Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; therefore a keep

WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism
An AfD discussion for this list, then named List of articles related to quackery and in article space, was closed as "move to project space". This closure was overturned at deletion review, but consensus was insufficient for outright deletion. In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors. So this is hopefully the final debate over whether the edited and renamed page meets the requirement to remain in project space. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion other that I strongly prefer not to see this back at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete despite the seemingly unobjectionable title, this is just the same insulting nonsense that is being peddled by it's creator and chief Owner 'User:QuackGuru' basically it is a list of things that a few folk disliked and were collected under the title 'List of things related to Quackery'. When they couldn't get it is article space, they moved it to project space. When the name 'Quack' (=fraudster and deceiver) was shown to be plain libellous, 'QuackGuru' has dressed it up as something else - and aggressively edit warred to keep it in his shape (see ). Now, if members of the project wanted to create a list of articles they were or would be working on, then fine. But they didn't. This was simply moved there because 'Quack' was being run out of every other town. 'Related to' is PoV and weasel. Tis is just a list to insult --Docg 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. QuackGuru, who created this list three weeks ago, isn't even a participant in this Wikiproject. Yet he's now passing off his POV list as 'relating to' it, and useful for it!!! This is just the same libellous nonsense in disguise.--Docg 01:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question? Does any of the above comments make any sense to you. No. I don't think so. The above comments do not specifically state what is wrong with the list. The title was changed. The list was shortened. Info and references were added and continue to be added. Participation and collaboration is in process. The list of articles of interest can't be completed in just 3 weeks. Its takes months if not years to complete and reference a list. This list of articles has distinctive parallels to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which is in articlespace. I see very clearly that comments are driven at me instead of an explanation of what could be updated with the article list and help improve it. No actual specific reason has been given as to what is in the article that it needs to be removed. The article is about scientific skepticism -- a good concept. Cheers. --QuackGuru 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The 'article' - but I thought it wasn't an article? It was a list for use by a wikiproject? I think you've just given your game away. This has nothing to do with utility to the project. That in itself is grounds for deletion. I have no problem with scientific skepticism.--Docg 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The list of articles is fine now as you just explained. You have no problem with the title. A-OK! It is not about me. I do not own the list of articles. It is up to the Community of Fellowship of Wikipedians to decide the next step in the collaboration process. Thank You and Good Will. --QuackGuru 02:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The only half-convincing reason was that calling people quacks is libelous. That reason is removed; thus no reason. WP:NPOV does not, and most certainly should not, apply out of articlespace. -Amarkov blahedits 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is perfectly acceptable in Project space, as, in this case, it is close to a list of the articles that the project keeps an eye on. I see nothing libelous to anybody or any organisation. I do not see it is insulting. --Bduke 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it. I don't think we should be going into the subpages of projects and deleting lists of articles that are of interest to the project, absent a compelling need, which I don't see here. If evidence of misuse arises, that will be different. It doesn't matter that much how it got where it is, leave it alone. Herostratus 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. No evidence of misuse. `'mikka 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note User:QuackGuru has contacted a number of editors about the name change. I checked the list of notified editors against prior !voting record and don't find that the activity violates WP:CANVASS, although notifying all prior commentors about this discussion might be in order. ~ trialsanderrors 08:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As far as I can tell, this article (or list of articles) has moved with resulting redirects deleted enough times that editors "watching" it may have lost track of it.  Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the editors were notified of the name change but not of this MfD.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per my previous !votes in AfD and DRV. (Comment to Doc:  As I pointed out in one of the other reviews, "quack" is not libelous, per Barrett v. Rosenthal.  It might still violate our WP:BLP policies in respect to a topics associated with or promoted by particular living persons, but it is clearly not libelous.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete IMO, the word skepticism has been hijacked and is used here to dehumanize and demean whatever Qguru happens to strongly dislike (hates).    Arthur Rubin's reference above also reminds me of a concerning point which I and others have made before.  Many of these links are to articles which contain numerous links to personal sites of ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett where donations are gladly accepted. There are even several in the list we are discussing. It is concerning that his non-profit status can't seem to be verified.  He also has failed his boards yet represented himself as an expert witness in psychiatry and as a legal expert.  Doesn't this qualify as quackery/fraud/skeptical.  Yet, he seems to be the self-appointed judge and jury of good and bad, science and non-science (like psychiatry)and the guru that his disciples pay homage to by spraying Wikipedia with hundreds of links. So I believe that this list of so-called "scientific skepticism" is a load of propaganda and pejorative poison no matter how many different ways Qguru farts on it and should be deleted to clear the smell at WP.  Steth 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Useful for collaboration. Xiner (talk, email) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep of a very useful list for those who understand the subject matter, and for those who would like to understand it better. For those who choose to feel attacked, well...that's their problem....;-) Fortunately the US courts have even determined that calling someone a "quack" (which isn't being done at all here) is not libelous. So Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" introduction is no longer accurate. They can now call quacks by their right name. Just because some people dispute the term (and maybe because it is precisely them that do so!) doesn't mean the phemomenon isn't a problem. Empty drums make a lot of noise when touched.... Governments are concerned about quackery, and especially India is plagued by it. Governments have no problem using the word, but of course those who promote and defend it will always object. Such objections are not Wikipedia-legitimate arguments for the disposition of articles or lists even slightly related to the subject. They are merely POV suppression by those who hold strong POV. Such objections are deletionism, not inclusionism, and are designed to prevent one POV from being expressed, while their POV then is allowed to prevail unchecked, for the profit of quacks and scammers. -- Fyslee 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete On multiple occassions I have tried to add concepts with references to show that they were in fact related to "scientific skepticism" and they were promptly deleted by the "guardians" of this page. I assure you that these pseudoskeptics are not interested in NPOV; only in their POV. They are using Wikipedia as a soapbox to express their opinions of what they feel is "quackery". Scientific skepticism is far more broad than medicine and healthcare, but you will note that the only specific examples listed in this list are from healthcare. Levine2112 21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant to deletion. If the editors are "guarding" it inappropriately, the solution is to deal with the editors, not delete a useful page. -Amarkov blahedits 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried repetedly but to no avail. I don't want to start an edit war over it. But by all means, please try to help out with this issue. Proposal to delete is based on an NPOV violation which will never go away and the inherent to the pejorative nature of this article. Wikipedia is not a soapboax and there is a clear-cut agenda at work with this article. Levine2112 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Strong Delete - At this point, I'm losing hope this can be a usable resource. I was hoping it would get cleaned up in Project space, but it's still just a mess of whatever people want to throw into the list. I mean, does Ad hominem really have anything to do with Psuedoscience? Ad homs are used all over the place, and there's nothing special about it in pseudoscience. Without at least some inclusion criteria, I don't see it as valuable, just listcruft. Maybe it can be started over with stronger criteria, but this list would need pruned with a chainsaw. -- Kesh 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've revised my vote, given QuackGuru's comments below. There are no set inclusion criteria, meaning it's whatever people add to the list. "Work in progress" or no, the list should've had an acceptable inclusion/exclusion list from the start. Without that, it's POV and unverifiable. I think we're beyond fixing now, though someone could start over from a neutral point later if they provide strong selection rationale. -- Kesh 02:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete My opinion, is this is another clever attempt to make the quackwatch / healthfraud / skeptic / pseudoscience agenda appear to be non-POV and transferred to Wikipedia. Labeling someone a "quack" or "junk scientist" or "pseudoscientist" in itself is pejorative, subjective, judgmental, and an opinion ... all the things I thought that Wikipedia was not. Thank you. Ilena 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Aargh. WP:NPOV does not apply in projectspace. Stop complaining that it's biased. -Amarkov blahedits 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But the parent project space insists that they are trying to be NPOV compliant Check it out. I see no journals referenced here. Only people's subjective opinion. This is very misleading and inconsistent. Read more here and see how inconsistent this child list is to the parent project space. Levine2112 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's only referring to the articles that the project edits, not projectspace pages. WarpstarRider 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ilena, nobody is labelling anybody, so your straw man argument falls on deaf ears. It's a list for participants in WikiProject Pseudoscience, primarily from their POV, and therefore not for promoters of pseudoscience. Anyone who opposes pseudoscience is welcome to contribute constructively, while others should not sabotage the project and this beginning and developing list. They can start their own projects in their own project space. There are plenty of such alternative medicine projects here at Wikipedia that are filled with pseudoscience and nonsense, and we don't sabotage them. OTOH, articles in article space must be NPOV and are subjected to editing by editors from all POV. -- Fyslee 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, that kind of attitude is going to get your project MfDed if it is true, sir (mam?). Wikiprojects are not to push a POV. I'm going to go check this project out now. -Amarkov blahedits 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reiterate STRONG DELETE So this is really about the POV that if it is Alternative Medicine then it is nonsense as some have suspected. Flysee's cross-burning attitude re-confirms my vote to DELETE. His 'if you're not with us you're against us' attitude is EXACTLY why things like this should be flushed down the toilet as soon they appear.  Steth 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE Per Doc. POV Push is exactly what this article is about. This is not scientific skepticism... this is scientific pseudoskepticism (if I may). Nothing of value here. TheDoctorIsIn 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to note three things about this list. 1) POV-pushing - clearly this is the goal of this list; to push what one group (misrepresenting themselves as scientific skeptics) deem to be quackery. 2) Attracts personal attacks - this list has been used to personally attack people; though the libelous claims have been taken off this list temporarily, it still asserts that members of certain profesions are quacks. Further, being so controversial and subjective has led to editors being attacked on the talk page by this list's proponents. Personally, I have been treated disrespectfully on this page by User:QuackGuru. 3)Runs counter to the spirit of the Wiki - WikiSpace philosophy still is of the mindset that every contribution is welcomed; however, the proponents of this list have made it clear that any contribution which runs counter to their beliefs are not welcomed. They have repeatedly reverted my contibutions to this list. Perhaps this list would be better off in the Userspace world where the owning user can decide what contributions stay and which ones go. I would say that this subpage certainly breaking Wikipedia philosophy and policy and thus is an inappropriate project and therefore should be removed. Levine2112 02:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Obvious evidence of misuse. --Hughgr 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. It is in project space, and I think it was already decided that it is appropriate for project space.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per the comment above: "Runs counter to the spirit of Wikipedia". Yes, that about says it. CuTop 05:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The way I read Deletion policy, only articles in the main namespace are subject to deletion. This page is not in the main namespace. Bubba73 (talk), 05:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Recent change by quackguru, "and hopefully be enabled to resist and expose it.", reveals his/her agenda. I don't believe this is the purpose of Wikipedia.--Hughgr 06:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - This list, with the phrase "...Scientific skepticism" whether deemed an oxymoron (contra) or a tautology (pro), although improved, remains soapbox POVish, and to me, inherently dubious as WP anything. I would suggest that it remain on a proponent's personal page or evacuate to more congenial confines offsite. The title is still objectionable - anytime I see "scientific..." anything, such a phrase raises my hackles (mea culpa, scientific medicine).  This WP "quackery list/project" episode with "scientific skepticism" humorously reminds me of these "...emperors of scientific certainty. Time to can some QG spam.--I&#39;clast 07:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Try as I might I can find no rational, non-biased glue that holds this cacology to gather. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: although Bubba73 is in error, and project pages (and indeed, entire projects) have been deleted, this seems useful as a reference for the project for which it is a sub-page. Pseudoscience and skepticism are interlinked. I see no reason to delete. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) change to


 * Delete per poisonous history provided by I'clast and excellent points raised here. Anything which is this divisive and prone to edit warring and platform-based agendas needs to be gone. Add the articles to your own watchlist if you wish, this list has caused trouble and there is no argument presented that it will not continue to do so. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete*, It is fairly obvious that a group of strong POV editors are claiming ownership of this list. If this list is allowed to stay and the attention of the Wikipedia community is directed elsewhere later, I worry that the “quackbusters” gradually will transform the list back into an attack tool again.  MaxPont 14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot thread my way back through the multiple transformations and moves to find this, do you happen to have a link to the incarnation of this page where it was being so used? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * inital Category:Quackery AfD, December, then:
 * "List of articles related to quackery" moved to rename as WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism  start dif by QC, last dif, history, Talk
 * QuackGuru's early declaration of intent to replace Category:Quackery
 * Some back & forth on a mainstream MD - vitamin C medical researcher implied as a quack, starting here--I&#39;clast 15:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is also fairly obvious to me that some people don't like to admit their opposition to established science. Both sides can contribute to Wikipedia. Xiner (talk, email) 15:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is fairly obvious to me that many people, including many "conventional" editors, have no idea what the underlying science discussions based on established science even are when one starts to talk about biologically based "alternative therapies" (vs established medicine vs 1950s "Unpleasantville" vs pharmaceutical ad science du jour). Big disconnects on both history and concepts.--I&#39;clast 15:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *Comment - I think the title for a project space is fine. I think that the lead suggests that scientific skepticism is all about quackery, which makes scientific skeptics look like hate mongers, which I don't think true SS are.  There is good information in the article that could be valuable in a true skeptic work list, but User:QuackGuru is holding the article hostage as an WP:ATTACK article so he can call anything he wants quackery.  I haven't decided if the article should be deleted, but this article cannot be improved while QG is watching over it. --Dematt 18:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I thought maybe it was just a misunderstanding about NPOV or V or RS, but it is not. This article is a POV WP:ATTACK list being held hostage.  The title change from quackery was a good step and could have created a good resource for PS, but the lead and method for inclusion remains the same - no V or RS definitions or inclusion prerequisites.  I tried to collaborate to rectify the situation, but to no avail.  Scientific skeptics deserve better. --Dematt 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment According to Dematt that way to improve the list of interest is to add climate science to the list (>click here<). What is Climatology? Climate science, also called Climatology is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time, and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences. What does this addition have to do with the list? Can anyone explain this to me. Global warming (which is not climatology) is a verified event. Scientists do not doubt it is happening. Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming page (>click here<). Thanks. --QuackGuru 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a valid addition, by everything else in your list. There's plenty of "quackery" about global climate change (on both sides), so why would it not be included in your list? -- Kesh 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, Kesh, it is not about global climate changes at all. It is about the scientific evaluation of climate science. Kesh. Please explain how it is related to scientific skepticism (as you put it) about climate science? Thanks. --QuackGuru 02:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood: he's not saying climate science is something to be skeptical about, but that it's related to scientific skepticism due to some individuals throwing wild assertions out and proclaiming them truths. (Again, this applies to both sides of the debate.) And if it's related, it should be included. My question still remains: under what criteria are you excluding it, when other subjects (such as Ad hominem) are allowed that have no real relation at all?
 * I'm also curious why you felt it necessary to italicise my name, and misspell it twice. -- Kesh 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Quackery has to do with medicine, and I don't see the connection between medicine and climate science. Bubba73 (talk), 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I'm still in the mindset from the last version of the list, when it did use the quackery term. I've edited above to better reflect the point I was trying to reach. -- Kesh 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten my previous comments to better reflect on your rewritten comments. Lets stay focused on the topic. This is a serious topic that deserves attention. This discussion here should focus on arguements about the placement of the list. We can agree on that I think. The list that is tool of interest is undergoing many changes. If you have any questions, please comment on the talk page. Thanks. --QuackGuru 02:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, there are no criteria for what gets added yet? That's unfortunate. I have revised my vote accordingly. -- Kesh 02:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This list is a useful resource.  Perhaps if the name is so inflammatory, it could be renamed to something that is more agreeable.  Andrew73 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding multiple votes While this is not a vote, there are several cases of multiple votes, which is confusing. If anyone has voted more than once, please go back and strike out the previous vote(s) that no longer represent(s) your true opinion. Thanks. -- Fyslee 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete*, inherently pejorative and asking for nasty problems, original research, and headaches. Projects dedicated to degrading topics or people aren't needed. F.F.McGurk 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing admin's note: sock-puppet of banned user, "vote" discounted.   Buck  ets  ofg  20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional comment, crossposted from Talk. From a conventional science editor in an earlier RfC, "If people want the equivalent of a dartboard with their enemy's face on it, they can keep it at home."--I&#39;clast 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I edited the list to remove mention of quackery. It still needs more change to reflect that the title has changed and it is now in Project space. While I am a scientist, I think articles that cover a topic where there is a normal science viewpoint and an alternative viewpoint should present both views in a NPOV way. Readers deserve to see both views in an accurate and NPOV way. These kind of articles can be difficult to achieve a NPOV. That is why it is a good idea to have a list of them so people can watch them. I think it can become that. I suggest to the admin who closes this debate that a lot of the comments are about the old article in main space, and not about the article in Project space with a new name. There are however undercurrents that I do not understand. People are pushing a POV. I am not. It is a difficult one and I have no time to alter the list further. I need to sleep. --Bduke 12:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is difficult to assume good faith for many of those who have "voted" to delete here. My opinion is that a lot of them want to protect their true beliefs. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: but recognize that the same could be said of those voing to keep. My opinion is that a lot of them what to protect their true beliefs. This is what pseudoskepticism or pathological skepticism is all about. They give skepticism a bad name. TheDoctorIsIn 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The list of articles related to scientific skepticism has gone thru 'major face lift' within the last 30 minutes. Most of the comments for delete do not pertain to the current list. The list of articles now has direction, focus, and purpose. Easy decision to keep. I have listened to all parties involved. Some Wikipedians could benefit from reading the article called the true-believer syndrome. The list of interest is obviously a great resource and navigational tool. Cheers. --QuackGuru 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: on the same token, I think you in particular, QuackGuru, would benfit from reading pseudoskepticism. Skepticism is about doubt; not denial. The references which you must provide to qualify for your list now must show that the topic is related to "scientific skepticism" somehow and the source must be WP:RS and WP:V. I still believe that your list fails that. And also fails WP:NPOV and WP:OWN and WP:NOT#soapbox. You have aggressively deleted contribution which go against your own POV yet fit perfectly in the context of this article. Without doubt, you created this list and continue to work on it to push your POV. Might I also add that you, QuackGuru, are not even a member of this project . TheDoctorIsIn 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I find truly unbelievable is how a first time editor can create something that he feels is "obviously a great resource and navigational tool"! ...If he does say so himself! Steth 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say he's familiar with HTML and the concept of hyperlinking, but not of Wikipedia's link conventions. This PA doesn't hold water. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The content is very useful to me, though at present incomplete. --Seejyb 05:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete this hot potato, dit down and think how to do this collaboratively instead of as a battleground. User:JzG 193.133.239.201 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * closing admin's note this IP's "vote" is discounted


 * Keep. Shot info 02:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. Please explain your choice. -- Kesh 16:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Didnt bother to look at what the article appeared to be before, but now as noted above has direction and is laid out quite well. The reasons to delete are no longer valid. I invite those who have voted to delete, to look over it again. --Nuclear Zer0 12:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..