Template talk:ArbCom Pseudoscience

Start
I have attempted to improve the existing template (which exists in slightly different versions as a box, and not a true template), so that we can use one standard version. Comments here have been taken into account.

This template may be used on the talk pages of articles, lists, and categories related to pseudoscience, and should replace existing boxes. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Background
While this content has existed for several years in the form of boxes, which sometimes varied in content, it has been the focus of discussion recently, so I decided to standardize it into this template. The discussions are located here:


 * Clarification request: Pseudoscience#Principles

There was broad support for the content as non-binding ArbCom decisions and guidelines which have so far been of use to the community. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would propose that the specific examples of astrology and psychoanalysis be removed. They are reflective of a viewpoint from 7 years ago, and did not involve an analysis of the sources to characterise each on the part of arbcom. The difference between each category is more a continuum of where you place each entry, and how something is treated is wholly dependent on the sources. For example, the idea that astrology is generally considered pseudoscience instead of obvious pseudoscience is contrary to the sources and to the current consensus and practice. I also think calling them theories dilutes the meaning of the word, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines, decisions or principles
I just wanted to point out that the edit summary given here has absolutely nothing to do with the edit I made, but I suppose "principles" works well enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand. You (and I) were just following the suggestion by Roger Davies, an ArbCom member. ArbCom can make "rulings" about many things, and that was the original wording, but, to avoid misunderstandings, we all decided that a softening was in order. "Principles" works for me. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed replacement template
In the discussion at the ArbCom Request for Clarification, arbitrators and an editor have recommended that the banner focus on guidelines and policies, rather than past ArbCom decisions, commented on the length and on the tone of the existing templates. In a parallel discussion at Talk:Flat Earth, Ragesoss suggested that a simpler, less intimidating banner be created for use on talk pages. BullRangifer replied that "As far as designing a more condensed template, that might be nice, but I don't have much spare time right now" and suggested that a shorter template could be worked out on the template's talk page.

I decided to take up this suggestion, reading through the findings of ArbCom concerning suggestion pseudoscience, and using them as a basis for editing the template into a more compact form. My intended audience is any editor who would want to know how ArbCom's decisions applied Wikipedia guidelines and policies to articles touching on pseudoscience. Stylistically, I eliminated all the bold links, which can look very much like shouting. My editing drew on the existing template, making the following changes:
 * The initial three points were condensed and reduced to two, consolidating the duplicative first and third points. An additional point about reliable sources and their relation to notability was added as was ArbCom's cautionary finding that contemporary validity does not determine notability, which relates directly to my concern with historical articles.
 * The four point classification of pseudoscience was deleted in its entirety, as it does not give any meaningful guidance to editors of an article that is already considered as dealing with pseudoscience.
 * The discussion of discretionary sanctions was recast in less of a "stern parent" tone, following Bishonen's suggestion.

I suggest the following draft revision to replace the existing template:

I look forward to discussions of this proposed replacement. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * !! Excellent work.


 * The last sentence could be tweaked a bit to make it less personal and "pointy". Here's a suggestion:


 * Any editor who edits inappropriately on pages relating to pseudoscience, may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks.


 * I do miss the four groupings which inform when and when not to use Category:Pseudoscience. That is valuable information, and basically nearly the only reason for the existence of the template. It is THAT part which prevented chaos. Could that be baked down into a condensed version with links? Otherwise a great effort. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I think I understand where you're coming from about the four categories of pseudoscience, but I don't see how that provides anything really useful for an editor of an article -- especially if the article is already categorized as dealing with pseudoscience.
 * I think, however, that it may be more useful to provide this material as template documentation on the template page rather than in the template itself. Thus the documentation will provide information as to when and where the template should be used.  Such documentation is generally a good idea for templates and will encourage its appropriate use. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dang! I just commented at your page before seeing this. I explain there why the four groups are important to mention. They are the most important part of the template, and what is solely responsible for the relatively peaceful conditions we have experienced for several years in the PSI area.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by the "more useful....as...documentation" part, but I suspect you will enlighten us... You're doing good work. Keep it up. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience#Principles
The Clarification request is now closed:
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Clarification request: Pseudoscience#Principles

Brangifer (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarity of wording
We say, "may be so labeled and categorized as such without more."

Without more what? The sentence is incomplete.

For the examples, where we say "theories which are A but also B", the examples need to come either before both A and B, or after both A and B. We had them in the middle, which means that astrology is not an example of pseudoscience, and psychoanalysis is not an example of a theory claimed to be pseudoscience, but only that they are examples of theories which have a following. I hesitated over whether the examples should go before or after the A-but-B, and chose after so as to be less intrusive, but we might want before so that readers don't get lost. (BTW, I agree that it sounds better to have them in the middle, it's just not very logical there.)

— kwami (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Astrology is obvious pseudoscience and is generally considered pseudoscience. So the division is inherently problematic. Personally I would favour removing the examples as the examples aren't clear nor do they appear to agree with sourcing, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the example is useful because every time we get another round of outraged supporters of Truth trying to make the astrology article more "balanced", we can point out that the Arbcom decision uses astrology as their prototypical example of pseudoscience. Very handy.  — kwami (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this discussion. Keep in mind that the wording is from the ArbCom decision, so tampering with it is not only risks changing the meaning, we don't have the authority to revise ArbCom decisions. (If the wording were truly problematic, we should seek to get it amended. That can be done.) Moving words can subtly, but effectively, change meanings, so I'm reverting back to the original version. It was good enough.


 * "Without more" implies that sourcing is not necessary. It's a case of IAR and use common sense when there is no doubt that calling it pseudoscience would be totally uncontroversial. BS that is obviously BS to 99% of normal people can be so labelled. There used to be an example (Time Cube), but it was removed on July 2, 2010. I'm not sure of the exact reasoning, but I think it was because its use was a lightning rod for a vandal who would constantly remove it. It was like the proverbial apple in the Garden of Eden which just had to be eaten. (Now if there was a God, why didn't he just not put it there in the first place? A pretty evil thing to do is to wave temptation and then blame the sinner. That's known as entrapment....just sayin'... )


 * Astrology is a good example, and so is homeopathy to any skeptic, but the decision was to use astrology as an example. Fine with me. It's less contentious than homeopathy. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy would also be good. But we don't actually use astrology as an example.  The way you reverted it, we only say that astrology has a following, not that it's generally considered pseudoscience.  — kwami (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The wording immediately after states that it is "...generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community,..." In English that's the meaning. If you think that it's still unclear, you could certainly seek to get the wording amended. It's happened before, as I noted above. If you do that, get them to include homeopathy! -- Brangifer (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Without more what?

 * Question: "...without more." What?
 * Answer: Justification.

The incomplete sentence was a blurb from WP:FRINGE/PS with its tail cropped.


 * Correct version:
 * Pseudoscience: Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.

Will someone please amend the defective sentence by adding the word justification?

Happy trails... 172.162.30.86 (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done I see the word justification is already there. I'm not sure why you requested this edit to FRINGE/PS on the talk page for Template:ArbComPseudoscience, but it seems to already be the way you want it. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am so sorry that do not understand. The version of that sentence in the template needs to be edited – it's missing the word "justification" on the end.... 172.162.30.86 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Ahh, your request apparently wasn't very clear. I've added the word to the template for you. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox ideas
Hello all,

Based primarily on the hugeness of Talk:Homeopathy, on which this template is used, I tried to make this template take up less space without losing any information, as well as added a few principles since making them expandable means that space is less of a concern. I also added a set of parameters which would be used to insert a statement linking to a consensus/discussion/decision which classifies the article's subject as a specific "level" of pseudoscience. You can see my ideas at Template:ArbCom Pseudoscience/sandbox. I welcome comments and/or whether these changes would be acceptable/good to make to help this take up less space while improving its utility by adding more principles/a statement linking to consensus. Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A note - if the change adding the statement/parameters is added, approximately 71 pages that this template is used on would need a search for consensus/decision if it exists and the template calls updated accordingly - I would be happy to go through and search/update after the change is made as necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)