and not on legitimate science. Rather than saying that "The benefits of magnetic bracelets are not empirically supported by good science," it is easier to say that "Magnetic bracelets are just pseudoscience" Where "just pseudoscience" is to be read as "See Pseudoscience for an explanation of what I mean." The concept is the brand "pseudoscience" as it is promulgate by Skeptics.

It may be idealistic to think the agencies are not political. They have considerable influence on social-political policy by being the financial hammer that guides research and defines what is real science for the policy makers.

To Ludwigs2: All I can do is read their literature and look at the grants. They express distress at pseudoscience as defined by Shermer. There distress seems to guide universities seeking grants. If these things are not true, then they have PR work to do. Tom Butler (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, just for a moment avoiding the 'P' word... you should see this as a normal distribution. Science is conventional (in the sense that scientists like to stick with what they know works in preference to unknowns).  Topics that are off the beaten track have an extra burden of proof - they have to prove that they are worthy of consideration before people will start allocating money or time or resources to studying them.  This is right and normal.  Believe me, if someone managed to create a decent scientific demonstration that (say) acupuncture has functional value, you'd start to see money poured on it by the gallon - the one thing every scientist wants is virgin scientific territory where s/he can prove how brilliant she is.  The fact that acupuncture has not yet made it over that hump is ambiguous - it could mean that acupuncture doesn't have functional value, or it could mean that it does but that science doesn't yet have the tools needed to see it.  There are some scientists (just like there are some people) who take a more hard-core ideological approach, but as a rule scientists are mostly interested whether they can make something work in a systematic way, so that they can examine it in detail; they don't really care so much about what it is, only about whether they can do something interesting enough with it to get a paper out of it.  Doesn't quite satisfy that 1950's ideal of the noble scientist, much less the 19th century ideal of the scientist-philosopher (aka 'naturalist'), but it works better than you might expect. -- Ludwigs 2  01:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that is a very general view one would expect in a first day lecture for Science 101. In practice, it just is not true. Why else would people talk about ideas like the Max Planck Effect? It is as if there is a genetic predisposition to maintain a paradigm by resisting anything new. That is probably human nature, but it is translating into policy.


 * Interestingly, parapsychologists tend to take a similar stance about survival concepts as mainstream science does about psi phenomena. Standing at the bottom of the hierarchy of academic respect, I see mainstream scientists sometimes being jest plain pissed off if a parapsychologist is invited to speak at a conference. My lack of a doctorate aside, the likelihood of me ever being invited to speak at a Parapsychological Association conference is about the same as my being invited to the White House. They have gotten better, but as you can see in the article reviewing the 2006 PA conference, there is not much said in the PA about survival except to determine how we are mentally ill for thinking it is possible.


 * My point is that people act as they think they have permission to or if they think they can avoid sanctions. We see it all the time in Wikipedia, and there would be no need for law enforcement if it were not true in the general population. New ideas may be invigorating to scientists, but scientists act as if new ideas are challenges to their intellectual authority. Wikipedia and the skeptical organizations reinforce this by making it socially acceptable, even required, to denounce new ideas. In that regard, the pseudoscience article is just a skeptical tool for social engineering.


 * Look at the Identifying pseudoscience section, which includes such broad-brush tells as untestable claims, confirmation bias, lack of progress, personalization and misleading language. People do not ask "How is that subject pseudoscience?" They assume these tells are applicable ... end of argument. To be a fair and balanced article, it should be specific. It cannot be specific because there are too many ideas, each with their own characteristics. Since the editors have tried to make a "one term fits all" article, it must necessarily be general and is essentially not true for any idea. That could be avoided if the article was just "what the idea is" and not written to emphasize imagined evils.


 * The term/concept is in politics for the same reason. It is a handy brand to put on inconvenient ideas. Tom Butler (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom:
 * This article needs serious revisions
 * Wikipedia has a skepticism problem
 * The real world in unfair
 * And yes, Kuhn (or whomever) was right when he suggested that you can often measure paradigm change by reading the obituary pages. I'm with you on all these points.  However, please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a journal, and as such it's going to reflect mainstream opinions and avoid promoting off-beat ideas.  I squabble with the skeptics here because I think we should be fair to off-beat topics, but unless/if paradigm shifts occurs in the real world off-beat topics need to remain off-beat here.  We're not here to influence, merely describe, so perspective please.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "We're not here to influence, merely describe, so perspective please" is not an effective way to address me. You started out with me here with the advice to relax. That was in January. Since then the article has actually gotten more radical and you are in the middle of an admin battle. We have very different styles. You are clearly more experienced here, but I do not see your style as being particularly effective and I think it is just a matter of time before you are permanently blocked. So please, do not advise me on behavior.


 * There really can be no doubt that the articles are used to influence. If once, an article did just describe rather than characterize, there would be a lot more happy editors producing more balanced articles and a lot fewer battles over how the Skeptical editors try to characterize subjects.


 * There is no way that a "COI" editor like me is going to have an overt influence on the article, but it may be possible to have an indirect influence by informing editors of an alternative view. Besides, I am one of the people who ends up being accused of pseudoscience. It is irrational to think I am not going to attempt remediation. Tom Butler (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever. -- Ludwigs 2  04:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"In 1983, Mario Bunge has suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to help distinguish between science and pseudoscience, where the first is primarily personal and subjective and the latter involves a certain systematic approach." Should this be "In 1983, Mario Bunge has suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to help distinguish between pseudoscience and science, where the first is primarily personal and subjective and the latter involves a certain systematic approach"? To me the first version is confusing. (ps "has" can be ommitted) --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy and pseudoscience
I wonder if this idea is worth mentioning in the article?


 * It is pseudoscience, not merely when other researchers applying the scientific method have proven the idea to be false (or the phenomenon irreproducible, as in cold fusion or menstrual synchrony), but when the original proponent continues to advocate the idea despite this.

I don't ask this to add fuel to the fire of any controversy, but to find out how to characterize the continued assertion of something without proof. This happens when people simply assume it is so, but haven't studied it yet (cold weather causes the common cold, eating sweets makes children hyperactive). It also happens when several other scientists have run their own, independent experiments and gotten contradictory results, but the media haven't publicized these findings.

Is the right term pseudoscience, "junk science", "voodoo science", or what the late Richard Feynman called "cargo cult science"?

I'm looking for a good editorial word, for use in Wikipedia article to describe the continued assertion of a scientific-sounding idea which hasn't been proven - not in the sense of, I think it's true, and if we keep researching it we can prove it someday: that could be protoscience or simply a "promising line of research", as long as the proponents don't imply that it as already "science" but merely a "hypothesis" or "theory" we are exploring. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Got a ref for that? Seems what you mean is fringe science perhaps. Also, you may need to clarify what you mean by "proven" with respect to science theories - seems they aren't really proven -- simply supported by substantial evidence until beyond reasonable doubt ... but still subject to further testing and modification pending new evidence. Vsmith (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's why I'm asking here instead of boldly editing the article. But what I meant by "proven" was that what you said. I learned in high school about how the "proven" Laws of motion that Newton discovered had to modified in reference to high-speed particles (see Lorentz transformation equations). F=ma takes on a new meaning when the "mass" of a particle must be multiplied by the Lorentz factor; ah, but I'm preaching to choir. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Suitable to include in the main text
According to this edit summary the text is not suitable for the lead. So, I put it in the main text with this change. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Did this change replace sourced text with WP:OR? Does the source say "may in some cases". Did the change fail WP:V? I do, however, I agree with the placement. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I've removed this text, as it is an obvious misrepresentation of the source. Looking at the abstract in the link, three things are eminently clear:
 * This is a brand new article that has in no way stood the test of time
 * That the author is not discussing the dangers of pseudoscience, but is using that phrase as a casual introduction to his real topic, the psychological factors that lead people to accept pseudoscience
 * That at best this line would point to medical pseudoscience (it's published in PubMed), and at worst it would apply to a restricted subset of medical pseudoscience which the author describes in detail in the first sections of the article.
 * since I don't have access to PubMed at the moment I can't read the article to be sure what he's talking about, but I can say that as a research psychologist the author may not be qualified to render an opinion on the medical dangers of pseudoscience to the public, and if he is offering a new theorty on the psychological dangers to the public it's most likely not significant enough to use here.


 * In short, the statement may not satisfy wp:UNDUE and the source may not be reliable for the use it's being put to here.  can someone post the entire article for me to read?  thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the diff we're talking about:


 * Pseudoscience, superstitions and quackery threaten public health. 


 * Here's the abstract, where we are obviously drawing from the lead sentence:


 * Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness.


 * Ludwigs2, how do you interpret this? You're welcome to improve on our use of the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the above criticisms is that regarding the key sentence, "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved," it is not indicated by the abstract alone whether it is a passing observation or a key result of the study. If we're using this source for that claim, the relevant piece would come from the conclusion and not the background section.  It's hard to tell how it the study approaches that statement without access to the full study, though... Ocaasi (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is significant about this study is the casual learning approach to get patients active in identifying causes, over just describing the modality effectiveness. The intro is sensationalism, for demonstrating relevance and getting attention. The study does not appear to be designed to validate the "serious problem". To say it does and include in this article is a pseudoscience illusion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, brangifer, if you could post a public link to something more than the abstract? I recognize the style of abstract here; I've done it myself.  when you compress a 12-15 page article down to 250 words you have to toss out a recognizable context quickly and briefly and then get to your main result, and this often means that you do not do justice to the context.  as I (and others) have said, that first line is over-brief framing, not study conclusions, which leads me to worry that (a) we are taking the phrase out of the author's context and misusing it, and (b) that the author might not be qualified to make the claim that we are asserting s/he made.  an examination fo the full article would clarify that.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Users could download the original article here, assuming they had access rights. (Easy to find, given the title of the journal.)
 * I have placed a copy on my wikipedia website http://mathsci.free.fr/ludwigs2.pdf . Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now removed the copy. disclosed on my talk page that he had downloaded his copy from my website. Please ask Ocaasi if you need to view the whole article and do not have access rights yourself. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually just copied the text and pasted it from the first 4 paragraphs. I don't have my own copy.  Ocaasi (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Matute et al. full text
For anyone who new to this discussion or those who haven't had a chance to read the full text of the Matute et al. paper, some of the old links are no longer working but you can download it here. By the way, this is just a preprint of the paper as originally intended for publication in the November 2010 issue of the British Journal of Psychology. It never appeared in that issue but is available in preprint form on the authors' web site.

It is important that we have access to the full text since that puts the authors mention of public health into its proper and complete context. Joja lozzo  01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Relevant excerpt
http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp898
 * The extract of the Psychology paper that MathSci has been kind enough to put up here suggests that the paper is polemic in tone. In addition to its recent publication not giving it enough time to be peer assessed, this suggests that the paper may not yet have achieved the status of a source reliable enough for this article. I don't think that the article will be diminished by its omission. I have much sympathy with people like Quack-Guru who conceive it to be their mission to save the world from the ravages of quackery, but I feel that this would be done best by keeping this article as neutral as possible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Sorry, it seems it was Ocaasi who posted the extract. It helps to sign posts at bottom. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC).
 * I pasted text copied from MathSci's link, and didn't want to implicate anyone in a possibly excessive instance of fair use reproduction. The only purpose of posting was so we could all read it, and discuss the source.  Towards that end, MathSci's version was very useful.   Ocaasi (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Another reference for causal learning ... about time to start this article. The pseudoscience label doesn't seem to help address the causation issues. Seems like it's mainly a stone to cast in a warrior's battlefield. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

'Cause and effect' subthread

 * This article neglects the causality attribution issues when distinguishing between pseudoscience and science claims. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your addition, which has the article state: "The basic notion is that all experimental results on cause and effect should be reproducible...", does not make sense. Please clarify. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate your concern about cause and effect making sense; however, where are you mixed up?  How would you suggest to improve?  I was trying to keep it simple under the principle that empirical science aims to identify cause and effect relationships. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sentence appears not to make syntactical sense. Probably the key problem is at "experimental results on cause and effect". Oh, and discussion of the atrticle belongs on article talk, not user talk. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what syntax rule is being violated? Can you suggest an improvement? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) Not being a grammaticist, I have no idea -- all I know is that it does not parse into anything meaningful. (ii) As I've no idea what it is supposed to mean, no. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Having no idea, I guess we will all remain baffled by the tag's meaning too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then you should attempt to explain here what you were trying to say in the sentence in question. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, based upon the premise that science is the process to determine or describe causes and effect relationships with empirical observation. Causality is at the origin of scientific thought. However, the Pseudoscience issues tends to place science at the boundary between Aristotle's four causes. The simple addition was an attempt to bring causality references into the article, from the existing sources, as prompted by the studies which applied "causal learning" Thanks for rearranging this talk. I suspect creating a "causal learning" article and then appropriately cross referencing between this article, without a POV fork, would help expand Wikipedia's goals and give adequate weight to causality as related to pseudoscience.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what you were attempting to say was that "The basic notion is that the cause and effect of all experimental results should be reproducible..." -- however, the "cause and effect" part of that would appear to be redundant -- as "The basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible..." is no less true, and would be the more general case -- as some scientific experiments don't seek to demonstrate causality, but merely correlation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's it. Except when scientists can't keep up with tracking or measuring changes in causes to an effect, then there is a reproducibility issue.  Some events have such an unusual confluence of causes, which experiments may find irrelevant or trivial; however, may unexpectedly, in unique conditions, affect the outcome. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, there are two separate issues here, which ought to be kept separate unless you're trying to develop a mental hernia. Replicability (the ability to reproduce a particular effect) is always pragmatic and evidentiary - we see (measure) an effect being reproduced, regularly and consistently.  Causality is always theoretical - it's an assertion about the underlying unseen causation of that observable regularity.  That's why the theory of gravity is just (and always will be just) a theory: despite the fact that the effects are massively reproducible (pun intended), we cannot see the causation; all we can do is create theories which describe what we observe as best as possible.  What I think you're trying to get at is that there is a difference between a theory which describes observations poorly (which is science, if weak science) and a theory which tries to prescribe observations that do not exist (which is pseudoscience).  or am I missing your point?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, thanks ... I guess that is why causality can be theoretical expanded to absurdity, where as Replicability would assume a measurement standard. Can't wait to transform this discussion into content Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable peer reviewed journal
The British Journal of Psychology is reliable and the text is relevant to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * QG - reliability is not a magic wand. Sure, BJoP is an well-established and credible journal, and I see no reason to challenge the credentials of the author.  However, neither of those points matter because - as the entire discussion above shows - you are quoting the source out of context.  Trying to use a quote to make a claim that the source itself is not actually making is a wikipedia nono, and you don't make things better by saying "...but the source I'm misquoting is a good source."  Do I really need to explain this to you?  -- Ludwigs 2  10:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I edited the addition, since some of it was redundant, and the 'serious threat' claim is not well supported by the source. I think it reads reasonably well, but check it out. Ocaasi (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't really care, except that entire paragraph is just plain wrong, in multiple ways. Don't get suckered by QG's one-man pogrom against AltMed into making compromises with silliness.  rewriting it now.  -- Ludwigs 2  11:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better, and clearly where the bigger picture is. Writing with a focus on 'the source in your hand' is great for WP:V, but not for WP:NPOV.  One quibble, can we edit out 'ontological claim', as I think the average encyclopedia reader won't know what to make of it? Ocaasi (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - I just removed the polysyllab. I was tempted to rewrite it "... ontic/deontic validity assertions..." just to mess with your head, but I refrained (in deed, if not in thought...).   -- Ludwigs 2  12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you show how the source was taken out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ocaasi, can you show how the text was poorly sourced. Do you think the journal is a reliable source when you stated a source may not have to be MEDRS. So far no good reason has been given to delete the reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."
 * The 'serious threat' claim is well supported by the source. The correct term is 'public health' because it is supported by the source. The text passed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, no. first, "Public Health" is almost invariably used to apply to things like sanitation problems, toxic spills, or epidemics, which affect large numbers of people indirectly and without their knowledge or volition.  Pseudoscience  would not be considered a public health issue in that sense since it can only affect individuals who seek it out.  second, only a small subset of medical pseudoscience constitutes any threat to the health of individuals, so therefore the phrase does not fit when we are discussing pseudoscience more generally.


 * Finally (and for the last time), verifiability is an exclusion principle, not an inclusion principle. we can remove statements that cannot be verified, but the fact that a statement can be verifiable does not guarantee its inclusion.  statements which are taken out of context, that are off-topic, or that are otherwise being used in a way inconsistent with the author's intent or the article topic should never be included.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The term public health is sourced per V. Your own orginal research review of the source is not verifiable. Diluting the text is taking the source out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is being used out of context to begin with, so that hardly matters. -- Ludwigs 2  21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you show how the source is being used out of context rather than asserting it when the text is supported by the peer reviewed reference. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already shown that, repeatedly. As I've said, the article in question is specific to medical issues, and the claim you are using is not the focus of the article but merely a framing point in the abstract.  Those two things mean that the claim cannot be used in an article about general pseudoscience, both because pseudoscience is a much broader topic than medical issues and because there's no reason to believe the author would make that claim even about all medical pseudoscience.


 * This is the last time I'm making this point. if you ignore it (again) and make the same comment (again), I'm gathering up diffs of the six or seven times I've said it to you and opening an RfC/U.  either address the point or give it up; the discussion moves on productively or it ends. understood?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your personal disagreement with the peer reviewed source is not a reason to delete the source from the article. The source is specific to the topic of pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a 'personal disagreement' with the source, QG, it's an assessment of the weight the source should be given on this article - which in my view is close to zero. this is not a wp:V issue, it's wp:NPOV.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When your edit summary claims 'public health' is the wrong term and the text you deleted is supported by the reference this suggests you do have a personal disagreement with the relevant source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't care what you think is 'suggested' by my edit summary; Please comment on the edit, not the editor. The NPOV issue I raised is a valid concern. Either discuss it, or drop the matter.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit summary did not match your edit. You claimed the text is not supported by the reference but the source does support the claim. The NPOV issue you raised is because you think the source is bias becuase you think the term 'public health' is wrong when it is supported by the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the NPOV issue is that the source (1) is not talking about pseudoscience in general, but only about medical pseudoscience, and (2) the source is not arguing that pseudoscience is a danger to the public, but merely asserting that in the abstract to frame the issue (making it a point-of-view opinion rather than an analytic conclusion). Thus we have a primary source making a POV-assertion about a small subset of cases of the topic at hand - that carries no scholarly weight at all.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The text that was added to the article from a journal was sourced. The source does discuss pseudoscience. If you think the source did not discuss pseudoscience then I suggest you read the source again. The source is not arguing that pseudoscience is a danger to the public. The source is stating it is a serious threat to public health. I previously explained the term 'public heatlh' is sourced. You are engaging in OR analysis of the source which is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You just basically sidestepped what I said, and you are straying further and further from reason and common sense. If you keep pushing this point, I'm going to give up trying to talk to you and simply IAR your misuse of policy here as an inane detriment to the encyclopedia.  If you like, let's get a wp:3O and lay out our arguments for a stranger to read - I can't imagine anyone who would find your logic convincing.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this discussion is veering into the area of silliness. It would be best to put an end to it before accusations of trollery start flying. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Ludwigs2, your arguments are not based on V. You seem to want to justify your inclusion oif unsourced text despite you claiming the text is sourced. It does not matter you think the source is asserting the statement. What matters is that the statement is sourced in accordance with V.
 * Xxanthippe, it would be best if you explain why sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal was deleted in favor of text that seems to be unsourced. The NSF website is not peer reiviewed and did not verify the text after I tried to verify the text. I am still waiting for verification and no reasonable explanation was given to delete sourced text. Xxanthippe, you seem to support Ludwigs 2 continuing to ignore V. QuackGuru (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

QG: If I didn't think you were serious I'd be laughing my ass off. well, I'm am laughing my ass off anyway, but it's tinged with a certain sympathetic sadness.
 * 1) did you seriously just say that a primary source article is more reliable than an NSF-derived secondary publications?
 * 2) did you seriously just imply that wp:V trumps wp:NPOV?

I'm done talking to you, because it's not going anywhere. if you want to do the wp:3O I suggested above, I'm game; if you don't, you're SOL, sorry. Your argument just doesn't have a leg to stand on, and you're the only person here who doesn't see it. -- Ludwigs 2 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comments are not based on Wikipedia policy. Your edits are also based on Wikipedia. This content dispute shows you are not able to provide verification for your edit and refuse to comply with both V and NPOV. You have repeatedly ignored the concerns that you replaced sourced text with unsourced text. You seem to think you can delete sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal and replace it with with whatever unsourced text you want. Please restore the sourced text and try to summarise the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary: I am making a perfectly valid argument per wp:NPOV - you simply refuse to acknowledge it. I've heard your argument, and I've responded to that as well - you simply refuse to acknowledge my response.  so be it.  We aren't discussing this anymore, QG.  You can either choose to accept my offer of wp:3O (or some other wp:DR process, if you prefer), or you can choose to go away.  Or I suppose you can choose to keep blathering on here, but I'll simply dismiss any future posts you make (I'll simply respond with a 'piffle'), unless it looks like you're really giving proper consideration to my NPOV issues.


 * choose. -- Ludwigs 2  03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the reality of the debate. Please try to choose to respect Wikipedia policies. You seem to be ignoring the real NPOV issues. Your edit summary claimed editing paragraph; 'public health' is wrong term; source removed as it does not support claim being made; refocusing on the NSF, which is really where this paragraph wants to go. You claim the source does not support the claim. The text is supported by the reliable peer reviewed journal. For example, Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. You claim 'public health' is the wrong term when the source does specifically use the term 'public health'. Your personal disagreement with the source is not a good reason to delete the source. Do you agree in the future you will not replace sourced text with unsourced text. You claimed the NSF website verified the text you added to the article. When I looked closer at your edit it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and it seems you replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed and I could not verify the text with any of the articles from the NSF website. Is there some reason you are not going to try to verify the text or delete the unsourced text you added to the article after the text was challenged. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. Do you agree is was a mistake you deleted sourced relevant text from a reliable journal. I don't think you have provided any good reason a peer reviewed journal should be deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS. When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources there would be no reason in the future to add attribution in the text because you claim the source is asserting the claim. A personal disagreement is not a serious dispute among reliable sources. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you agree to follow V and NPOV policies better in the future. Do you think the text you added is inaccurate and unsourced. Do you think unsourced claims it is appropriate to replace sourced information with unsourced text when there is already an reliable journal available. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is taking the source out of context. It looks like you diluted the meaning of the text because you disagree with the claims the source makes. Do you agree with WP:NPOV that it says do not remove sourced information because you think it seems biased. See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See WP:IRS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." See WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." You seem to not understand that the reference is from a reliable peer reviewed journal that similar to other references found in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * piffle. -- Ludwigs 2 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You have ignored my request that you provide verifiaction for the unsourced claims not found on the NSF website. Do you agree the text you added should be deleted or replaced with sourced text such as from a reliable peer reviewed source. Do you agree with WP:V when it says "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Do you agree with WP:NPOV when it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I've come to the conclusion that discussing the matter with you is a waste of time - you seem immune to discussion, and there is no hope of resolving the issue through normal methods. Do you agree to use Dispute resolution processes such as wp:3O for this issue, or do you refuse?  If you refuse DR, then kindly stop filling the talk page with the Same-Old-Crud-You've-Already-Written-A-Double-Dozen-Times.  thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Uninvited third opinion: I think we all agree that pseudoscience can be harmful but we need a reliable source to make the claim. The brief mention of public health in the journal article is unsupported and not intended to be authoritative. If that is the only available source for the claim, then we should not make the claim. Rather than argue this, everyone's time would be better spent seeking an authoritative and notable source. Joja lozzo  06:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The text added by Ludwigs2 is unsupported by the NSF website. It is obvious to me the journal does use the term 'public health'. Jojalozzo, does the source say "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved." A peer reviewed journal is reliable according to WP:V. Jojalozzo, do you really support the unsourced text added by Ludwigs2 rather than sourced information from the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, my 2 cents here: both versions are wrong. The journal was not an adequate source for that text, but Ludwigs2 compounded the situation by making an unsourced edit made from his memory. He claims that it is the NSF position, but he refuses to source the text himself. Also, what Jojalozzo says.


 * Proposed drama-less solution: someone reads chapter 7 of NSF report (49 pages) and rewrites the text according to the actual source. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll do that myself if no one else gets around to it first - I've just been a bit busy lately. maybe over the weekend?  I'm not certain that will resolve the problem, however.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You claimed the text you added was sourced but what you added was original research. Is there a reason why we should not include the peer reviewed journal. If there is no real reason why the journal was deleted then it should be restored. Ludwigs2, do you agree that the text that failed verfication can be deleted from the article now. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've said repeatedly, and as Jojalozzo suggested above, the journal article you want to use is not all that reliable for this topic. It really can't be used in a general discussion of pseudoscience.  As fr the other...  you can wait a couple of days for me to provide proper referencing.  If I haven't done so by monday we can reopen the discussion.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As WP:V explains "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." You have not given a good reason why the original research you added to the article can continue to stay in the article. You previously claimed the text you added to the article is sourced but now you think it should be rewritten. I previously told you that the text failed verification but you ignored me. You wrote "If I haven't done so by monday we can reopen the discussion." No, there is no reason why editors should wait for you to remove the OR you added to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * QC: Please locate a proper source and add it to the article. Spending time arguing here instead of adding a proper citation is unconstructive. Joja  lozzo  22:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I did locate a propoer source that is peer reviewed. Would you like me to add it to the article. I have a copy of the PDF file. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did locate a propoer source that is peer reviewed. Would you like me to add it to the article. I have a copy of the PDF file. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DNFT Joja  lozzo  02:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * DNFT is not an appropriate response to the proposal to using a peer-reviewed source. The original research was replaced with relevant sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourced text was replaced with unsourced text
Ludwigs2 thinks his opinion is more reliable than the journal according to this edit against WP:V and WP:OR. We should write with a focus on the source at hand per WP:V. Relevant text from the source was also deleted in a previous edit. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 now says he will have to look up the source. So, indeed the text is unsourced. We had sourced text from a reliable journal in accordance with V. There is still no good reason to delete reliable sourced text from a journal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Failed verification?

Pseudoscience generally requires some unjustified and unsupportable claim to scientific standing or experimental rigor.[citation needed] Superstitions, traditional beliefs, religious ideology or similar claims are not generally considered to be pseudoscience, even where they involve magical thinking or questionable cause-and-effect relationships, unless they actively claim to be scientific or supersede science.[original research?] Medical pseudoscience (sometimes called quackery) can in some cases pose a threat to health.[original research?] Many different scientists and scientific organizations, including the National Science Foundation, have called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.[citation needed]

I tried to verify the text with articles from the NSF website. I was unable to verify the text. If we look closer at this edit it looks like the text was rewritten to dilute the claims made by a very reliable a peer reviewed journal and replaced it without a reference. The NSF website is not peer reviewed. To be fair, another editor previously diluted the meaning of the text from the journal. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources are great QG, but just because you find one doesn't mean we should take any sentence from it and represent it as the whole truth of the entire subject. With Ernst as well it results in articles that can seem pointy and unbalanced.  I think it helps to look for all relevant sources which describe an issue rather than just the ones that support one perspective.  Not all unquoted writing is OR, some is just summary, and it's a part of the encyclopedic process.  So, you might be overly focused on Verification, to the exclusion of NPOV.  If the NSF website is not the only relevant source for the recent changes, but there's general agreement that the recent text is a better reflection of the majority of sources out there (which many of us have encountered but may not have on hand to cite), then it's worth tracking down those sources rather than clinging to a verifiable but biased version. Ocaasi (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You think the previous version was verifiable but biased. According to V, editors are simply to present what the reliable sources say. I see you were not able to provide verification for the text. You think requesting V or pointing out that the text failed V might be overly focused on Verification. We did have verified text sourced to a peer reviewed journal. It was not appropriate to delete sourced text from a peer reviewed journal. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say."

See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

See WP:IRS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

I don't think there is any good reason a peer reviewed journal was deleted from the Pseudoscience article against V and IRS.

QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You misinterpreted my analysis. I wasn't commenting on the source's bias, I was commenting on the bias in the resulting Wikipedia text from only relying on one source to make a broad claim about the subject.  When we use sources which have bias, we attribute the views so that readers know where the bias is coming from.  That's NPOV.  So, if you'd like to use attribution, that's one way to incorporate the view proportionately.  I think you are misreading V:  it does not tell us what to do with sources we find, it only tells us that material must be verifiable.  I think Ludwigs' exclusion/inclusion framework is accurate and useful.  NPOV tells us what to do with the sources we find, assuming they are RS, and we are supposed to present their views with attribution if they have a bias and in the context of all significant views.  Academic sources are usually reliable, but thus is not a gold standard academic source by any means, and editors must useddiscretion to evaluate where sources fit on the spectrum of reliability.  That's at the heart of MEDRS and RS.  As for V, context matters.  You try to string V and RS/MEDRS and Weight together so that we are "forced" to include the sources you present.  But that won't result in an encyclopedia which reflects all reliable sources in proportion to their relevance, reliability, and significance.  There's a difference and it involves trying to craft a balanced article rather than just making a legal case for inclusion. Ocaasi (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When there is no serious dispute among reliable sources you do not add attribution in the text. When an editor personally thinks the source is bias, we point to WP:V and write "Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." The claim about the subject is well supported by the peer reviewed journal. Do you think Ludwigs' inaccurate WP:OR and unsourced claims is approporaite and useful. I requested V, but the text fails verification when I tried to verify the text using articles from the NSF website. As for V, diluting the text is not adding context. The text was diluting becuase you disagree with the claims the source makes. It is not right for an editor to delete the text or source because you don't like it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously, this is looking like crap, can't we just have QG blocked for WP:SOAPBOX? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think deleting sourced text from a reliable peer reviewed journal and replacing it with original research soapboxing. Ludwigs2 claimed the text is sourced but never was able to provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors were given enough time to provide verification for the unsourced text. Since no verification was provided for the original research and there is a peer-reviewed source that meets V I replaced the unsourced text with sourced text in accordance with V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a PDF copy of the source if anyone wants to read it. Please e-mail me for a copy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a better source that gives a definition of pseudoscience? Some Elsevier dictionary of science, or stuff like that? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you asked since there has been confusion what type of sources are reliable in accordance with WP:V. We are currently using a peer-reviewed source that gives an overview of pseudoscience. "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." See WP:SOURCES. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A dictionary by Elsevier would be an academic publication..... --Enric Naval (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please DNFT... Joja  lozzo  03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, I'm confused by what you mean by DNFT. Is that an abbreveation for a source or a policy page? I could not find what is meant by DNFT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A dictionary would give a definition but not an overview of the topic. This reference did not verify the claim. A lot of sourced text was deleted without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health." This recently added text seems to fail WP:V.
 * page 1219.
 * I was unable to verify this claim using this reference. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The letters dnft is not an explanation to deleting relevant sourced text and replacing it with a source that did not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (bashes head on keyboard) ornirtdfrtifgtthuirti9thju9rbtj9prbgt9p8 Damm it all, there is not a single source apart from this one that can qualify to source that statement?????? Agggggh, I'll try to check if I can find something in some book. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Enric, I recently edited that section and provided a couple of good references but they were removed. Please feel free to put them back. Joja  lozzo  22:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean page 1219. It was restored when Ludwigs reverted back to his version  --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I previously explained the text added by Jojalozzo failed verification and verifiable content was deleted without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Replacing source text with original research continues

 * Ludwigs2 replaced peer-reviewed sourced text with original research against WP:V and WP:OR.


 * The 1965 reference did not verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health."


 * The 1965 source does not verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health."


 * The source did not verify the claim "may in some cases".


 * No source can verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery can be a serious threat to public health." The part "can be" failed verification.


 * The IP 68.122.154.94 deleted sourced text and replaced it with a source that failed to verify the text.


 * The text "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions, and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." failed verification.


 * The text restored by Hans Adler "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health". using a 1965 reference failed verification.

Editors continues to ignore V and OR policies. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I added another recent OR diff. QuackGuru (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I added another recent OR diff. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I added another recent OR diff. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.[72]" After requesting V, editors were not able to provide V. So far the text failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hans Adler, you seemed to have blindly restored OR after it was discussed on the talk page and in my edit summary. Your possible controversial edit is being discussed on the talk page here. If you are unable to provide V for the text that has been challenged per V do you agree that text should be rewritten or removed form the article. Is there a reason you are deleting a relevant source despite you claiming the text is only tangentially relevant material? Your previous reasons for deleting the source does not make any sense. How could a source covering pseudoscience not be relevant to an article about pseudoscience? I want to understand your reason you think deleting sourced text from a peer-reviewed journal that discusses the causes and different forms of pseudoscience is appropriate. Do you agree the source is reliable and relevant to this article? QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I made this change to tag the WP:OR. This edit by User:Jojalozzo added an unsourced summary of a section. The sentence "Pseudoscience can negatively impact health, politics and education." seems like OR. Even if a source was provided a summary is better for the WP:LEAD, anyhow. To be fair, User:Jojalozzo is not the only editor who continues to add/restore OR to the page. For example, see the policy violations by User:Ludwigs2and User:Hans Adler The changes contain text that do not meet WP:V. Can you guys stop violating core Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * QG: Your need to personalize this is transparent. I would prefer to see you find some really good sources for this section rather than making this a personal issue. This project isn't about you or me. Our egos don't matter. Please work to improve what we have rather than hindering our progress. Joja  lozzo  14:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not making it a personal issue. You are adding original research to this article against Wikipedia policy. The sentence "Pseudoscience can negatively impact health, politics and education." is not sourced. You claim "Please work to improve what we have rather than hindering our progress." We do have a reliable source you don't like to see summarised in this article. Any editor that is against including the reliable reference is harming the project. Why did you add a reference about quackery that did not verify the claim. You seem to continue to add OR to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not consider that introductory section sentence to be OR and so far you are the only one here who seems to think it is. In my view the rest of the section explains the summary without OR. I don't think it is necessary or even desirable to provide a source for every statement when support is provided nearby. If there is a valid concern about that then we can repeat the citations that follow as support that statement. Similarly the BBB source seems to me to be a good one for claims about public health and pseudoscience and likewise I don't see that you have any developed any consensus here that use of that source is OR.
 * Here is some of what I consider detailed explanation in the BBB source for how the use of pseudoscience in advertising threatens public health (from page 1219 as specified in the citation):
 * The widespread publicity concerning the drug industry and public health problems of a serious nature, as well as government's emphasis on consumer protection, physical fitness, and health of the elderly have all contributed to an ever-growing popular interest in health products, both remedies and  preventives. The average consumer, however, lacks scientific knowledge and a basis for  discriminating in most matters pertaining to health. Add to this a general inability to accept the  fact that there are certain diseases for which no cure is yet known to medical science; the  perpetual search for the "fountain of youth" which seems to permeate our society; the eagerness of the afflicted to believe in promises of the quick, easy, "miracle" remedy; and the naive trust that if something is printed "it must be true" or the government would prohibit it.
 * ''The fact is that some media assume little responsibility for protecting their audiences from fraud by questioning copy claims. Furthermore, it seems that the American public expects that almost anything can be done. Our achievements in space, in electronics, in medicine, all tend to assure that tomorrow will bring a new cure. Almost any advertisement that builds on phrases such as "new discovery" or "miracle development" will apparently receive a receptive eye or ear. The mere fact that a drug or preparation is advertised at all appears to many consumers to constitute some warrant or justification for its safety and adequacy, if not efficacy.
 * These create the climate in which false, deceptive, or fraudulent promotions flourish, and this is the climate to be dissipated by health education and antiquackery programs. The problem today lies not so much in the advertising and sale of completely worthless products, but in the extravagant and colorful claims which suggest that a product can do much more than is scientifically justified. We are therefore not dealing with the old "devil-quack" who knowingly falsified and deliberately sold pseudoscience, but with the often equally pernicious puffer and promoter.
 * I'm not insisting on using any sources or any phrasing or any specific text. I want us to find the best references we can and I'll happily go along with the sense of the community about any of these issues but objections coming solely from you, whose participation here I find nonconstructive and uncooperative, carry little weight. Joja  lozzo  18:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health." The source did not verify the claim. But the ref citation you deleted verified the claim.
 * page 1219.
 * Do you think the source you added about medical quackery is relevant to this article.
 * I do consider that introductory section sentence to be OR and it is irrelevant if I am the only one here who seems to think it is when especially no verification was provided. A sourced introductory sentence belongs in the lead but not usually at the intro of a section. See WP:LEAD. Please work with Wikipedia polices on these issues. See WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR.
 * Do you agree the sourced text about "illusions of causality are at the heart of pseudoscience" should be restored using the reliable reference.
 * QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me whether I consider the BBB reference to be relevant right after I quoted it at length to offer detailed explanation that I thought was helpful for our purposes?? I have seen a lot of not hearing on these talk pages but this is extraordinary.
 * I'll wait to see what others here say about the uncited introductory section sentence. I am not invested in allowing a sentence to exist without providing a citation to go with it but I have no reason to do anything on your say-so.
 * Repeatedly asking what I think about the Matute et al. paper when I already have stated my position several times at length is another example of your not hearing. Since you have nothing new to say (and have had little of a substantive nature to contribute to the discussion in the two months we've been discussing this), nothing has changed to convince me that this paper on cognitive distortion is a reliable reference for pseudoscience threats to public health. Now that we have located a preprint of the (unpublished) paper everyone can see that it contains a single unsupported sentence used by the authors as motivation for their otherwise unrelated work. That just does not do it for me and no one has yet explained why that sentence is so great and important. I am against the use of the Matute et al. paper as reference for pseudoscience threats to public health. Please find better sources for your contributions. Please hear that.
 * Joja lozzo  21:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBB reference is in the quackery and BBB article. We have more relevant text from the Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience reference for this article.
 * The uncited introductory sentence was probably removed because it was pseudo-WP:OR.
 * Please understand the Matute et al. source meets WP:V for my contributions. The reference contains text that most editors understand the source passes WP:V. I assume the reason for their related work is to explain the motivation or cause of pseudoscience thinking. Do you agree the reliable Matute et al. source must not be deleted from this article again. QuackGuru (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the BBB source was used elsewhere does not mean we should avoid it here especially as I have provided the text of its detailed explanation of how pseudoscience is used in the media to distort consumer thinking and threaten public health. The Matute et al. paper is only about cognitive distortion and just happens to mention public health in passing.
 * The new section intro is much improved with a reference and rewording to fit the reference. Your assertions of OR are getting tiresome. Offense is not a good defense in this project.
 * I'm going to stop arguing with you about ther Matute et al. paper. Maybe someone else here can better explain how lame it is in a way that you will hear.
 * Joja lozzo  13:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "These are a serious matter...". This sentence is not a mention in passing. The authors believe the pseudoscience related issues at least in that paragraph are serious matters. We can't ignore these serious matters when it is relevant from a reliable source. We can't take the text out of context. If we don't include this text it would be taking the source and other text out of context by not including the serious matter context.
 * The BBB source was used in the correct articles. It is mostly about quackery and also about the BBB. It is tangentially relevant to this article. You can't make an argument the Matute et al. reference is not relevant to this article. A personal disagreement with the source is not a reason to delete. The new section intro is much improved with the removal of your original research. You continued to add OR and don't understand it is OR is troublesome. I don't need to find better sources. You need to stop arguing to delete peer-reviewed relevant sources like the Matute et al. reference. It is not to much to ask that you specifically agree that the Matute et al. reference must not be deleted again. Please move on. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hans is not willing to explain why he deleted the peer-reviewed source on pseudoscience. You should at last agree that the source can be restored to the Pseudoscience article. What is your specific objection to the source based on policy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources
OK, so, how about:





All academic publishers, the last one gives a definition of "pseudoscience". Are these sources useful to solve this problem? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You have not explained what is the problem with the current source giving an overview rather than just a definition like a dictionary. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think sources about the causes of pseudoscience and the public heath issues would help improve this page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to add to the list of sources.  Practically the entire book is relevant to this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
Reference 18, Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience, looks like original research to me. The abstract is full of "We propose" references. Tom Butler (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The text is sourced and in one of the above threads you can read a cut and paste of part of the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You can read this part of the ref too. QuackGuru (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First, the talk page is on a scheduled archive and I want this subject to be as new as it is. So QuackGuru, please do not move my comments without asking.


 * It seems that you are highjacking this article for your own campaign against Chiropractic.


 * I do not care about the previous discussion. It appears to have been pretty much you outlasting those who did not agree with you. The fact is that reading the available parts of the article, it is clearly original research. If I see that, someone else is going to come along and start this again.


 * The phrase, "We suggest a different route." is clearly an expression of opinion leading to a new point. If the article has good sources, then use those good sources for your reference. Otherwise it just looks like you are trying to preserve an article that has the maximum amount of hate to support your subject.


 * How long should I wait before posting tags? Tom Butler (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please try to keep things civil, Tom. We're all operating under good faith. WP:OR doesn't apply to sources, only Wikipedia editors. Are you suggesting the source is primary, and shouldn't be used on that basis? We do use primary sources for some things. Do you, perhaps, have better sourcing to replace it with?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, WP:OR doesn't apply to sources - it only applies to Wikipedia editors doing their own original research (but we always welcome better sources if you have them). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OR may not apply to sources, but it does apply to the way that editors use sources, and if in fact this source is just speculative maunderings then it is probably disqualified under wp:UNDUE or wp:FRINGE. I'll have to take a closer look at it, however.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We expect many sources to do OR. This is an article about pseudoscience, right? Some of the best sources of all, on matters of science as on so many other subjects, are those which have done extensive research of their own and then analysed, summarised, and drawn conclusions or comparisons. WP:OR applies to editors on wikipedia, not to the external sources that they use.
 * Crick and Watson did OR, and they did a fine job. However, somebody writing a wikipedia article on DNA should not do OR. That's where the boundary lies. bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, three points:

1. It was not me who moved the post. Reference 18 has been cited 10 times and I will wage every citation was by Quack The reference was contested above at length and apparently only settled by other editors giving up. I had not read the above discussion and am not obligated to do so because the article must stand on its current merits. The first example Quack used was about quackery. He is famous for his single-minded and often overly aggressive campaigns against alternative medicine, especially chiropractic []. I think my comments were in balance with the situation.

2. Is the contention here that OR applies to editors and not to content is symptomatic of the condition of this article? From WP:OR:

'':This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.'' I did not notice that this only applies to editors. Since you think it does, it would seem fair to request an audit of all of the references here. Obviously you all have been building this article on questionable references.

3. Quack defended the reference by arguing that the authors used (presumably good) sources. If that is true, and there is obvious grounds to discard the article as OR, and if Quack is editing in good faith, then he should move the support for his venom to those other sources ... that is if they actually stand up to review. Jess, it is not my obligation to do the research for him or to defend his words.

There are serious issues with how science is done and how people perceive science. If this article addressed specific kinds of problems--people thinking they are doing science and why they are not, people doing science but the results not being vetted--then you would serve your readers. But that is not done here. All I can see is a well developed article about branding people you do not agree with. Try a little self-editing. Tom Butler (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, wikipedia is collaborative by nature. If you spent as much time and energy focusing on specific instances of misuse of sources, rather than characterizing the behavior of other editors, I assure you that more people would be willing to work with you, and more would be done to advance your position. As it is, there other other areas of the site which better compel me to devote my time than sorting through personal attacks here. Please try reading over WP:AGF again. If you can cite specifics in the sources which are inappropriate, as opposed to calling for a broad "audit of all sources", and can do that without calling into question the intentions of other editors, you might get more done. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Now you are assuming bad faith on my part by accusing me of only being interested in "specific instances of misuse." I understand the collaborative concept. I also understand that collaboration is regulated by basic rules. It is individual editors who disregard or selectively interpret those rules. I would not be nearly as strident if the majority of editors here were not so happy with the edits I complain about. Tom Butler (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse you of any such thing. I said, pursuant to WP:PA: Comment on content, not contributers. If you have issues with editor conduct, then take it to an appropriate noticeboard. Here, you should be discussing specific instances where the article could be improved. Requests such as "an audit of all references" are unhelpful, particularly combined with WP:ABF.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a soapbox
In my view and, I believe, in that of many others, the paragraph in the overview on pseudoscience and public health is poorly written and poorly sourced. I thought I had improved that section with a rewrite and some good sources but my edits were reverted. I would not presume to suggest anyone replace what I had done without consensus among those who do not have personal agendas. It seems we risk being worn down by persistent advocacy for wording and sources that are not Wikipedia quality. I propose that while we ignore the soapbox we do what we can to fix that paragraph. If the soapboxing gets too persistent perhaps administrative action is in order. Joja lozzo  22:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with this comment. I have given up attempts to edit this article because of the persistent and obsessive inclusion of the irrelevant material referred to above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC).


 * I agree with you both, and that the revised version is far superior. I think this qualifies as a budding consensus, so I will go ahead and revert now.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * P.s. - the last paragraph of that section (beginning "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health"): I could have sworn we had consensus to delete that before. It's a complete misrepresentation - most pseudoscience and superstitions are of no threat to public health whatsoever (the belief in UFO or the abominable snowman pose no health threats, nor do superstitions about walking under ladders or avoiding black cats), and medical quackery is only a threat to public health where it explicitly tries to denigrate conventional medicine.  Sourced or not, it's an embarrassingly ridiculous passage presented in this context in this particular way.  does anyone object if I remove it?  -- Ludwigs 2  23:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Go ahead and do that. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

I think the "danger to the public" concept is addressed pretty well in the Belief in Pseudoscience section of Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. Specifically, "...The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks (NIST 2002). (See sidebar, "Sense About Science.")" The "Losh et al" can be read here Tom Butler (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Source may be sound but is peripheral for this article. I suggest you turn your attentions to Quackery. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC).


 * It's hardly peripheral since medical quackery is often rooted in pseudoscience. There is definitely no consensus to remove that. Maybe tweak it, but not completely remove it. It used to be sourced properly, but because of all the tugging back and forth that's been going on the same words have ended up changing sources several times, often meaning that the remaining ref didn't justify the wording, when the original source did. You've all got to be more careful how you make large wholesale guttings of this article (especially considering the COI of one editor who would like to get rid of the word pseudoscience altogether). The problem could have been solved by minor tweaks of wording, keeping the sources, and thus everything would have been fine. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no portion of Tom's quoted text which indicates that the "danger" is only from Quackery. On the contrary, it appears to be explicitly referring to Pseudoscience. Furthermore, quakery is explicitly identified as containing pseudoscientific ideas within our lead. This section appears to be perfectly justified for inclusion in the article, and is properly sourced to address WP:Weight concerns. So I can get a better idea of how this section could be cleaned up to address any concerns -- What specific sections of the removed text are most contentious for editors here?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The main problem I had with that paragraph is that it was extremely over-stated. only a very small proportion of pseudoscience is a risk to public health, directly or indirectly; the rest has no relation to public health at all (unless you count driving skeptics crazy as a public health threat).  therefore 'threat to public health' is not really one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience, and so doesn't belong in the overview.  If you wanted to include a much more understated and constrained section dealing with the threat that certain forms of medical pseudoscience may pose that might be workable, but it's both hyperbolic and incorrect to stand up and claim that all pseudoscience constitutes a serious public health problem.  it just aint true.


 * Jess, the quote is from a PubMed article, is which context it is fairly clear that the author is only talking about medical pseudoscience. besides, mere common sense will tell you that public health issues are medical issues by definition, and the claim could not refer to anything except quackery.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to discuss the costs and impacts of pseudoscience in this article. Since quackery often (not always) takes the form of pseudoscience, we should include the harms caused by this form of pseudoscience as well as its other forms. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new section on the topic of impacts to help us and readers focus on this aspect. Joja  lozzo  03:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What belongs (or not) in this article - Xxanthippie et al’s point about quackery and alt med not being appropriate in a pseudoscience article has some merit. But this is only insofar as public perception is shaped by veneration of the authority of the quack, or through veneration of the “time honored” practices of traditional alt meds. Insofar as the "public susceptability" is shaped by veneration of science, and pseudoscience is used to shape that "public susceptability", it does belong here, and as a health risk. (“Serious” health risk might be WP:peacock.)
 * Second kind of health cost of doing pseudoscience - Alt med research (not practice) is often pseudoscience, and has a high dollar cost. This is often doing pseudoscience, and is different from practicing alt med. It takes away from researching more promising treatments, only to try to shore up the feelings of alt med believers. This cost of doing pseudoscience is over and above the costs of "the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks". I read somewhere that US taxpayers alone have thrown away billions on such pseudoscientfic research. This cost to health is over and above the cost of alt med industry self funded pseudosceintific research like this, to try find something, anything, no matter how small the "significant" effect may be, only to justify its own continued existence as a practice with the veneer of scientific respectablity through the massive dollars spent on useless and often biased studies. PPdd (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience occurs in or near many fields, and only one of them is medicine. On one hand it is perfectly proper to discuss medical pseudoscience as a notable example of pseudoscience. On the other hand it's totally inappropriate to hijack the present article and write it as if all pseudoscience were medical quackery. It's certainly not OK to abuse sources that are specifically about medical pseudoscience by taking them out of context and presenting them as if they were about pseudoscience in general, even when they indicate the restriction to pseudoscience only implicitly, e.g. in the context in which they appear. Hans Adler 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, to avoid "hijacking" better placement might be in its own section below, and not in the "overview" section. Pseudocience based alt med and quackery (as different from just tradition and authority based alt med and quackery) is more than just one example of pseudoscience, it is an entire category of examples, and a big category; i.e., a "pseudoscience in medicine" section. "Pseudoscidence in the courts" (Junk science) is a category of examples that should also have its own section. So should the category "lying with statistics", which is very much lacking in the article. Perhaps also "pseudoscience in social science" ("hoodoo science"), although this may require much more development than the first three suggested category sections. Similarly for any other very broad category of pseudoscience that has enough well developed material as to merit its own article, which could be considered a WP:Daughter article of the pseudosceince article.
 * As to the stretching of the source, Hans is correct. But there should be plenty more sources to use for the given language, or better language that is more in line with the source. PPdd (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Following up on Hans here, let's not get hoodwinked by vague terrors. the only cases where pseudoscience becomes a public health risk are (1) when a form of quackery prescribes a 'treatment' which is directly harmful to the patient (e.g. should some quack prescribe taking oral mercury to cure the boubons), and (2) when a quack tries to convince patients to use an ineffective or unproven treatment in preference to a proven, standard medical treatment.  And even the second one is not actually a public health hazard, but is actually closer to a criminal activity.  These account for a very small portion of medical fringe science, and a vanishingly small portion of fringe science as a whole.  Yes, people spend money on fringe treatments; yes, people are sometimes dumb when it comes to considering fringe treatments.  But spending your money on stupid crap is not a health hazard, otherwise the surgeon general would have to ban video games and Adam Sandler movies.


 * Writing a blog about space aliens does not create a health hazard. Trying to prove that Sasquatch exists does not create a health hazard.  Even things like acupuncture, TCM, chiropractic, and (heaven forbid) homeopathy are not health hazards.  They may not work, they may be a waste of money, but... they are licensed and regulated (in the US and Europe), people use them regularly without suffering any ill effects, and they do not normally detract from, supersede, or interfere with normal medical procedures.  If none of these things that are frequently cited as examples of pseudoscience are public health hazards, how can we say that all pseudoscience is?


 * Of course, the other argument you're making is that people are too stupid to make informed choices, so we need to force them to turn to western medicine by making unjustified and exaggerated claims about the badness of even innocuous forms of fringe science. I don't think people are that dumb, personally, but if you follow that line you'll be forced to leave encyclopedic writing behind and start writing authoritative scripture (Wikipedia as The Bible of Science, if you will). However, that is antithetical to the core principles of the project. And honestly, if people are really that stupid, I'd just as soon we let Darwin have his way; otherwise we really will evolve into eloi, and who wants that?  -- Ludwigs 2  07:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that alt med does not increase health risk except in the instances Ludqigs2 cites.
 * But it is not up to editors to determine if alt med is a health hazard or not. It is either in a reliable source, or it is not, and that is all we should be considering. However, talk pages can be useful for expressing these soapbox thoughts in that they may lead to paths for finding RS.
 * Examples Ludwigs2 does not mention are a "succeptable public" member considering dollar cost, which might induce health risks, such as seeing an acupuncturist for extreme pain when one cannot afford an MRI, or seeing a much less expensive TCM related doctor to have one's tongue examined for almost anything TCM related alt meds like acpuncture claim, or taking a toxic TCM based "TCM powder pill" that is some "scientifically" altered mix of ore of mercury, ore of asbestos, pinch of cyanide, and strychnine tree nut exctract, all really being done. Also wasting billions of health research dollars on studies like electrically stimulating astrologically derived acupuncture points and waving a magnetic wand over them, then diluting mugwort 10 to 1 and shaking 60 times then burning it on the skin or an acupuncture needle, etc., all real stuf being done with scarce health research funds. Alt med research is a category of pseudoscience, not just an example. PPdd (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * that's a naive assessment of sourcing policy, that neglects UNDUE and FRINGE. If you will not use common sense on this issue, then I'll make a very proper argument that your source's viewpoint is either (a) unrepresentative of standard scientific opinion, or (b) being taken drastically out of context to to support a claim that the author never intended to make.  I would hope that you would be more reasonable in the face of such an extreme distortion of obvious facts, but I can duke it out on a point-by-point refutation of your position if you make me.  are you going to make me?


 * to your other points:
 * someone who cannot afford an MRI, cannot afford an MRI: their choice is between seeking treatment they can afford, or not seeking treatment at all. that has nothing to do with altmed
 * In the US and Europe, a patient who went to an acupuncturist for extreme pain would suffer no harm from the acupuncture and would be directed to a medical doctor after a couple of treatments if the treatments were unsuccessful. any other behavior would cost the acupuncturist his license
 * TCM herbalists never to my knowledge use raw minerals in preparations or medicinals.
 * As I have noted elsewhere, your understanding of TCM is very distorted, along the lines of someone trying to evaluate western medicine by analyzing spam emails and late-night infomercials. I cannot make you assume good faith with respect to it, but I will not allow you to cynically reduce the entire centuries-old practice to tiger-penis viagra and silly eternal life elixirs.  If you cannot take a more balanced view than that, you should not be editing these articles at all.  -- Ludwigs 2  08:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, undue and FRINGE should be addressed in considering RS on this if applicable. You should try your argument out on the critically endangered siberian tigers themselves, and try out what you call a "fringe" and "undue" on National Geographic publishing on TCM, not me. ( If I might help you to help me better to understand the benifits of TCM medicines, point to the Salix spp. to aspirin history; never point at someone's penis, as you might find yourself in the maw of a tiger, or as Chef said in Apocalypse now, "F-ing tiger. Never get off of the f-ing boat, man". :) ) Also, you called it a "budding consensus" with only two comments within a single hour after starting this section; L2, your comments are typically much better reasoned than that (comments by some others have not been so well reasoned). PPdd (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place to save the siberian tiger, and attacking TCM would not be an effective means of doing that anyway, since most TCM practitioners are just as much against those kinds of bogus medicinals as you are (and the idiots who buy them would buy them even if you managed to stamp out mainstream TCM practices completely). and yes, three editors can represent a budding consensus, particularly where common sense and basic logic support their perspective.  And none of that matters here anyway.  please keep focused on the content discussion at hand.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The thread is waffling. Ludwigs2, referring to the paragraph in the overview, you say above "but it's both hyperbolic and incorrect to stand up and claim that all pseudoscience constitutes a serious public health problem. it just aint true." That's a smokescreen if ever I saw one because the paragraph makes no such claim. It says "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery can be a serious threat to public health......(and).....the book Trick or Treatment records several occasions where patient's faith in medical pseudoscience has led to complications, further injury and death." That doesn't say anything near what you wrote, but what it does say is verifiable. Moriori (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Focussed summary so far -
 * 1 Soapboxing is bad. Accuracy of citing and RS is needed for assertions about health risks.
 * 2 Sources so far given are not accurately summed in the overview section.
 * 3 Editors are tired of soapboxing here, and of constant tweaking which leads by WP:article creep to refs no longer applying to the line as ultimately worded, when they started off being applicable.
 * 4 There is RS for, from "nsf.gov Belief in Pseudoscience" - "The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks", which from the context, appears to be only about medical pseudoscience to some editors.
 * 5 Quackery and alt that relies on authority other than scientific appearing authority is less of a pseudoscience than that which does.
 * 6 Quackery and alt med have a special status as pseudoscience. (See next section)
 * 7 Quackery and alt med are entire categories of examples of pseudoscience, not just a single example.
 * 8 All pseudoscience is not alt med or quackery, only a significant portion.
 * 9 "'threat to public health' is not really one of the defining characteristics of pseudoscience"it is an effect of a significan part of pseudoscience, so it "doesn't belong in the overview", and the best placement might be in an idependent section.
 * 10 "Serious health risk" may be WP:Peacock for "health risk".
 * 11 There are multiple kinds of health risk, getting harmful treatment, not getting helpful treatment, using up pocketbooks on the useless, spending scarce research funds on pseudoscientific studies, etc.
 * 12 There are "costs and impacts of pseudoscience" in addition to those of alt med and quackery that should be stated in this article.
 * 13 RS is needed to make any of these points in the article, not just editors' opinions.
 * 14 One editor will not admit to secretly drinking tiger's penis tea like the rest of us do. PPdd (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current status of the subject paragraph. Joja lozzo  23:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Moriori: The 'can be' was added after I deleted the paragraph and it was reinserted. regardless, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how UFOlogy or cryptozoology "can be" considered health risk in any way, shape or form.  If that cannot be done, then we cannot blandly assert that pseudoscience is inherently a health hazard.
 * with respect to "Trick or Treatment": there are numerous cases in the literature where standard medical practices have produced ugly complications - in small percentages of cases, a simple prescription of aspirin has lead to death from liver failure. One can always find "Oh Shit!" examples from every kind of medical practice; such examples do not add up to a condemnation of the practice unless they are more like the rule than the exception.  Literally hundreds of millions of people have received TCM care with some positive results and no adverse effects, so enough of that silliness.


 * @PPdd: again, bolded, because you refused to acknowledge these points when I raised them above: extra cost is not a health risk; poor science education is not a health risk. These may be issues that can be addressed in the article, but we do not address them by claiming they are health risk when they clearly are not.
 * and incidentally, quackery is pseudoscience by definition, but not all altmed is quackery and not all altmed is pseudoscience (some of it is non-scientific, some of it semi-scientific).


 * @Joja: I am not satisfied with the current status of the paragraph. More to the point, the paragraph is a misrepresentation of the subject matter, and so it doesn't matter whether you or I are 'satisfied', does it?


 * seriously people, this is not a vote - I've given you a very clear and reasonable explanation of why this paragraph has to go (recap: it misrepresents both the subject matter and the author of the source being cited - that violates sourcing policy and abuses the central purpose of the encyclopedia). unless one of you gives a better explanation of why the paragraph has to stay, I will remove it again.  And yes, I will keep removing it until I get such an explanation, so...  -- Ludwigs 2  03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ludwig, I don't always read as carefully as I should. Often I stop reading when the verbiage gets too thick or arguments too heated. I think you are making the point that superstition and quackery may be threats to public health but pseudoscience is not except when it supports quackery. If I have that right, I see your point. Joja  lozzo  05:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The source stated Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. The sourced text decided quackey is a type of pseudoscience. So, it is indeed relevant to this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @ jojo - yes, hat's precisely what I meant. though I'd qualify that not even all quackery is a threat to public health - no one is likely to suffer any effects (ill or good) from magnetic healing bracelets, for instance.  Apoogies, I am sometimes both long-winded and hot-tempered.


 * @ QuackGuru - no one is objecting to that point. the problem is that those forms of quackery which constitute public health hazards make up only a tiny portion of pseudoscience as a whole, so we cannot call all of pseudoscience a public health hazard.  That would be like saying all cars are bad because some people drive drunk.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are objecting to that point when you continue to have a persoanl disagreement with the source because you claim "those forms of quackery which constitute public health hazards make up only a tiny portion of pseudoscience as a whole, so we cannot call all of pseudoscience a public health hazard". The article does not say a tiny portion of pseudoscience is quackery. What the article does say is sourced in accordance with WP:V. That would be like saying all cars are bad because some people drive drunk? No, drinking and driving is all bad. QuackGuru (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru: that's such a mindless argument, it doesn't even call for a critique. no one is questioning the validity of the source - I am questioning the relevance of the source to the article.  This quote has been taken out of context and used to defend an claim on wikipedia that the source itself does not make.  THAT is pure, unadulterated, obvious, and reprehensible ORIGINAL RESEARCH.  I've heard you use this argument on multiple articles, and I'm sick of it: if you cannot understand basic sourcing and content policy (much less tha basic principles of scholarly reasoning), then you should not be editing wikipedia.  Keep pushing this POV-ridden line and I will take you back to AN with a new community ban proposal.  understood? -- Ludwigs 2  16:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The source covers pseudoscience and its many forms. The quote was not taken out of context. The current text is well sourced and relevant despite your vague objections. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The quote is taken out of context, as I have demonstrated several times. your failure to understand is irrelevant.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You have not demonstrated at any time what was taken out of context. I provided verification for the text. You deleted relevant content and claim a source about pseudoscience and its different forms is irrelevant. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No Warring
For the a third time today good faith attempts to improve the last paragraph in the Overview section have been overwritten with material that has been rejected by the consensus. I believe the concerns of the disruptive editor have been heard and addressed repeatedly and extensively. I would ask that the paragraph be returned to it's last good state and that we continue to improve it from there without further war or soapbox. Thanks, Joja  lozzo  02:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is so much toing and froing that I have lost track. Can you say which version you want restored? Who is the disruptive editor? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure what you are suggesting but we should not restore original research or text that failed verification. See . QuackGuru (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Jojo - it's time for an RfC. Not that that will solve the dispute, but it's the necessary step to move this discussion up the ladder so that punitive actions can be taken against the more tendentious participants here.  I'll begin the RfC below.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC - problematic paragraph
A long-running dispute involving the application of wp:V to a particular source (Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol). Granting that the source is clearly from a good journal, its use on the article is disputed because it is being used to promote a perspective not consistent with the author's intent and outside of the scope of the published article. opponents note the following:
 * The article is a psychological piece about the the mistaken perceptions of causality, and does not concern itself with the the health risks of pseudoscience outside of the first line of the abstract
 * The article explicitly only deals with medical quackery - "The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better..." - and yet is being used to advance the position that all pseudoscience is a public health risk (pseudoscience covers a broad range of topics - e.g. UFOlogy, crypotozoology, cold fusion - which have absolutely not relation to health issues)
 * The source is new (2010), and no other sources make similarly strong claims, so the source fails wp:UNDUE
 * The source and its associated paragraph are being used primarily as an extension of conflicts over alternative medicine that have little or nothing to do with the topic of pseudoscience.

proponents largely argue that it is it is a valid, reliable source, and so cannot be excluded from the article.

There is a larger policy issue here about the proper use of sources. Does the mere fact that a source said something in a decent-quality journal mean that that quote can be used with this kind of liberal disregard for context? It seems obvious to me that Matute et al simply included this line as toss-off line to begin their abstract, and that it is not an analytical claim that they defend as a matter of scholarship. That point is apparently not obvious to others in the dispute.

link to article abstract link to first removal of paragraph in this incarnation of the dispute, though note this has been going back and forth for months. -- Ludwigs 2 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Referendum
The section below has gotten a bit congested with cross-talk, so I thought it would be useful to have a simple RfC input section. Please limit yourself to simple comments here, and use the section below for extended discussions
 * Remove paragraph: As nom for reasons listed above. -- Ludwigs 2  17:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the source is relevant to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove paragraph. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC).
 * No, the source is reliable to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove disputed citation. Revise and move paragraph to new section. Be explicit about impacts of pseudoscience. Joja  lozzo  15:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove This is a general article on pseudoscience. The source seems relevant to an article or section on Quackery, but is not a source for general statements on pseudoscience.  Also, we do not use patently false generalizations even when published in a reliable source which most likely depended on the common sense of readers to make valid meaning out of the statement.  It is not a threat to public health for people to believe in the Loch Ness monster.  Nor is it true that a superstition that does not threaten public health is not pseudoscience.  We need sources dealing with the subject in general, not throw-away rhetoric in the introductions to articles on specific subjects. I could point out other problems such as the lousy writing, for example the statement that irrational beliefs are pseudoscience (they might or might not be).  That example is just a start.  It's a terrible paragraph. BE——Critical __Talk 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Becritical, please stop wikilawyering. Your behaviour is not appropriate. We do use patently sourced generalizations when published in a reliable source which most likely depended on the common sense of WP:V to make an accurate summary. You are claiming the source seems relevant to an article on quackery when you are unable to give any good reason to delete the relevant source from this article. The source is for general and specific statements on pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove paragraph:Tom Butler (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to delete a source about pseudoscience. Tom Butler, please stop. QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Instead of deleting, why not just reword it per WP:V as to its context as pseudoscience used in medicine, and put it in its own section so it would not be WP:UNDUE, as suggested in the above talk page discussion? The view that pseudoscience used in medicine is a health risk is certainly not fringe in any way. PPdd (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (PS, Ludwigs2, why did you notice "religion" for comment on science and medicine, and not notice the relevant boards? That's like intentionally calling out the kooks.) PPdd (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have said several times, I'm not against having a separate section that deals with the public health risks of medical quackery, but this paragraph does not belong as part of the overview for pseudoscience, where it suggests (incorrectly and unfairly) that this is a significant consideration for all pseudoscience. That's just irrational.


 * I added religion because that's also where philosophy RfC's go, and this question would have meaning to people in the philosophy of science. And please don't suggest that your fellow wikipedia editors are "kooks" unless you want some of them to give equally frank analyses of your personality. That would be fun, mind you, but it would not be conducive to civil discourse.   -- Ludwigs 2  20:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re kooks. Question:What's the difference between a weirdo and a kook?... Answer: ...I am not a weirdo. :) PPdd (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the issue is placement in the article, rather than inclusion, then why not try moving it to a new section and see if that gains consensus. Clearly, removing it entirely has not.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try putting it elsewhere rather than reverting it? I don't want this in the article at all, but I'd be willing to compromise if anyone tried to work with me


 * it's not a good idea to expect me to to do all the work here, Jess - I am not your wife or your mother. compromise and common sense cut both ways, so if you see an opening to solve the dispute, take it and do it. otherwise I'll happy to lower myself to the 'revert monkey' level of communication that seems to be the norm for this page. -- Ludwigs 2  00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sounds like a good Signpost headline - "Ludwigs2 Admits He Is Not Jess' Mother". PPdd (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.s. See Jess?  you needn't have worried.  Predictably, some random idiot came by and reverted again without discussion .  I swear, mindless skepticism drives some of the worst frigging revert-monkies on wikipedia. damned science trolls - lol - Karl Popper is spinning in his grave...  -- Ludwigs 2  01:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that the dispute is not just about placement but an insistence on some editors part to attribute health risks to pseudoscience in general rather than just quackery. I agree that the article would be improved by a separate section on the impacts and risks of pseudoscience (including quackery but only in those cases when it is based on pseudoscience). Joja  lozzo  00:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Every attempt to reword that I am aware of has been reverted with repetitive insistence on the validity of the existing construction with little if any acknowledgment of the validity of alternative views.
 * 2) In my view any rewording that includes the disputed reference would be inappropriate.
 * Joja lozzo  00:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support deletion or replacement. The present version is just inappropriate here. It might be suitable for another article. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Ludwigs, I feel I have to point to WP:Civil again. Additionally, regarding your edit summary, I referenced WP:EW not 3rr. This very much is an edit war, and it's unconstructive and combative to continually remove it while discussion is ongoing. Personally, I remain unconvinced that there is any legitimate issue with it remaining in the Overview section, but considering your comment above that placing it elsewhere would be acceptable to you, I think my suggestion to try moving it is a reasonable one. If you'd rather pick fights than work with a compromise which you've admitted would be acceptable, then I don't know what else to tell you. To everyone else, is the main problem the sourcing or the content itself? In other words, if all the claimed sourcing issues were to be addressed, would there still be objections to the content? I'm trying to get a better handle on what sorts of avenues we have for solving this dispute, if indeed one is necessary.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * point to whatever you like. I have logic, reason, and policy on my side, and because of that I will keep pushing this point until something snaps.  You'd best find some reason that convinces me I'm wrong (I'm open to that), or come over to my side of this argument if you dispute this issue to end. -- Ludwigs 2  01:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Civility is not optional, even if you have "logic on your side", and it's not a good way to win over editors. If you do wish to work collaboratively, you could try answering my question above regarding sourcing, or try your hand at the proposed compromise. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My last comment for the day, in/re sourcing: I don't have any problem with the source itself (except, as noted, that the article is only from 2010, and one would be hard-pressed to make a case that this is a broadly-held viewpoint). The problem is that the quote is being taken drastically out of the context of its source to serve a very different purpose than it serves in the source.  I mean drastically - on a level with taking Marx' famous "Workers of the world unite!" and adding it to the homosexuality article as evidence that Marx supported gay marriage.  You can make any source look like it supports anything if you quote selectively enough, with enough blatant disregard for context. -- Ludwigs 2  02:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is comment is tangentially related to the discussion: I welcome help from editors who until now have not been involved in this dispute but I would like to know why they are only reverting to the current construction rather than reverting back to any of the good faith attempts to reword it and avoid the disputed citation. In my view reverting with the comment that there is no consensus is unhelpful. I'd prefer editors take the time to look back in the history and revert to a version that they think works and say so. If they like the current construction then argue for it. Likewise, I hope we can agree that consensus is not served by one editor or some small minority holding out for their position without consideration for alternative views - i.e. that consensus is not the same as unanimity. Joja lozzo  01:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going to reword it per the source and start a "pseudocience in medicine" section for it (and start a pseudoscience in courts section, and a "pseudoscience misusing statistics" section, and a "pathological science" section), but I thought it best if Ludwigs2 did this, as this might avoid future disputes. PPdd (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As one of the editors who reverted, I have no problem with the section being reworded. However, I don't know which specific revision you find acceptable. My only reason for reverting was that the content was entirely removed, primarily by one editor, all while discussion was still ongoing. For the most part, I simply undid the removal and left the section in its previous form. Could you point to the "last good" revision, so I could take a look at the differences between it and our current wording?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * After the last deletion I added an Impacts and concerns section with the most recent rewording (just by chance one of mine). That new section is now existing in parallel with the reverted disputed version at the end of the Overview section. Joja  lozzo  02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How many times are you and other editors are going to continue to add OR to this article. The source you used failed verification. See . QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't follow all the links to links, etc. Since we have number of new participants and I wasn't able to follow everything in previous discussions, please restate your position here for me with referencing past discussions, especially 1) identify the OR and 2) identify which source failed verification. Joja  lozzo  21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An editor who removes a passage that misrepresents a source by taking it out of context is not obliged to otherwise fix the passage and add it elsewhere. This is particularly true when it's not even clear how relevant the thought in question is to the article, as is the case here. (Remember, this is the article about stuff like astrology, supernatural bicycles and homeopathy, not the just the article about medical pseudoscience.) Any editor who knowingly restores a paragraph that misrepresents a source assumes responsibility for the policy violation. Hans Adler 06:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Vague objections show there may not be any policy violation The text is sourced in accordance with V and no reasonable effort was made to improve the paragraph. For now, I trimmed the paragraph based on the concerns of other editors. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, which part of "The source isn't reliable for the claim being made" and "the source doesn't make the claim being made" are you finding vague? I see no reason to try to 'improve' a paragraph that should simply be deleted under policy.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I previously provided verification for the text in question and you have been previously told that you are editing against policy but you decided to continue to add more WP:OR against policy using a 1965 source that does not verify the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health". See . QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The diff you provided is - again - from a psychology journal, and from an article dealing with the psychological underpinnings of pseudoscientific beliefs. it is not a reliable source for factual claims about the dangers of pseudoscience.  Moreover, it says "These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved", and is quite specific in singling out medical quackery as the public health risks and other forms of pseudoscience as educational problems.  so - again - this claim fails verification.


 * As to the rest of your post: I am making it a policy on this page (for the time being) to ignore personal commentary. You don't really have any valid policy claims, so there's no point in responding.  I am keeping an offline list of diffs, however, to be used in a future RFC/U, so be warned.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Other editors agree the source is reliable and can be used for this article. You have not shown which claim being used in the article fails verification but I have repeatedly provided verification for the text and you have refused to provide verification for the text you added against WP:OR. The 1965 source you used does not verify the claim using a 1965 source. Please provide verification using the 1965 source for the claim ""Pseudoscience, superstitions, and medical quackery are serious threats to public health". Why did you replace sourced text with OR again. WP:V and WP:OR are valid policy claims for unsourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Other editors are wrong, as are you. beyond that I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying.  Are you seriously trying to argue that UFOlogy should be considered a serious health risk?  how about cryptozoology?  how about astrology?  I understand that one could cut oneself on a tarot card and bleed to death, but that's not really a health risk specifically inherent to the tarot.


 * As far as I can see, you are trying to make some vague bureaucratic argument that this source must be included simply because it's verifiable, regardless of the fact that it has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand. pardon my for putting it this way, but that's just plain silly.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked for verification for specific text for the edit you made but you are unable to provide WP:V or explain why you restored text that failed verification. You claim and other editors I am wrong but you are unwilling to verify the text. A source that explains what causes pseudoscience is extrememly relevant. Your objection is that you don't think the researchers are not reliable for their statements. This conflicts with V. Your objection is that you think Wikipedia's policies are wrong and you are right? QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread seems to have deviated a bit from the question at hand. Regarding the source itself: the source appears to be reasonable and reliably published, and as such there is no reason to exclude it from the article. Regarding weight: I agree that it is a single source and as such doesn't belong in a prominent position such as the lede. It does, however, belong somewhere in the article. Regarding interpretation: I don't have the full source available, but the abstract does say 'Pseudoscience' and not 'Some pseudoscience'. The author's intention may well have been limited to medical context but making assumptions about the author's intention would be original research at best. Sources must be verifiable, and I just don't see the abstract verifying in any capacity that the author was referring to a subset of pseudosciences. If the full source makes it explicitly clear then great, but applying implicit interpretation on the source is only going to cause problems down the line.

An appropriate phrasing would indicate that it is the source that asserts that pseudoscience (along with the other elements it listed) are a health risk - this is a fact based on verifiable evidence and makes no assertions as to whether or not the source is correct. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The full source makes no mention of risks to public health. The comment in the abstract appears to be an expression of the authors' basic motivation for the work but is not addressed in the full source. Because of that the comment is poor support for the claim of health risks. Joja  lozzo  02:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside view: Just a quick comment. The source is reliable, however, the paragraph as written is problematic. As a single source, the weight given by that long paragraph is undue. Phrasing can also be improved. Also mention that the source is talking about medical risks. LK (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The source may be reliable from a letter of the wikilaw perspective but it's not a useful source since the reader cannot use it to find out about the health risks of pseudoscience in general or even those of quackery. The source is not about health risks! Most editors here wish to replace this source with others but every attempt to do so has been reverted. Outside perspectives are helpful but I'd prefer they be as informed as possible. Please read the full source not just the abstract and then tell us whether you think it's useful in this article. Joja  lozzo  14:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, back to calm discussion.


 * LK - reliability is not a magic wand that automatically confers unconsidered inclusion. Reliability means that a source is high-quality with respect to a given topic, as determined by a number of factors.  The source in question is in a reputable psychology journal which increases its reliability for psychology-related issues.  However, this article is not a psychology article, and the source is being used to make non-psychological claims, and so it cannot be considered a reliable source for the purposes in which it is being used on wikipedia.  yes?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The disputed source could easily be replaced with something that truly supports the claim of health risks with just a few minutes on Google (see Pseudoscience for one attempt to do so). Does anyone who's read this source in full believe it's the best support we can find for a claim of health risks due to pseudoscientific quackery? If so, please explain - I missed something. Joja lozzo  04:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This comments misses the point. The point is that this paragraph is just not appropriate here. 05:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC).

The source cannot be used as support for a claim whose essence is "Pseudoscience threatens public health". This claim is clearly outside the scope of expertise of the authors of this article, and is not further substantiated in any way. They only state this to argue the relevance of their research. It is like an article by a mathematician who is a number theorist and has come up with a new cryptological method and written an article about it, and opens the article with "Computer security is increasingly important in modern society". After decoding, this turns out to mean: "I think that my research may have practical applications". --Lambiam 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevanrt whether you personally think the claim is outside the scope of expertise of the authors of this article. The source is reliable per WP:V.
 * See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say."
 * See WP:V: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."
 * See WP:IRS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
 * See WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased."
 * There is no good reason to delete a peer-reviewed journal from this article that discusses the causes and different forms of pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you have tried to understand my argument, but in any case your reaction is a rather mechanical response. I'm not so much invoking the lack of expertise of the authors to say that if they make this claim it does not count, but rather that, also given the context, they clearly have no intention to present this statement as a claim. The opening sentence is based on a boilerplate template for the beginning of abstracts: "X is an important problem. We examined Y, and obtained the result Z, which can contribute to solving X." As in "Abstract. Juvenile delinquency is on the increase, and crimes against the person are committed by younger and younger people. We examined the effect of coating juvenile mice with honey, and found that mice thus treated exhibited reduced levels of anti-social behavior. This may offer perspectives for addressing the problem of juvenile delinquency." Authors who use this hackneyed pattern do so based on the presupposition that the audience agrees with X being an important problem, in the expectation that this will help to frame their research in a context in which said audience is favourably disposed to finding out about Y and Z. It is not meant to be a claim.
 * All our rules and policies require human interpretation, and ultimately what we do is based on consensus. So here I'm contributing my 2 cents in this RfC on how I think our policies do (or in this case rather don't) apply, not because I don't know them or think they should be ignored, but because I don't think the authors ever meant this to be a "claim" in the sense in which our verifiability policy and other policies and guidelines use that term. --Lambiam 00:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * QG, you may have forgotten about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:Editorial discretion. Also, if you read WP:RS and WP:V closely, it's clear that sources are only reliable in context of the claim being made.  Which means that it doesn't matter merely that "an academic source says something", but that the claim being made is backed up by the reputation of the author, the journal, and the method of analysis (e.g. a passing statement in an introduction versus a thorough conclusion in a paper.  As long as your approach is that editors are not allowed to think and they have to blindly follow verbatim quotes without considering context or the full range or available material to determine how to incorporate, phrase, and summarize content, you probably won't make much headway. Ocaasi (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The source does say "These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." This sentence refers to the previous sentences that are about pseudoscience, quackery, and superstitions. So indeed the full text does give a detailed explanation and context that there is a threat to public health.
 * Does any editor support the original research blindly added Hans Adler that is not supported by the 1965 reference. Does anyone want the OR in the article removed or is OR editorial discretion. If you look at the discussion below no editor was able to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote "Much better, and clearly where the bigger picture is. Writing with a focus on 'the source in your hand' is great for WP:V, but not for WP:NPOV. One quibble, can we edit out 'ontological claim', as I think the average encyclopedia reader won't know what to make of it? Ocaasi (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)" Did I read your comment correctly? Do you support the original research by Ludwigs2? You seem to claim the text meets V. You seem to be presenting OR as verifiable fact. That is possibly pseudo-WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The original research continues
The claim "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health.[69]" is not supported by the 1965 reference. There is no text from the source to support this sentence. The claim "The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud." could not be verified yet. Please provide verification or don't restore the text. See. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making this substantial contribution to the discussion. I believe that the section, "Impact of Recent Public Interest", from referenced page 1219 of the the 1965 reference supports the medical quackery part of "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." I agree that superstition is not so well covered by that reference and I propose we look for another source to support the claim of health risks of pseudoscientific superstition or we remove "superstition" from that sentence. I also agree that there is an error in using the The National Council Against Health Fraud as a source for NSF. I propose we change NSF to The National Council Against Health Fraud in that sentence. If that makes sense to you let's make those changes and move on. Joja  lozzo  21:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but why say "some forms of pseudoscience such as medical quackery can be..." when what you really mean is "Medical quackery can be...". If I wanted to be pointed, I would suggest "No forms of pseudoscience except medical quackery can be...".  The problem here is that medical quackery is a potential health risk, but not all pseudoscience is medical quackery and not all medical quackery is pseudoscience.  They are two different categories that are being conflated for no good reason.


 * Be aware that QG's argument is that we should use these statements without any reference to the context, meaning, or intent of the authors who wrote them. This is like finding a scholarly author who writes "Global warming could cause the deaths of a billion people over the next century" and using that quote to suggest that the author thinks global warming is an effective tool for population control.  It is perhaps the most unscholarly, unencyclopedic, and anti-intellectual approach to wikipedia that I have seen, and the mindless tendentiousness of it offends me deeply.  Please do not give this reasoning style any benefit of the doubt whatsoever, because it is completely and wholly without merit.


 * If you like, I can make that point more strongly.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Be confident that QG's argument is that we can use these relevant statements with reference to the context, meaning, and intent of the authors who wrote them.
 * Ludwigs2 was unable to provide V for the specific text in question on the talk page. I would not suggest "No forms of pseudoscience except medical quackery can be...". That is OR.
 * Jojalozzo, you were unable to provide V for the text in question. "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." is not verified yet. I could not verify the text using a dated 1965 source. However, there is a newer 2010 source available that makes a verified claim that we all know is well sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I believe that the 1965 reference is good support for a claim that quackery is a public health risk, especially on page 1219 as the citation states: "Ladimer, Irving (1965). "The Health Advertising Program of the National Better Business Bureau". Am J Public Health 55: 1217 - 1227. page 1219." No one has yet been able to show where in the full text of the 2010 source there is support for that claim. Please tell me where you think the claim of health risks of quackery is discussed in the 2010 source, other than one sentence in the abstract.  Joja  lozzo  23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2: I agree that if we removed "superstition" then we could condense the sentence to something like "Pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery." I appreciate your frustration and insights into the process here but think it's important to get everyone's perspective written here in their own words. I hope you share my view that actual substantial discussion points are a great improvement over links to past discussions, diffs and policy pages and will be critical in resolving this dispute. Joja  lozzo  22:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be agreeing with yourself. I did not agree to OR. You have not provided V. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @ jojo: I don't think anyone is questioning the idea that medical quackery is a potential risk to health. The thing under question here is what relation or relevance this has to the topic of pseudoscience.  As I said, not all pseudoscience is quackery, and not all quackery is pseudoscience - therefore the fact that quackery may be a danger says almost nothing about pseudoscience as a whole.
 * I thought we were looking for support for the claim that pseudoscience can increase the dangers of quackery in modern society, that quackery based on superstition, religion and fantasy doesn't have the same impact in a materialist society. Joja  lozzo  01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting claim if you have a source for it (this source doesn't say anything like that at all). however, even if you did, that would really belong on the quackery article, not here, since it's obviously not the case that all (or even a significant portion) of pseudoscience is medical in nature.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @ QG: actually, you' are the one involved in original research. you are taking a sourced statement out of context and using it to promote a different idea entirely.  and no, "Pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery" is not correct, and not what the source implies.  medical quackery is a health risk; whether or not it is pseudoscientific is secondary, and unrelated to any health risk that might exist.  The only reason the source invokes the broader pseudoscience concept is because the authors are primarily concerned with why people reason badly.   -- Ludwigs 2  00:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery" is not correct. It can't be a risk? Can you elaborate? Moriori (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see how "risk" is a vague enough word on it's own but I doubt we could find a source to support claims of health risk for all forms of quackery. Baldness nostrum based on olive oil? Joja  lozzo  01:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you were not trying to answer my question. Neither the Ludwigs statement nor my question inferred or mentioned '"all forms of quackery". Anyway I was more curious about the statement (paraphrased) that it is not true that pseudoscience "can be" a risk to...........Moriori (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moriori: let me spell it out as a logical fallacy. here's the logic being used (setting aside for the moment that neither premise is universally true):
 * Quackery can have health risks
 * Quackery is pseudoscience
 * Therefore, pseudoscience can have health risks
 * This is a form of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, in which an inappropriate association is drawn between 'pseudoscience' and 'health risks' because of the intermediary concept 'quackery'. We can start throwing in weasel words to make it more palatable (e.g. some pseudoscience), but that just obscures the core fallacy.  The problem with QG's statement "Pseudoscience can be a risk to public health when used to promote medical quackery", is that the main concept being presented is Pseudoscience is a risk to public health (the incorrect conclusion drawn above), weasled out by tossing in a 'can be' and adding a subsidiary clause about quackery.  The no logical reason to prefer this formulation over the more direct 'quackery can have health risks', except that if you use that formulation it clearly does not belong on this article.  (why there is such an insistence on having this bit in this article is a different issue we needn't go into - suffice it to say that there's no rational reason for it).  -- Ludwigs 2  03:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if you answered my question. Is it not true that pseudoscience can be a risk to........X? Yes? No? Moriori (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if Ludwigs2 did not answer your question again. I would prefer it if you read the answer he gave at 3:30 and made sure you understand it. The point is not if this (rather obvious but also rather irrelevant) fact is true or not; the point is whether it is pertinent to this article. The statement is very much akin to "mammals can be rapists", which, while obviously true in a technical sense, certainly would not belong in the article mammals even if someone managed to find a reliable source. Hans Adler 07:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if Ludwigs actually answered my question with a yes or no. I am querying Ludwigs statement which did not specify relevance to inclusion in the article which your astonishing non sequitur mentions. He made a categorical statement (paraphrased) that it is not true that pseudoscience "can be" a risk to......X.  I think he should answer the question, so we can maybe see what motivates him here. I think that Wikipedia should be worried that someone can say QG's "can be a risk" means "is a risk" . Moriori (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He did ask me to elaborate, so I'm not sure what's up with that. I would prefer if he told us what he found unclear about that response.  It seems very straightforward to me. -- Ludwigs 2  08:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it not true that pseudoscience can be a risk to........X? Yes? Or No? Moriori (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see Ludwig's answer to that question. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) One of the sources used for the article is



The book explicitly discusses the problems or dangers of unproved clinical methods in psychology that are based on "potentially pseudoscientific techniques". The book is a collection of articles by experts. In the introduction there is a carefully argued section entitled, "Why potentially pseudoscientific techniques can be harmful." The word "quackery" is not used in the book; however, the risk in using clinical methods where there is scant empirical evidence is discussed in detail. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Mathsci: again, no one is suggesting that there there isn't a medical issue here. Some clinical practices (in the medical sense of the phrase) can sometimes have a deleterious effect - we're all agreed on that.  However, not all pseudoscience-based clinical practices have deleterious effects, and not all of of the practices that have deleterious effects are properly considered pseudoscience-based, and none of this has any relation to the vast range of pseudosciences that have nothing whatsoever to do with medicine and no conceivable health effects at all (unless you consider being probed by aliens or having your thoughts stolen by a parapsychologist to be a public health issue).


 * The quote doesn't belong here, because the way it's used takes it out of its original article context in order to assert that there are public health issues with pseudoscience broadly put, which is just silly on the face of it. it's wp:OR via panning-for-quotes.  I am frankly shocked that there are so many people swimming upstream against reason just to keep this silly paragraph in the article.  common sense and logic both say that this quote (if it is used at all) should be somewhere specific to medical issues (which is the context of the article it comes from) not being pushed into some heavy-handed statement about pseudoscience as a whole.  -- Ludwigs 2  11:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not mention the quote at all, except for the word "quackery". The reliable source I mentioned spends a lot of space considering some medical treatments with a potentially pseudoscientific basis and the harm that they might cause. So from a broader perspective the views presented in that book and similar books should be represented. The authors there have their own careful way of phrasing things: they do not use the term "quackery" anywhere. So their meaning can be conveyed by a simple paraphrase or even a direct quote if appropriate. Concentrating on one sentence from a recent article does not seem at all worthwhile if similar content can be found elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * However, both you and the source you mention are explicit that this is limited to medical treatments, and as you and I both know 'quackery' is a derogatory reference to certain kinds of non-scientific medicine. Your source does not solve the core problem here, which is that people are taking a taking a risk encountered in bad medicine and trying to expand it (unreasonably) to a risk of bad science.


 * Again, by analogy (to co-opt Hans' example from above): the following two statements are true: (i) Humans are mammals. (2) Humans have no fur. it might be appropriate to add a line in the 'Human' article which says "Humans are mammals who lack fur".  It would be completely inappropriate to add a line to the 'Mammal' article that says "Mammals are creatures who lack fur when they are human".  The fact that humans lack fur probably does not belong on the mammal article at all - certainly it should not be part of the overview where the concept 'mammal' is defined.  likewise, the fact that bad medicine might have health risks does not belong as part of the definition of pseudoscience.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reputable scientists have written that potentially pseudoscientific techniques used in medical treatments can be hazardous. At the moment you seem to be suggesting that statements like this from a WP:RS, satisfying WP:V, cannot be used in this article. Is this correct? Mathsci (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * again, that's not what I'm suggesting, never has been, never will be, and I have already made numerous statements to the contrary. Please read the discussion before making comments; ignorance is not an excuse for gross misstatements of this sort.  This is not about wp:V or wp:RS, this is about wp:UNDUE and wp:SYN.  thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, this dispute is eerily similar to an earlier one in which a source was abused by quote-mining absurd claims that, among other things, the entire topic of ghosts is pseudoscientific. That dispute was blown out of all proportion because a lot of scientifically oriented readers participated without realising what it was about. The disruption only stopped after I had wasted many hours of my life on compiling detailed evidence about it for a user RfC. (I believe the user in question learned something in the process, in which case it was at least not completely futile.)
 * The question is not whether medical pseudoscience exists, or whether it is harmful. (Of course the answer to both questions is yes.) The main question is whether medical pseudoscience should be portrayed as dominating the topic of pseudoscience in general. It's not about whether to say certain things in the article, but about how and where to say them. And the proponents of conflating pseudoscience and quackery are abusing a source that only says what they want it to say if you blatantly ignore its context. Hans Adler 08:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors are suggesting that there there isn't a medical issue here when they blatantly ignore the source and its context. If editors think the article is not balanced then they can present additional sources to expand but not delete a high-quality source they have a personal disagreement with. The text is well sourced and is a good summary of the 2010 source. Hans Adler, the claim you added "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health.[69]" is not supported by the 1965 reference. The claim "The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud." did not pass V when you did provide V. Please don't restore text that failed V. Hans Adler, do you agree to stop blindly adding OR. At the top of this thread I requested V but the editors who continue to add the OR have refused to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * *sigh*
 * "Editors are suggesting that there there isn't a medical issue here when they blatantly ignore the source and its context." – I am not sure that anyone here denies that medicine-related pseudoscience can cause health threats. (Ludwigs2 denied something related but subtly different, and context is everything.) I have not seen such a denial. However, pseudoscience that is not related to medicine (e.g. creationism) is almost never a health threat, and no amount of cherry picking and quoting out of context from sources that very obviously only speak about medical pseudoscience, although the fail to mention the fact, is going to change this.
 * I reverted you because you changed "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health" to "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health" and moved the paragraph where this appeared from a separate section below "Identifying pseudoscience" up into the more prominent section "Overview", where it doesn't belong. The first sentence is clearly true, although I am not sure that we have a source for it at the moment. The second sentence is bullshit in the technical sense. Obviously if I had known that the footnote after the first sentence, far from supporting it, has practically nothing to do with it, then I would have removed the footnote and tagged the sentence as citation needed.
 * The following sentence appears to claim that I did something: "The claim 'The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.' did not pass V when you did provide V." For the life of me I can't guess what you are claiming that I have done. Please write more clearly and make sure not to get editors confused. On the substance, I remember various versions of the NSF's Science and Engineering Indicators as saying things similar to this sentence, but I don't know whether that particular sentence (which seems completely unnecessary in this article, for more than one reason) is true or not, and I can't be bothered to check. If my attention had been drawn to that sentence when I reverted you, I might have simply removed it. Hans Adler 19:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, no more blatant policy violations. Your reverted QuackGuru because it seems you did not like what the reliable source said. Deleting sourced text becuase you did not like where it was in the article is not right. The text is sourced from a 2010 reliable source but you preferred to blindly revert after it was explained in the edit summary the text was OR. See WP:IDHT. Now that Hans Adler and other editors are unable to provide V they should move on rather than continue restoring OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue with QuackGuru has been referred to administrators at Administrators%27_noticeboard. Please feel free to contribute there.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How about you try to not add original research or replace sourced text with text that failed V and as suggested by PPdd  improve the text (rather than continuing to delete a source you have a strong personal disagreement with). The text was a good summary of the 2010 source. Can you think of an even better summary? QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR: "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery are serious threats to public health.[60][61]"


 * page 1219.
 * page 1219.

I was unable to verify the text using references currently in the article. Sourced text was replaced with OR.

This text along with other sourced text was deleted from the article. "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health."


 * This very reliable source was deleted from the article.

Possible WP:OR: "The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud.[64]" There still seems to be original research in Pseudoscience. Can any editor provide V for the text. I tried to explain this to other editors before but the challenged text remains in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Suitability of the source
The main discussion has become complex and I am finding it hard to track. For my sake and perhaps others' I propose separating out the issue of the value/applicability/suitability of the disputed source and ask that we maintain that focus in this subsection.

Everyone agrees that there is one introductory, motivational sentence in the abstract stating that pseudoscience is a threat to public health. I and others have stated that to be a useful source there must be some justification for this statement in the full text. However, no one has yet shown us where in the full text there is support for (or simply mention of) the claim that pseudoscience is a public health risk, not even QuackGuru, the editor who originated the citation and insists we include it. We have had days in which anyone could have read the source and reported where it discusses pseudoscience and public health. I see three reasons, possibly all simultaneously true, why this has not yet occurred: 1) the article contains nothing beyond the throw-away sentence in the abstract to support the claim, which is highly likely given that the source is not about public health, 2) those who think this is an important contribution to our topic have not actually read the full text (the source is only available online for a fee), and 3) some think that a single sentence in the abstract is all we need to make an encyclopedic claim without regard for whether the full text includes any support for that claim. Joja  lozzo  02:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to speculate on the reasons why no one has presented a justification for this from the full text. I think all we need to do is point out the fact that no one has, and that should be sufficient to exclude this source from this article - when/if someone does present it, we can reconsider.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Still no evidence that the full text of the 2010 source addresses the claim of health threats or anything about public health. While quite active in other discussions since I posted this latest request, QuackGuru is remarkably silent on this point. Joja  lozzo  01:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did present the evidence on 17:58, 8 March 2011 that the full text of the 2010 source addresses the issues you claim is not in the full text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, your objection was that the full text did not address the claim of health threats or anything about public health. But I did provide the evidence on 17:58, 8 March 2011. Jojalozzo, can you acknowledge the text is sourced and similar text is found in the full text too.
 * "Further information about the process of peer review and production can be found in this document: What happens to my paper?
 * The source published in a reliable journal passes WP:V with flying colors. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that on 8 March 2011 you said: "So indeed the full text does give a detailed explanation and context that there is a threat to public health" (my emphasis) but you offer no further justification for this statement. By my reading of the paper there is complete lack of detail and context for the authors' statement about public health. Please show us the text that provides the detailed explanation and context you refer to. 04:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that on 8 March 2011 you said: "So indeed the full text does give a detailed explanation and context that there is a threat to public health" (my emphasis) but you offer no further justification for this statement. By my reading of the paper there is complete lack of detail and context for the authors' statement about public health. Please show us the text that provides the detailed explanation and context you refer to. 04:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote "Please show us the text that provides the detailed explanation and context you refer to." Your objection was the full text did not mention anything about health threats or anything about public health. On 01:04, 9 March 2011 you claimed "Still no evidence that the full text of the 2010 source addresses the claim of health threats or anything about public health. While quite active in other discussions since I posted this latest request, QuackGuru is remarkably silent on this point." After I provided the evidence you are continuing to ask for "context". I did provide the context 17:58, 8 March 2011 and you could to acknowledge the source is also a reliable peer-reviewed reference. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for the text of anyone's previous statements or your interpretation of them. I am asking for the specific text which you say is the authors' detailed explanation for their claim that pseudoscience is a threat to public health. All I am seeing in the paper is a brief throw-away mention of public health once in the abstract and once in the body of the paper. I see no detail whatsoever. Unless you mean to stonewall or "not hear," it behooves you to either produce the text with the detailed explanation or stop pushing for inclusion of this reference. Joja  lozzo  20:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I did present it a while ago, but you did not reconsider it (or rather ignored it). No editor has given justification for deleting text that gives context and explains that there is a public heatlh threat from pseudoscience. The source also says "These are a serious matter of public health..." which shows it is sourced and gives context. The sentence refers to the previous sentences in the paragraph about pseudoscience. I'm sure I'm not the only editor who has read the full text source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I advise my readers to closely examine the references in Wikipedia because I have found it too common for editors to inappropriately "adapt" some sources to speak in favor of their ideology. This is one of those cases. An editor who clearly has a bone to pick with alternative medicine is attempting to develop the pseudoscience article as a reference to support his viewpoint. His reference has clearly used the "pseudo-" word to discredit complimentary medicine in order to justify the premise of the proposal made in the article. Circular sourcing in my opinion.


 * At issue here is how stable the article will be in the future. This issue has come up many times and if an alternative approach is not adopted, it will likely come up again ... and again. QG, why not try compromising rather than taking up so much of other editor's time? Tom Butler (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * quackGuru, I saw this at an/i, so I g have re-read both sources and neither of them justifies such a positive statement, nor, as pointed out above, could such a statement make sense when applied across the board to every form of pseudoscience.  It would be enormously more fruitful to discuss the evidence that specific forms of pseudoscience are dangers to the public health, and these are to be found in the various articles, and a selection could be used here. for example, the dangers of chiropractic and Christian Science are thoroughly documented. There has been too much selective quotation in  Wikipedia.    DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * QG is acting out of frustration??? Between going after the frustrated messenger and Kww's radical comment that, "...editors that believe that presenting pseudoscience in a favorable light is necessary to achieving balance don't have sufficient competence to edit" (I was referring to subjects labeled as pseudoscience!) I think we should give the article to QG and go hide before more of us get blocked.Tom Butler (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom Butler, I am summarising a relevant source which explains, amongs others things, the causes of pseudoscience. Is there a reason why you don't want material about the causes in this page.
 * DGG, the text I added to the article is actually a good summary of the pseudoscience article regarding pseudoscience. The text was not taken out of context. You wrote "It would be enormously more fruitful to discuss the evidence that specific forms of pseudoscience are dangers to the public health, and these are to be found in the various articles, and a selection could be used here." The articles made a claim about pseudoscience and public health with specific examples that are relevant here too. You claim using "a selection could be used here" but that is selective quotation and WP:OR if we used only a selection from the 2010 source. If you are suggesting to use only a selection here rather than summarising the pseudoscience claims from the 2010 source that would not be NPOV because the source is appropriate for this article too. You saw this at an/i, so you re-read both sources. The full text of 2010 source is not publicly available online. Since you read the source you might be able to help summarise it here. Can you think of a better summary of the source or do you support editors continuing to delete a relevant source. If you read both sources do you support the text that failed verification (no verification provided yet)? See . If you think the text is sourced can you provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete 'Impacts and concerns' section?
As far as I can tell, this entire section is a combination of original research, comments specific to medical quackery, and isolated cases where bad things happened. The only worthwhile comments in it are in the last two lines, where it talks about public science education, and that can better be handled in different sections (and I think already is). Does anyone have a valid analytical reason to retain this section? -- Ludwigs 2 04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I promised myself that, in the future, I would stay out of these fruitless discussions, but Ludwigs, you made a perplexing statement in your 04:39, 20 March 2011 edit summery: "Reich was not sent to jail for pseudoscience, but for violating commerce laws." I do not expect editors to allow anything in the article that admits potentially harmful damage from accusing someone of being pseudoscientific, but you cannot ignore the way overzealous people will use such a term to justify suppression of alternative theories.


 * From the Wilhelm Reich Museum website, the reason Reich was jailed was in part "The Complaint declared that orgone energy does not exist,..." Pseudoscience was not a commonly used term in those days, but the phrase "does not exist" is a modern day code phrase for pseudoscience. In fact, the description of orgone energy is nearly identical to the description of other subtle energy such as biofield energy and the same energy under half a dozen other names: (1) Mass free and has no inertia (making it difficult to measure); (2) Universal; (3) The medium for electromagnetic and gravitational activity; and, (4) That from which matter is created.


 * I am not arguing here that this is a real energy, although it is noteworthy that it keeps getting independently discovered. Modern incarnations of the energy are clearly identified as pseudoscience. For instance, search "energy" here. In my view, you reverted a good addition to the article for a bogus reason. Tom Butler (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, that isn't the issue. I have no doubts that Orgone qualifies as pseudoscience.  However, I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that any other purveyor of psuedoscience in the history of the universe will end up going to (and dying in) jail in quite the way that Reich did.  Might happen, of course, but it can't really be considered an 'impact' or 'concern' of pseudoscience.  This whole section seems to be little more than a series of scare stories about bad, bad things that happen to people who practice pseudoscience, and to that extent has no more place in the article than plot summaries for the Friday the 13th movies belong on the teen sexuality article.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience" not published in BJP 2010
I believe this article never made it into print, though a preprint edition has been available online since 3/16/2011 (8 days ago). Joja lozzo  03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A free version of the paper is available on the authors' institutional web site. but there is no indication that it has been peer reviewed. The only mention of pseudoscience and public health other than the notorious first sentence of the abstract is in the introduction: "Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." Joja  lozzo  04:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." It is your opinion the source is unreliable or bias. See this diff for more information on the reliability of the peer-reviewed source. The source will soon be published in the Br J Psychol . QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what you are referring to. I certainly didn't say the source was biased. Those are your words. I pointed out that the paper has never been published and nothing in the abstract or the full text justifies or supports tangential claims about public health. By my reading, statements in the paper about health appear to be simply motivation for a study of cognitive distortion - an extremely poor, weak source to rely on for a Wikipedia article. In my opinion the sources we have already do a fine job of supporting claims about the impacts of pseudoscience. Please explain what problems you see with the sources we have now and how referencing this cognitive distortion paper (if/when it's published) would resolve those problems. Joja  lozzo  03:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The source meets WP:V. You claim the source is weak but I previously shown the source is peer-reviewed and the current article does not discuss the specific details found in this particular source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The source fails wp:UNDUE. sorry.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, you claim the source fails wp:UNDUE because you seem to think the source is wrong. You think the source is not appropriate while you seem to prefer WP:OR according to your edit that added text you were unable to verify. What is piffle supposed to mean? Jojalozzo, you clearly dispute the source. What is dnft supposed to mean you wrote in your edit summary? QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * DNFT means "do not feed this," referring to what I consider a pointless dispute over the inclusion of a reference that may technically meet some of the standards for a source but which contains a single, solitary phrase without which it is useless as support for claims about pseudoscience and public health. Joja  lozzo  20:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "piffle" means that I think you said something that isn't worthy of serious consideration. And I say the reference fails UNDUE because (as I have said repeatedly) is it an off-hand phrase from the abstract of an article form a different field on a different topic.  And incidentally, the fact that you repeatedly refuse to address that point (aka IDHT) is what earns you piffles. -- Ludwigs 2  02:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The extremely reliable source explains the causality of pseudoscience related issues, among other things. It is indeed relevant to this article and should be given its DUEWEIGHT. How many other peer-reviewed sources are there about the problems related to pseudoscience and public health? There are other sources but this source is the most reliable that is peer-reviewed source. Do you understand peer-reviewed sources are more reliable than most other sources? The statement in the abstract is very similar to the statement in the full text. What claims in the full text do you think is sourced that would be a good summary to use in this article. The field of pseudoscience and illusionary thinking is related to an article about pseudoscience. According to the RfC on this source there are other similar sources currently in the article. But I suppose you think thoses sources are also UNDUE? Do you still think the entire section must be deleted because you don't think the term and the source about public health is wrong and your original research is right? See WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @QG: I am still interested in your explanation of problems you see with the sources we have now to support claims about the impacts of pseudoscience and how referencing this cognitive distortion paper (if/when it's published) would resolve those problems. Joja  lozzo  20:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I previously told you the source is peer-reviewed and you were unable to make a specific response to my comment about the source being peer-reviewed. It is not an argument to delete the source if the PubMed abstract is a little bit ahead of the print version. This is arguably the most reliable source for pseudoscience related health and education problems. The sourced text is not duplication from another peer-reviewed source. The current section is very short and does not have enough article content from reliable sources like peer-reviewed sources or any type of reliable source. I think most editors understand the source meets WP:V and WP:RS. I think you or any other editor needs to stop claiming the source is weak (unreliable) or not about pseudoscience related issues. The new section is very short and will improve if it is expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that the paper is probably peer reviewed but was pulled for some reason from the Nov 2010 BJP issue - since the paper does not address public health issues, it doesn't matter one way or the other in this discussion. I apologize for the distraction of bringing it up.
 * No matter how verifiable and reliable a source is, it's still got to support the material in the article to be useful. The Matute paper is concerned with cognitive errors and contains nothing beyond a cursory off-hand mention of public health threats. It is nowhere close to a Wikipedia-quality source for the public health impacts of pseudoscience. We have weeks of discussion here that I find most notable for the lack of, even the avoidance of, explanation for why this reference is useful and what it contributes that cannot be found in other sources. Joja  lozzo  02:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you claim the source is a paper, "probably" peer reviewed and pulled for some reason from the Nov 2010 BJP issue? The peer-reviewed source is not a paper and the source was not pulled or withdrawn. The Epub is ahead of the print. See Br J Psychol. 2010 Nov 18. [Epub ahead of print] . Your previous objection was that the full text did not discuss public health impact and now you are coming up with more excuses. The source is relevant to the topic and you should try to stop trying to block improvements to the article. Can you come up with a more accurate summary than the previous version? QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your quibble over whether this is a paper or not strikes me as one more way to avoid presenting the actual content of the paper that you feel is so critical for support of claims of public health threats of pseudoscience. By my reading the full text says nothing about public health beyond a throw away line. Your quibble of over my wording about the content of the paper again avoids the main issue which is where in this paper is there any detailed explanation of pseudoscience and public health that you have claimed here and here makes it such a good source. Joja  lozzo  17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The authors don't need to continue to repeat themselves in the full text to include an accurate summary here. The source is reliable despite your objections. See WP:SOURCES. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the authors need to do anything. Their paper is an interesting report on cognitive errors and is a reliable source on that topic. You on the other hand do need to back up your claims that "indeed the full text does give a detailed explanation and context that there is a threat to public health" and "the various aspects are discussed in more detail in the full text" or else give this up before your avoidance of addressing direct requests and questions brings unwanted attention. Joja  lozzo  18:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did provide the evidence from the full text but you have chosen to continue to ignore my comments.
 * "These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." is from the full text. As previously explained, the sentence that begins with "These are a serious matter of public health..." gives context. The sentence refers to the preceding sentences as being a serious matter of public health and educational policy. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already said I don't see that single sentence as "detailed explanation" and I can find nothing in the sentences before it having anything to do with public health. If this were a paper that was actually about public health and pseudoscience it would have real detail. This paper's single mention of public health does not meet my standard for detail. Your continuing to cling to these flimsy claims for this source are getting us nowhere. Your inability or unwillingness to advance this discussion is hindering productive work. Repeating the same arguments as if you don't hear the objections being raised simply draws attention to problems of collaborating on the project. Joja  lozzo  14:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." The authors think at least the text in the paragraph are serious matters involving public health and educational policy. That is detailed context and material. Your objection against using this reliable source is harmful to the project. The authors think pseudoscience is a threat to public health. Do you think pseudoscience is a benefit to public health. Do you think the source is relevant to this article. Do you still think the source is weak or unreliable when it is peer-reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What you or I think about public health threats is irrelevant. I stand by my statement that Matute et al. is a good source for the role of cognitive distortion in pseudoscience but an extremely weak source for claims about pseudoscience and public health. All these repetitive responses and the "not hearing" over the last two months have added nothing new to change my position. Joja  lozzo  20:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Poll for consensus on use of Matute et al. source
The question of whether we should use the Matute et al. source as support for claims of public health threats from pseudoscience has been discussed at length. I propose we poll to see if we have consensus. (Note: consensus doesn't mean we all agree but that a great number of us do and those who disagree have had sufficient opportunity to explain their position.)

Please keep explanations short and rebuttals, if any, shorter. Let's not recreate the discussion above, just get a sense of those working here.


 * Inappropriate - the (as yet to be published) Matute et al. source offers no useful support for claims about public health and pseudoscience. Joja  lozzo  20:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unusable. Neither the source nor the author are reliable for the topic in question (except, perhaps, in the narrow sense of discussing the cognitive biases that might lead people to believe in pseudoscience).  -- Ludwigs 2  04:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Both Ludwigs2 and Jojalozzo seem to have a personal disagreement with the source. To all editors: Wikipedia is not the place to act on personal conflicts with peer-reviewed literature. See WP:NOTBATTLE. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Usable. The abstract explicitly says "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health" and the researcher's subsequent discussion cites other works which have discussed various aspects of this in more depth. Is there any actual reason to believe that pseudoscience is not a serious threat to public health, when there are millions of people buying pseudoscientific treatments instead of seeing a real doctor? bobrayner (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, please read the ongoing discussion before rendering an obviously uninformed opinion. No one is questioning that some kinds of medical quackery produce health risks.  However, this quote is unusable because (a) it misrepresents what the source actually says, (b) it comes from a psychology journal that is not reliable for discussions of pseudoscience in general, and (c) the vast majority of pseudoscience (from UFOlogy to cryptozoology to cold fusion, to...) has no conceivable health impact whatsoever.  Your concerns about medical treatments may be valid; this article is not the place to address them, and this source is not useful for the purpose.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) Ludwigs2, you are continuing to misrepresent what the full text actually says when you claim the full text is being misrepresented. Bob explained the researcher's subsequent discussion cites other works which have discussed various aspects of this in more depth. (b) I previously explained this particular journal is peer-reviewed and very reliable per Wikipedia's WP:V policy. (c) I previously explained the source does not say all pseudoscience related issues are a threat to public health. Ludwigs2, please respect Wikipedia's policies. This article is the place to address pseudoscience illusionary thinking and public health impacts, among other things. No one is questioning that medical pseudoscience produce health risks except for you. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, I realise that you feel very strongly about this subject, but it's pretty unhelpful to say somebody is obviously uninformed because they support the use of a source for a statement which does not fit your beliefs. This, in addition to the misrepresentation, is very frustrating. I thought this was a poll. If this is something other than a poll, you might wish to change the section heading. bobrayner (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, I say your opinion is obviously uninformed because your opinion is obviously uninformed. That's not a problem, it's just something you need to correct.  If you'd care to give informed support to the use of this source in this way, I'd be more than happy to hear it.  But simply reiterating claims that have been raised and refuted earlier is senseless.  Find a better argument; don't rely on the threadbare and easily discounted silliness that QG consistently pushes.


 * With respect to polls, this is not USA Today; One expects polls on wikipedia to reflect a substantive understanding of the topic, not to be mere kneejerk responses. I suggested to jojolozzo that framing this as a poll might be a bad idea for precisely this reason, because it would attract a whole lot of 'me too' responses from people who's concerns about pseudoscience cause them to turn a deaf ear to considerations of logic and proper scholarship.  It seems to me there are plenty of valid sources detailing the problems with pseudoscience available in the world; we do not need to (and should not) misuse sources to make exaggerated claims about the subject.


 * And yes, please do keep up with the ad hominem arguments. The more you try to frame this as my beliefs rather than a question of proper scholarship, the easier you make this for me down the line.  You'll see.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bob, I'm very interested in hearing more about the other works referenced in the paper that discuss the public health threats of pseudoscience in more depth since I didn't see them and they might be proper sources for impacts of pseudoscience. Please briefly list some of them for me. Joja  lozzo  17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." The sentence refers to the preceding sentences in the same paragraph as being a serious matter of public health and educational policy. Jojalozzo, I thought I provided WP:V a while ago on this specific issue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * QG: I'm asking Bob, not you, about the other works he mentions. You (QG) and everyone else can find my still-unanswered and repeated requests addressed to you most recently in the previous section. Joja  lozzo  19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unusable for that but the paper's conclusions could be used in the article. Poor practice to pick up a minor point that is clearly only meant to contextualise the paper rather than the conclusions that the authors have demonstrated through their work. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. See this diff and this diff. The source is not a paper and the full text explains the issues in more detail. Itsmejudith, you are close to repeating the same comment by Jojalozzo where he previously claimed the source is just a paper after I explained to him a long time ago the source is peer-reviewed. Itsmejudith, do you think peer-reviewed journals are unreliabe? The source does not say all pseudoscience related issues are a threat to public health, anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Usable. Jojalozzo's previous objection was that the full text did not mention anything about public health issues (the various aspects are discussed in more detail in the full text). The text is accurately sourced in accordance with WP:V and very relevant to the topic at hand. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely usable This is mainstream scientific opinion. The scientific POV should be represented. There are few experts in "pseudoscience" as it is not a scientific field. The skeptic society might qualify... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need a scientific view. Rather than sources from pseudoscience experts, I like to see citations from public health practitioners. It doesn't make sense to me that cognitive psychologists end up being our choice to support public health claims, especially when the statement is clearly not intended to be authoritative. Joja  lozzo  19:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have a mainstream source that meets V. The source is peer-reviewed and is specifically about pseudoscience. Please stop suggesting the source is weak. You don't make any sense. Please stop your nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @QG: The Matute source is useless for our purposes and there is clearly no consensus for using it. Please drop this combative campaign and move on to constructive participation here. Joja  lozzo  01:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Joja: The Matute source is useful for our purposes here especially when you assert it is useless for no reason at all. Your disagreements are a personal issue and not based on policy. The source on pseudoscience is reliable according to V. You have never been able to show how a peer-reviewed source is unreliable according to V policy. You must stop editing against core Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue has been covered here again and again. Acting as if we haven't gone over this many times is considered tenditious and is grounds for administrative action. Also please stop posting on my personal talk page about this. It is not a personal issue. It is not between you and me. There is no consensus in the community here for your use of this source. Joja  lozzo  19:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are unable to give any good reason to deleteing this high-quality source. The issue that the source meets V has been covered here many times but you continue to ignore core policy. See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Cut and past of previous comment: "The source may be reliable from a letter of the wikilaw perspective but it's not a useful source since the reader cannot use it to find out about the health risks of pseudoscience in general or even those of quackery. The source is not about health risks! Most editors here wish to replace this source with others but every attempt to do so has been reverted. Outside perspectives are helpful but I'd prefer they be as informed as possible. Please read the full source not just the abstract and then tell us whether you think it's useful in this article. Jojalozzo 14:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)"

Cut and past of previous comment: "What you or I think about public health threats is irrelevant. I stand by my statement that Matute et al. is a good source for the role of cognitive distortion in pseudoscience but an extremely weak source for claims about pseudoscience and public health. All these repetitive responses and the "not hearing" over the last two months have added nothing new to change my position. Jojalozzo 20:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)"

From reliable source: "To this aim, we will first review laboratory studies both on the illusions of control and on the more general topic of causal learning in normal individuals, in order to show that these research lines provide convergent evidence and interesting suggestions that can help understand the illusions responsible for pseudoscientific thinking. A very simple experiment will then be reported as an example of how predictions arising from those laboratory traditions can be used to reduce the illusions and to design effective programmes to combat pseudoscience."

"The source may be reliable from a letter of the wikilaw perspective..." per Jojalozzo 14:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)" According to Jojalozzo the source seems reliable. According to V policy how could a peer-reviewed source be unreliable. The source discusses pseudoscientific thinking, among other things. So how is a source about pseudoscience not be relevant to an article on pseudoscience. What is happening here?

This part of another comment claims the source is good and weak: "I stand by my statement that Matute et al. is a good source for the role of cognitive distortion in pseudoscience but an extremely weak source for claims about pseudoscience and public health.Jojalozzo 20:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)" It makes no sense to claim a source is good and then claim part of the source is weak or unreliable. How does this source violate policy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is old ground. As I said before multiple times the Matute paper could make a good citation for cognitive distortion and the psychology of pseudoscience but has no utility as a source for claims about public health. Just as $100 bill is useful for purchasing a fine meal but not so good for cleaning up after one, the paper's value to us depends on how we propose to use it. Please stop bringing this up again and again. The Matute paper simply sucks as a source for anything to do with public health. Can't you find anything better? Why is it so important that we use this crappy source and not some other, proper one? Let's move on already. Joja  lozzo  03:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I provided V and explained on your talk page the text is an accurate summary. Did you read your talk page recently. The source meeets V and arguably WP:MEDRS too. QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said on my talk page, this is not a personal issue but a community one. Personalizing it is unhelpful. Please keep your comments on this talk page. Repeating "V" "V" "V" instead of addressing legitimate questions about and arguments against using this source is just more not hearing. Joja  lozzo  00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * usable as a mainstream paper in a mainstream journal explaining the mainstream situation. It explains that pseudoscience, quackery and superstitions are a problem for public health, both in the summary and in the main text, and then it explores a certain path to reduce the problem. And yes, we should find better sources that directly analyze the relationships between public health and pseudoscience, but this paper is good enough for the statement made. Find better sources, then replace the Matute source. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see where there is any explanation of the public health problem. There is a one sentence mention of there being such a problem but nothing I would call an "explanation." Nor does it mention public health anywhere in relation to minimizing the problem. Are you reading the same paper I am? Joja  lozzo  02:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read your talk page if you have not read it lately. QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing new in what you wrote on my talk page. It's the same repetitive wikilegal line you've been feeding us for nearly half a year. That argument is no more valid on my talk page than it is here. The paper is about cognitive psychology not public health effects of pseudoscience. There is no explanation of the single statement in the abstract and the single statement in the paper that mentions public health. They are two throw-away, unsourced and unsupported statements in a paper about an entirely different topic. There is no consensus for using this source and everyone who has supported the use of it (including you) has been unable to answer my requests for the "explanation" they claim is contained in the paper. Joja  lozzo  00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposal is very similar to the text from the article. There are at least three main points from the article. We can include more text from the source to ensure the full text is not taken out of context. Without including this part would be taking the source out of context. The explanation that it is an accurate summary is on your talk page. The authors think pseudoscience is a "serious matter". I did explain the public health statement is discussed in the full text and pasted the paragraph on your talk page. You are unable to provide a specific response based on Wikipedia policy. See WP:SILENCE. You did admit the source is a good source for at least something but your argument that part of the article is a weak source was not based on any policy. Please drop your continuing attempt to block the inclusion a a very reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I told you I'm not discussing this issue on my talk page. This is not a problem just between you and me. Please stop personalizing it. If you have points to make please do it here. If the authors' expression, "a serious matter", is the best quote you can present as their "explanation" of how pseudoscience is a public health risk, then you are wasting our time. That empty phrase just emphasizes how weak the source is for the purpose you propose. Joja  lozzo  18:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When the authors express that pseudoscience is a "serious matter of public health" that shows how strong a statement the authors are making. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, since that is all the authors say about public health, it is absolutely clear how poor the source is for the purpose you propose. You and your supporters have claimed the paper explains the relationship of pseudoscience and public health but none of you have been able to produce the wording of that explanation. Each time I have requested the wording, the discussion thread stops. The best you can come up with is that the authors consider it a "serious matter." Are you claiming that this single solitary sentence mentioning public health constitutes an explanation?  Joja  lozzo  20:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not usable I have to agree with Jojalozzo. The phrase: "The proposal we put forward is ..." alone is enough to make it clear that the author is arguing his theory (OR) and using "pseudoscience" as a justification. I did not see supporting phrases in the article. Can you show them to us?


 * As a second point, this is obviously a point of contention that will keep the article unstable. Unnecessary!Tom Butler (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can show you this diff. I think you don't have any point based on Wikipedia policy. We can't take the source out of context. The text is a summary of the full text. Not including this statement is OR when using this source. QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can save yourself some grief by including the reference in the Quack article instead of this one. That seems to be the point of the "danger" issue. From here I see that the man is expressing an opinion and I see he is using Wiseman as a reference. I will bet Wiseman uses this guy as a reference someplace.


 * The paragraph you are referring to is just an expanded version of the abstract and both are supporting the phrase "The proposal we put forward ..." which is clearly referencee to his original research: expression of an opinion he hopes to prove in future research.  The paragraph you are referring to also has no references other than the analysis of a known POV pusher.  So I think I do have a point and including the reference is clearly POV pushing. Tom Butler (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The text is sourced. Questioning the researchers is not productive. There is no part of WP:OR that supports your objection to the sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claim requires stronger sources
Because the Matute et al. paper is not about public health, I have proposed several times that proponents for using the paper in this article should be able to provide sources that do more than just mention public health risks. So far more complete treatments of the issue have not been provided. Others here have questioned whether pseudoscience other than quackery can be a health risk and the lack of any acceptable support suggests this is an extraordinary claim, reinforcing my view that this paper is an inappropriate source for statements about the public health risks of pseudoscience. This section is offered as a place to discuss other sources that might support the position. Joja lozzo  20:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Related issues (stronger sources are not required)
 * Repeated pattern of violating core policies

Jojalozzo, you replaced sourced text with a 1965 reference on quackery that did not verify the claim. The previous reference you deleted against V policy verified the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health." You added OR. The sentence "Pseudoscience can negatively impact health, politics and education." was also OR.

You added OR. The sentence "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions, and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." is OR. The sentence "The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud." is also OR.

You added "Pseudoscientific explanations and concepts acquired by students outside of school can be obstacles in science education." The sentence is OR. For example, you were unable to verify the claim.

Please try not to add unsourced text or text that failed verification to the article. Do you agree to stop adding WP:OR?


 * Solid mainstream source in accordance with V

The Mattel et al. ref is a high-quality source. Your objection seems to be with V policy. You appear to have a personal disagreement with the authors. It is inappropriate behaviour for any editor to suggest the source is unreliable.

It is OR if you take the source out of context. We must include the public health issue because the authors think pseudoscience is a serious matter.

One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

"These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." These are a "serious matter of public health" refers to at least to the entire paragraph in quotations.

From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

The authors thought it was so important they summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the authors pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It is OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points.

Before you discuss other sources you can agree that  the WP:V compliant source must be restored and sumarised at Pseudoscience. The Matute et al. source is also about public health issues in regard to pseudoscience. Questioning whether pseudoscience other than quackery can be a health risk when the text is supported by the source suggests a personal disgreement with the authors.

Please stop your original research and editing against core Wikipedia policy. You have repeatedly ignored my comments on the talk page. Do you agree to stop editing against Wikipedia policy and agree the peer-reviewed reliable source must be restored. Please remove the OR you added to the article. You have refused to provided verification in accordance with V policy. Please try to start collaborating with other editors rather than continue to ignore the concerns in regard to your repeated pattern of edits against long established policy. You are trying the patience of the community. Do you understand that a lot of text you added to the article is against Wikipedia policy. Do you agree you will make an effort to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, TLDR. The tone here is verging on bullying. I've added a header since it doesn't fit in the section above. Joja  lozzo  02:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that I've found time to look this over I see you have referred to a lot of old edits, problems that have been corrected, water under the bridge. Not sure why you're bringing it up now and why so accusatory, strident and demanding. We're just Wikipedians not politicians running on our past records.
 * It's still a bit too long to read and a bit rambling. I do better with more concise and focused discussions. I also find all these links to diffs, web sites and policy mostly a distraction - not sure what purpose they serve especially when they are repetitions of links in past postings.
 * I am unable to find new contributions in what you have written - maybe I missed them. If not, I don't think we will make progress if you continue to make the same arguments over and over without directly addressing my argument that the paper is a weak source for our purposes because it contains just one sentence about health risks of pseudoscience with no explanation, no reference to an explanation, actually no support at all, just what appears to be the authors' opinion included to help justify their research.
 * My position, as you know, is that this paper on it's own is insufficient support, just too weak, for claims about health risks of pseudoscience and since no one, including myself, has produced any better sources with real science behind it, perhaps no better sources exist. You pointed out problems with the sources I located and I haven't been able to find anything better. Perhaps we should just forget about claims regarding health risks of pseudoscience and leave that for Quackery where sources for public health risks abound. Joja  lozzo  16:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All the problems have not been corrected. Let's start with the first sentence at the top of this particular section: "Jojalozzo, you replaced sourced text with a 1965 reference on quackery that did not verify the claim." You did not correct this problem. Do you think WP:OR is a problem. The authors believe pseudoscience issues "are a serious matter of pulic health." The supported claim refers to at least to the entire paragraph in quotations. Do you understand you should stop your repeated pattern of replacing sourced text with OR and repeately adding OR againt Wikipedia policy? I assume you know the Matute source is about the "illusions of causality are likley at the heart of pseudoscience. Is there any reason based on policy that this strong mainstream reliable source cannot be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Accusations of policy violations to magically transform Matute et al. into a suitable source?
 * Conflating my objections to the Matute et al. paper with my attempts to provide other sources doesn't improve the standing of the Matute paper. You may be correct about my past edits. They were the best I could do to provide content about concerns related to pseudoscience but may well not meet the standards of this project. That's how it goes sometimes. However, I question your raising these concerns (accusations) in this discussion of the Matute et al. paper. Objections to the use of other sources has no bearing whatsoever on the applicability of the Matute paper. It remains a very poor source for claims of health risks of pseudoscience as I and many others here have stated. Pointing to other problems with the article does not magically transform Matute et al into a suitable source.
 * And no, the rest of the paragraph does not expand on the public health risks of pseudoscience except to indicate it as the wider category that includes quackery (and of course we can find any number of much better sources to support public health claims against quackery). This is not a criticism of the paper since it does not purport to address such concerns, it being a report on the authors' investigations into cognitive distortion. Joja  lozzo  17:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You replaced sourced text with a 1965 reference on quackery that failed to verify the claim. The previous reference you deleted against V policy verified the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health." The Matute et al. ref is a high-quality source that meets V policy. Your objection seems to be with V policy. You seem to have a personal disagreement with the authors. Do you think it is inappropriate behaviour to suggest the source is unreliable. You have not shown how the source is unreliable.
 * The source is practically entirely on the topic of pseudoscience.

One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

The authors summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the authors pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It is OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points because it would be taking the source out of context.

From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

Do you understand the WP:V compliant source must be restored and sumarised at Pseudoscience?


 * And yes, the rest of the paragraph explains what "these are serious matters of public health" are to indicate the pseudoscience issues. For example, the source states "Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience...". The source is about pseudoscience but you are trying to replace sourced text with a source on quackery. Do you agree the Matute et al. reference meets V policy and is relevent to this page? QuackGuru (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is about cognition in relation to pseudoscience. However, their claims about public health risks apply only to quackery not pseudoscience in general.
 * I thought BBB report was about pseudoscience. If I was mistaken, then let's not use it. See? It's that easy. Joja  lozzo  15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Were you mistaken, and will you move on? QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have been mistaken about the BBB source (though I am only responding to your unexplained claims that it was a mistake) but the whole point here is that has no bearing on the Matute source. Since you evidently did not hear it before I will say it again in bold: Your issues with my edits have no bearing on the suitability of the Matute et al. source. So if you want to move on, let's drop the Matute et al. source and locate some sources that we can all agree on. Joja  lozzo  02:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not given any good reason to leave out a mainstream reliable source on the topic of pseudoscience. Please don't tell editors to find other sources when the Matute et al. source is on topic. Please restore the source on pseudoscience rather than the source on quackery. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for using Matute et al. I and others have spent significant time and good faith explaining why. Beating on this dead horse is not moving the project forward. I think we have discussed it enough and further pressure to use this source despite the lack of consensus is likely to involve administrative attention. Joja  lozzo  02:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to V policy the source is very reliable. You and others have spent time explaining your personal disagreement with the source. Moving the project further is restoring the source. Suggesting the source is not suitable for an article on pseudoscience when the source is on the topic pseudoscience requires explanation based on policy. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claim requires more than tangential support
Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." To include any claim about the public health risks of pseudoscience (other than quackery) in this article we need sources that directly support it. The Matute et al. paper on cognitive distortion is unsuitable because it only tangentially discusses pseudoscience and public health risks and even then only as the wider category that encompasses quackery. Joja lozzo  04:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Verification in accordance with V policy was provided on your talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic. This is not between you and me. Personalizing this by posting to my talk page will not make the paper any more applicable than does accusing me of policy violations.
 * Topic: "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." The paper does not directly support the claim and is unsuited for use in this article. Joja  lozzo  15:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Summary of full text by the authors from abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."
 * Proposal that is directly supported by the ref: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health." QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One unexplained, offhand sentence in a paper about cognitive distortion is not direct support. It is insufficient support for such a general sweeping claim that normally is only applied to quackery. Please drop it. Joja  lozzo  02:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The peer-reviewed source states the pseudoscience issues "are a serious matter of public health." There are many examples of the pseudoscience issues. These serious matters are directly supported by the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are detailed examples of the pseudoscience public health matters. For example, "Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15)."


 * I propose we include this text for now because I provided the detailed explanation of the serious matters and there was no objection based on Wikipedia policy. "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health." This proposal is for Pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Demographics
The serious matters that are a threat to public health are:

"The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

The threat to public health is a statement made as a conclusion rather than an assumption. I propose we summarise the main points for the Pseudoscience section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This quote mentions no health risks that fall outside of the category of quackery. No one disputes that quackery is a threat to public health and there are many superior sources for that other than Matute et al. This campaign to include the Matute et al. source has gone on for over half a year and no one has changed their mind in that time. The lack of consensus here is clear and your apparent unwillingness to accept that is nonconstructive and uncooperative. Joja  lozzo  03:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is indeed about the topic psedoscience according to the source: "This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience." This proposal is for the Pseudoscience. Do you have a specific objection to include the serious matter examples at Pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah! I didn't understand that from your proposal. I'd support this use of the source. Could you provide some proposed text/paraphrase that we can work on?
 * I also think Matute et al. would work well in improving Pseudoscience.
 * I'm glad to see we have found some common ground. Thanks, Joja  lozzo  18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * QG asked me if I had specific objections here. I do. The tone of the suggested paragraph, though a better use of Matute specifically, is still polemical and reads like a litany of things to be scared of.  It does not convey a neutral encyclopedic voice, so we'd have to quote it selectively and in context.  The selection and placement of facts contributes to an exaggerated synthesis regarding the degree of threat posed by belief/practice of pseudoscience.   "Almost any country" is too broad and casual a phrase.   "Not too different" is too loose as well.  Phrases like 'moreover' are argumentative and not in a neutral voice; they are 'making a case' which is basically the opposite of NPOV; sources can have opinions, but we must WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.  The phrasing of 'also', 'another, quite dramatic example', use of stem cell tourism as proof of pseudoscience or a health risk, and finally "state of affairs...not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience" all contribute to the unsuitability of this as an encyclopedic summary of the issue.  How we use it to our purposes must be consistent within NPOV and possibly requires attribution to differentiate Matute's opinion from other sources that make less strong and sprawling a case. Ocaasit 20:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. The quoted text above is just the first paragraph of Matutue et al. I assume we'll be paraphrasing this and using the references they provide as well as the paper itself as a source. I understand QG to be proposing we use the paper to guide us in addressing demographics not quoting it wholesale.
 * @QG: I and Ocaasi I think are having trouble figuring out what you are suggesting. Please clarify your proposal. Joja  lozzo  01:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jojalozzo wrote in part: "This quote mentions no health risks that fall outside of the category of quackery." See "This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience." The article is about pseudoscience and the text says it is pseudoscience.
 * Ocaasi wrote in part: QG asked me if I had specific objections here. I do." Without a specific proposal Ocassi objects to the use of the source. Ocaasi also wrote in part: "Almost any country" is too broad and casual a phrase." The text is sourced and "Almost any country" is a main point from the source.
 * I'd rather rewrite it rather than quoting it but Ocaasi want to attribute the text when there is no serious dispute. These are the pseudoscience examples that are a serious matter of public health. We must properly summarise the text including the demographics pseudoscience examples, the serious matters of public health text and cognitive psychological explanations. If we don't properly summarise the source it is OR to take the source out of context. The text is from a recent peer-reviewed source and must be given dueweight. QuackGuru (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have to use other people's arguments carefully if we are going to mine them for facts, or else we have to attribute their opinions per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. ASF is only for plain facts, like 'Mars is a planet'.  Arguments about the perceived danger of a varied and nebulous concept like pseudoscience need more careful handling or more precise attribution.  ASF is only one aspect of NPOV.  WEIGHT too is not a guarantee of inclusion, even for a peer-reviewed source.  Don't forget that editorial discretion is a required tool when it comes to presenting a source fairly and in a way that produces an unbiased article.  Editorial discretion and evaluating context are not original research.  To be clear, I don't object to stating Matute's facts directly, but his opinions need attribution.  This is not a systematic review which has a definite and corroborated conclusion, it is an argumentative narrative paper.Ocaasit 02:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not shown how the text is controversial. I could add text from other sources that says Pseudoscience is a danger and is widespread. You have shown you have a personal disagreement with the author and think the source is mainly an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)