Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:27, 14 January 2009

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 31, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives
Archive 1: 2003 — August 2006 Archive 2: August 2006 — December 2006 Archive 3: December 2006 — March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 — April 2007 Archive 5: April 2007 — July 2007 Archive 6: July 2007 — October 2007 Archive 7: October 2007 — January 2008 Archive 8: January 2008 — April 2008 Archive 9: February 2008 — November 2008 Archive 10: December 2008

Melanin Theory

I came across this article today and found a strong reference for labelling it a "pseudoscientific theory" per WP:PSCI. The citation comes from the New York Academy of Science; as such, I added Melanin Theory to uppermost portion of our list article: Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus. Open to discussion if anyone disagrees with the addition. -- Levine2112 02:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Good find (though unfortunate this stuff even exists). This is the sort of thing I'd call a "poster child" for pseudoscience. regards, Jim Butler (t) 08:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. On a related note, what does this mean for the Scientific racism entry? It is currently under List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts/Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific/Health and Medicine. Most of the actual article treats the history of the topic as a superseded scientific theory, so I am actually not sure. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Belatedly: wow, that's a tough one. Seems like the kind of thing that should be consensue-level pseudoscientific, except, as you say, for the fact that it's mostly superseded. Dunno...I guess the default (if we're using the "tier system" that I know isn't your favorite thing) is to stick it in the section its sources indicate( which is guess is the skeptic group one). --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as we are keeping the organizational scheme which focuses on source rather than content, I think that is best. It would be nice, though, to set up a bulleted sublist like the Creation Science set of ideas. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is it okay for Misplaced Pages to make a distinction between scientific societies and skeptical societies as different "tiers" of sources?

Template:RFCsci

Outside editors who wish to render reasoned opinions but avoid slogging through the bickering from the usual suspects (my own calm and impeccable rhetoric notwithstanding), here is a shiny new section for the express purpose. Regular editors here (broadly construed), please minimize your comments to #Outside opinions.

I intend to revert to this version above the objections of editors associated with alternative medicine. I understand their desire to try to distinguish between "scientific societies" and "skpetical societies", but the fact is that there isn't a reliable source which does this. Until such a source is found, any attempt to categorize a particular group as one or the other is essentially original research and is not allowed.

I expect the following editors of this page to object to this declaration:

• User:Jim Butler
• User:Levine2112
• User:Hgilbert
• User:Hans Adler

Aside from having offered no response to the above argument, these users are all heavily involved in the promotion of particular varieties of pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages and therefore we must not take their agreement to be a form of "consensus blocking" that was issued on the talk page last month.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

Not only was there no consensus for that version in the first place, I remind you that the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide an RS showing that lay skeptical societies are as reliable indicators of sci consensus as sci academies. So, where's that source?

(crickets)

And by the way, please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with your false assertion I and others offering "no response" to your proposal; there is lots of discussion in the section above; see diff of my comments.

Additionally, your comment regarding users "heavily involved in the promotion" of pseudoscience above massively violates WP:NPA. Show me some edits where I "promote pseudoscience": I mean, if I really am doing so, then by definition I'm massively violating NPOV, and I should have all kinds of skeptical editors reprimanding me. I've collaborated with many besides yourself, and they've had every opportunity to tell me where I'm at. So, let's find some other editors (besides the ban-decorated Mccready) objecting to my pseudoscience POV-pushing, shall we? Go ahead, I'll wait.

(crickets)

Gee, SA, isn't that odd that you can't produce the above evidence? It just might be that your interpretation is less mainstream than you assume. Frankly, your novel formulation that CSICOP is in the same league with the National Academies of Science strikes me as downright fringe. And certainly, your approach on WP has been so far from the collegial norm that you desperately need some sort of course correction. --Jim Butler (t) 09:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Jim Butler about his conflict of interest and have started a discussion about whether he should be advocating as he is in this article here. Please comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Got you mad, didn't I? Sorry. Your bullshit COI accusation won't fly, though. --Jim Butler (t) 11:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There you have it. No merit in your accusation at all. Thanks for playing. Oh, and BTW, since your accusation is wrong, you're once again in violation of WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." --Jim Butler (t) 23:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer his repetitive arguments: there is no reliable source which says the "scientific societies" "speak" for "scientific consensus" any more than there is a reliable source which says that the "skeptical societies" do. The issue is with separating the two categories of sources. Jim thinks we should separate them but it (apparently) is his own judgment as to what a "scientific consensus determining" group is and what isn't. This is why the argument stands unanswered. This article is engaging in original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Crickets are still chirping, SA. You can't produce the source I asked for, so you vainly try to shift the WP:BURDEN. Additionally, WP:PSCI says we shouldn't "categorize" or "characterize" topics as pseudoscience unless there is general agreement from the sci community. Perhaps the thing to do is ask on RSN whether lay "skeptical" groups are RS's for sci consensus (the kind we use here and here, and Eldereft will note the segregation of sources by reliability there). But I still think my original idea (I've been busy) of just asking ArbCom is better. Also, you can't produce any evidence that I'm editing tendentiously, either, as I predicted. But why let lack of evidence stop you from making unfounded COI accusations? All this silliness doesn't make you look too good in light of the pending ArbCom case regarding your chronically poor conduct. --Jim Butler (t) 11:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that those represent more a segregation by prominence of the source to those specific topics: a reader interested in Scientific opinion on climate change will probably find the IPCC and APS more relevant than various surveys; likewise a reader interested in scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. These articles deal with topics that have attracted enough outside notice that our most reliable sources are numerous enough to "crowd out" anything else. As I say below, I am open to considering stating in the text that entries are placed according to various reliable sources, but the comparison of a list of topics to a list of sources is imperfect. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

But the listing of sources reflects their reliability. Where we differ is that I don't accept these skeptical societies as reliable sources for sci consensus at all. We're talking about the demarcation problem. If a topic is "obviously" pseudoscientific, we don't need a source at all; if it's not obvious, we need a source meeting WP:PSCI, and we can't assume that the commentary of a non-RS skeptic group is a reliable harbinger of what an RS sci academy will say. (I don't think that skeptic groups belong on this list, as titled, at all, and have only accepted them in their own section as a compromise.) Does that seem like a fair description of our disagreement? regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft has it. The issue is that there are absolutely no sources which say that "skeptical organizations" are different from "scientific organizations". Nevertheless, our article makes that distinction. The onus is on the person wanting to keep that distinction to provide a source that distinguishes between the two. So far, this request has gone unanswered. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're still shifting the burden of proof. What advocates of your position have consistently failed to provide is evidence, or compelling arguments, that skeptical advocacy groups are reliable sources for indicating the consensus of the scientific community. Good essay on that issue here by noted skeptic Stephen Novella, with little to support your position. Rigorousness is critical in evaluating such sources. --Jim Butler (t) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only do you not substantively deal with the issue, you are continuing to grasp at flimsier and flimsier straws. The issue has been and always has been what makes the National Academies description of a subject as pseudoscience "scientific consensus" while when CSICOP describes a subject as pseudoscience it suddenly isn't scientific consensus. The only people making the determination are editors here who have obvious agendas. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes the two groups different? Professionalism. And check it out: WP:MEDRS clearly says the formal scientific groups are more reliable. There's simply no question which group is more prestigious and more reliable; if you're a Professor, in which type of society's journals would you want to publish? Which will the tenure committee take seriously... and why? regards, --10:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

SA, your silence on this issue is deafening. The idea that we can't distinguish between these two groups is frankly ridiculous. This is a good time to remember "use common sense". --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think that Jim Butler has the right of it in his summation of the dispute - I think that a self-selected group of logically-minded persons may, after due consideration, reliably assert that a topic is pseudoscience. Obviously there are significant caveats here, but there is no fundamental difference between qualified individuals banding together on their own initiative as opposed to forming a committee under the auspices of a professional body. If our only source is 'some jokers with a website say X is pseudoscience', then that would probably not meet the RS bar. If, on the other hand, we have a source of the nature 'individuals with such-and-such qualifications have investigated Y and present these reasons for their assessment' then I would feel a lot more comfortable including Y on this list. We also, of course, need to fairly represent the source-weighted aggregate view - if newer and higher quality sources disagree with older and lower quality sources, the latter should be qualified by the former if the topic is not excluded from this list entirely. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Very belatedly: Eldereft, regarding your initial comments, I think you may seriously understimate the power of self-selection bias. Just increasing the ratio of people with a "grokking" mentality to a "debunking" one can lead to different conclusions. I really don't think we can take CSICOP as a (subsection of scientists + informed laypeople + one redoubtable magician). It's quite hard for me to imagine how self-selection bias can't make a huge difference --- just look at the difference in tone and content between science groups and skeptical groups (the epitome being quackwatch, at the far end of a spectrum). The latter are far more focused on debunking, jeering, caricaturing of opponents, triumphalism, all that kinda stuff. cheers, -Backin72 (n.b.) 10:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the idea. We can describe who the various people who make up the societies are at the pages devoted to them. We can say what the societies are. But saying that the Astronomical Society of the Pacific is somehow better able to measure scientific consensus than the CSICOP is bald original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support This reorganization is long overdue, as dividing the list in this way needlessly inconveniences our readers by enforcing an artificial distinction. Regardless of the stated intent, the effect is to separate the topics according to whether or not they are infamous enough for a science body to notice and comment on them, or whether only adherents and people interested in pseudoscience have bothered. We still have WP:PARITY and all the usual reliable sources requirements, leaving no particular need for this organizational scheme. If people want more prominent attribution than references (at least most of which have quotes), we can discuss that separately or on a case-by-case basis. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple of good edits this month, and I am presuming that they would be integrated after the proposed reversion. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe they already are (in particular, the addition of Melanin theory). ScienceApologist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right - I was looking at the wrong version when I wrote that. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reject The Misplaced Pages article on Scientific opinion on climate change, a similarly brisant topic, uses the clear formulation "scientific organizations of national or international standing" to refer exclusively to truly scientific groups; no advocacy groups on either side of the climate debate are included. Skeptical societies are clearly advocacy groups (single-issue, pre-determined point of view) rather than scientific organizations; their point is not open-mindedly to explore a topic (as a Metereological Society, e.g., would) but to advocate a fixed point of view. The distinction between scientific organizations and advocacy groups is not artificial; it is natural. hgilbert (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The article you cite doesn't indicate how to segregate sources on this page. There is no way to getermine which scientific organizations are "open minded" and which aren't except to listen to people who think this way on this page.ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry: an organization with a mission to promote a certain idea is not, by definition, an open-minded (perhaps not, by definition, a scientific) organization. Scientific organizations aim to investigate areas, not to promote (or demote) ideas. The worth of ideas becomes apparent through objective research, not through advocacy. hgilbert (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

We have just been asked by an administrator to "try to take things slowly, listen to what other editors are saying, and work hard to treat everyone with respect and good faith". The above-suggested edit begins by suggesting we not listen to four editors (I am amongst these) and implying that they are not acting in good faith. This is not a good start. hgilbert (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you think that my pointing out your particular connections to anthroposophy may cloud your judgment here is "not a good start". But my prediction was accurate, wasn't it? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My interests no more need "cloud my judgment" than your interests (as an acknowledged skeptic) need cloud yours. The point is to deal civilly with those editors whose point of view differs from your own, accepting that someone representing a different point of view may nevertheless be representing a valid point of view. This is the proof that one's judgment remains unclouded. This is the opposite of saying: "look, this person is obviously misguided, as s/he represents the contrary view to my own." hgilbert (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom: Skeptical groups not same as mainstream science

Well, this is a little bit interesting. From WP:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal: Arbcom distinguishes between mainstream science and skeptical groups. They're not the same thing. Link:

"In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking." -- passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it's apparent to Arbcom that the distinction is real. And that's in the context of paranormal phenomena, which are "generally considered pseudo". What of the demarcation problem? What of greyer areas, areas where the pseudoscience appellation is debatable: where Michael Shermer might bang out an article and later put a book of essays together, vetted by a board composed of a handful of friends? Can such sources be taken as indicating scientific consensus in the rigorous, methodical way that skeptic Stephen Novella lays it out? I would say: of course not! We can have the skeptic groups cited in WP, but not masquerading as scientific consensus. Gonna have to change the list title, it appears. Massive WEIGHT and RS problem otherwise. --Jim Butler (t) 13:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find anything in peer-reviewed science magazines supporting your claim, then it's pseudoscience for the simple reason no one in science needs to be convinced that the pseudoscience is pseudoscience. You don't find the "2008 Review of Polywater" in Journal of Applied Chemistry for a reason: no one reading JAC would needs to be convinced that Polywater is pseudoscience and they leave it to skeptics group to do the debunking as the various ridiculous claims come up. Devoting efforts to this in peer-reviewed magazine would be a waste of time because as soon as you debunk something, and the pseudoscience advocate will spin it in a different way and say "Haha debunk this now suckers". The same applies to Cold fusion, and similar topics. In a nut-shell, what science magazine are doing is applying WP:Deny recognition to crackpot theories. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(belated) Excellent point, which is why marginal topics like acupuncture and chiropractic probably shouldn't be on this list (certainly not as it's titled now, without qualification). Scientists crank out hundreds of publications each year on these topics, cf. Pubmed. thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 11:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, even if you can find support for an area in peer-reviewed science magazines, the topic may still end up listed in this article so long as any skeptic organization has made negative commentary about the topic. At the moment, any negative claim by any organization trumps any list of positive studies. Why? The sole criterion for this list is that somebody has made a negative claim. It thus violates WP:Undue weight in an extreme way. Relying on mainstream scientific organizations, which are by their nature unbiased, would solve this problem.

BTW, The inverse of the above statement - "If you can find something in peer-reviewed science magazines supporting your claim, then it's not pseudoscience"? - is clearly more plausible than the original. hgilbert (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "any" negative claim. It's claims made by groups that are reliable sources for making the claim. If Joe Shmo writes a blogpost describing celestial mechanics as pseudoscience, that does not make it on our list. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(belated) I definitely agree with hgilbert. The skeptic groups are not RS's trumping the scientific literature, per WP:MEDRS. The skeptic group stuff should be in a separate article, or else this one with a suitable title change (e.g., "List of Burglars Convicted in a Court of Law, and People Who According to Speculation Might Also Have Been Burglars". That's comparable to our situation here, and equally absurd.) --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious at this point that the appropriate course of action is to take each individual citation on a case-by-case basis. This blanket and vague deprecation of sources will get us nowhere. Cases are being made for individual pseudosciences below, and I think that's the direction the article should take. Trying to decide who is a "skeptical society" who is not RS and who is cannot be done in a tier approach. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Skeptical organisations

I have been following this discussion for a while, and I am mighty puzzled by it. As a member of the Australian Skeptics and of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute I am clear that I have belonged to organisations of a very different character. We seem to be quite clear about this on wikipedia with the first being in Category:Skeptic organisations while the second is in Category:Chemistry societies which is a sub-category of Category:Scientific societies. Do we need a source to categorise organisations in this way? It seems to be quite clear to me. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether one source or another is better for describing the scientific consensus that a certain subject is pseudoscientific. If you can find a reliable source which explains why an organization in the skeptical organizations category is not able to describe scientific consensus while an organization that is in category Chemistry societies, then at least we can make an argument that the attempt to demarcate based on "scientific consensus" is legitimate. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could produce a source stating that skeptical-advocacy groups are just as reliable as scientific socities for our purposes. Why should the burden be on other editors to prove your preferred sources aren't good? Pretty clearly you have it backwards. --Jim Butler (t) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I might have missed some verbiage, but I believe that the only statements asserting equivalence between the two types of society are in the way of being negative arguments; viz. because one group exists to promote science and another to counter pseudoscience, the latter are not reliable in the sense of WP:Reliable sources. Genuine scientific disagreements do not belong on this list, as such belong solidly under the purview of RACI, not AS. Examination of claims for glaring disagreement with commonly accepted reality (how odd it seems that none of my condensed matter physics textbooks mention how phonons and plasmons can cure gout, depression, and chronic Lyme disease), on the other hand, requires much less in the way of specialized training. Scientific societies are generally regarded as reliable for pretty much whatever they say, whereas skeptical societies are somewhat more limited. The disagreement is over whether this is a meaningful distinction for the purposes of this list. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true, Eldereft; that's exactly the disagreement. My view is we don't want to think the skeptic groups are right; we want to know. Scientific academies are meritocracies that focus on research and occasionally advocacy; skeptical groups are open to anyone, self-selected, and are primarily about advocacy. The latter groups try to report and defend what the former are doing. It's like the difference between grad school and college, or even high school. Advocacy groups can be used as sources, but they don't meet WP:RS#Consensus as sources for scientific consensus (see discussion at present "Fringe Science" RFAR). They probably do often get the demarcation right, which makes for a nice, complete list. But with grey areas ("questionable science" and so on) I don't see how they're qualified to speak for the scientific community at large. They're simply not equipped, by virtue of membership and mission, to do so. That's why I argue that it's not kosher for us to report what they say, hoping they got it right. Wishful, synful thinking, as Jim Morrison might have said.

Anyway... I will get off my ass and request ArbCom to clarify this. If they won't do it as an extension of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, they may do it as part of the current case. regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph looks to me like original research. I know plenty of skeptical societies (including some that are currently denigrated in this article) where the standards for making a public statement are higher than those of the National Academies. In fact, I would say that Jim's statement isn't really original "research" but more an original "hunch". It's fairly clear that Jim hasn't carefully researched what goes into the production of statements by the different organizations, their various levels of "qualification", their "equipment", their "membership", and their "missions" despite waxing eloquently about each in this paragraph. It is a shame when people don't carefully research the points upon which they opine, but until Misplaced Pages learns to manage the content-violators, we'll just have to put up with shoddy (or zero, in this case) research. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, a paragraph asserting that the Boy Scout Handbook is different than an IOM report would be original research. By your standards, an editor could demand that we cite the Boy Scout Handbook unless another editor found an RS stating that the Boy Scout Handbook is not as reliable as the IOM. Quite clearly your fallacy is shifting the burden of proof. --Jim Butler (t) 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you wrote the statement "The Boy Scout Handbook is not as reliable as the IOM" somewhere in a Misplaced Pages article, then you absolutely must have a source for the statement. Them's the rules. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's obvious (and you'd need an even better source to assert that the two are equally reliable, per WP:REDFLAG). However, it doesn't refute the gist of my comments. We're debating reliable sources, and I'm showing via reductio ad absurdum why your logic is wrong. My preceding comments were pretty clear on that.

Explanation, if needed: I and others are arguing that X class of sources (skeptic advocacy groups) is not as reliable as Y class (sci academies). You're taking the position that I have the burden of showing, via an RS, that X is not as reliable as Y. I'm taking the position that the burden falls on you to show, via an RS or other convincing means, that X is as reliable as Y. In order to show where the burden really lies, I used an absurd example wherein I substituted the Boy Scout Handbook for X source. If we follow my logic, the burden is on you to show that the Boy Scout Handbook is an RS, and you won't be able to do so; the outcome is reasonable and the article remains sound. If we use your logic, we get an absurd outcome: we are allowed to cite the Boy Scout Handbook until someone can find a source specifically saying "The Boy Scout Handbook is not as reliable as the IOM in matters of scientific consensus."

This example shows where the burden lies in this matter, i.e., with those who assume that X and Y sources are functionally equivalent, and want to write the article accordingly. --Jim Butler (t) 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not clear what you call research. The Skeptical organisations I know and broadly support do not fit "where the standards for making a public statement are higher than those of the National Academies". I do not see evidence that you have researched this that well either. There is too much grandstanding on both sides her. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When the Massachusetts Medical Society (which apparently qualifies as a "Skeptical society" on this page) makes a statement, they have a committee of literally nearly a dozen review the statement. When NAS makes a statement, they normally have two people review the statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The MMS would qualify as a first-tier, sci-consensus source last I checked. Could you please share sources for what you say regarding the review policies of these groups? --Jim Butler (t) 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So why is it in the second tier? You just are making it up as you go along, it seems. If you read the NAS review on Parapsychology you can see exactly how they wrote the report. The MMS report on naturopathic medicine is linked in our article! ScienceApologist (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the MMS source, but I'm not the one who put it in the second tier, so don't ask me why it ended up there; I just work here and don't own the friggin' place. I don't remember mention in the MMS report of the number of reviewers, and can't find it in the PDF; nor can I find any NAS review in the archives, unless it's there under the name of a specific academy. (Or maybe you're thinking of the NSF review?) Indulge my momentary lapse into denseness, please, and post an excerpt from MMS and a link to NAS (and an excerpt containing the info on reviewers, if it's not readily apparent). Thanks. --Jim Butler (t) 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be my fault - I left Applied Kinesiology under the Health and medicine subsection when adding the MMS source. It seemed a natural place. I guess it can go in the other section, though if this RfC resolves the way I would prefer, the entry will already be in the correct place according to the remaining one organizational scheme. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this proves my point well. Trying to keep track of which organizations are which is essentially original research. Jim thinks that MMS is not a skeptical organization but rather a scientific organization. Okay, I guess he has a reliable source demarcating this? No? Okay. So let's get rid of the tiering: it's making tearing. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We're allowed to use common sense. I don't have a reliable source demarcating sci academies from football clubs either, but that doesn't mean that we, as editors, ought to be teh stupid and equate them. Echoing User:Bduke, it's not too difficult to tell which is which. The question isn't whether we can tell such groups apart (we can, when we're not gaming and pretending to be dense), it's whether they are equally reliable on demarcation sci from pseudo. --Jim Butler (t) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I have an idea that might work. We can try a compromise. We can merge the sections together and distinguish each source by using a number after each entry. Ref number one() could be for consensus among the scientific community. The number 2() could be for skeptic organizations, and number 3() could be for researchers.

Example: *Crop circles

This is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts regarded as pseudoscientific by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or researchers.

We can add citations to the first sentence of the article and describe each one in the reference and then add the citations to each entry and merge the sections together while each entry will still be distinguishable. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinions

Please note that I have not read any of the discussion above, nor am I interested in the issue. I simply saw this quote when reviewing a revert: Quote: ...to try to distinguish between "scientific societies" and "skpetical societies", but the fact is that there isn't a reliable source which does this". I don't know if this will help any, but I found the following news article that documents the existence of "Skeptical societies", described as "a quickly-growing group of people to investigate various claims and debate their merits." Ariel♥Gold 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also not read up on it, but skeptical societies are different and some attempt would be a good idea. Skeptical societies are similar to religious people who act to protect their current belief, they are biased in their reasoning. That is not to say that they are the only ones that are biased. Aether22 (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the heart of the matter. What is true and what is not can only be established by one of 2 things. Either observation and experiment. Or logic. (with care not tp misapply logic)

The problem is that many want to base the understanding of reality on either authority or on their own limited experience (if I can't see it, it doesn't exist)

People believe that the latter can trump the former.

Some of these people are intelligent enough to twist rules of evidence until it agrees with their belief.

Now this is further compounded by people being told what to believe by the education system, religion, the media because if these systems become corrupt and dysfunctional then so will what is taught.

And Misplaced Pages is actually in much the same way corrupted because the majority of the people likely to edit it have been taught by some of these institutions.

What Misplaced Pages should do (time cube not withstanding) is to allow information where there is evidence and present both sides arguments rather than tell people "This is the truth" and instead give a neutral view giving both sides arguments.

For instance I would assume most here believe that energy cannot be created. But how do you know that it can't? If you insist that the universe follows your mathematical model and that there can't possibly be something you may be unaware of may I ask how you managed to prove a negative?

The simple fact is that we don't know everything and it is impossible to know that you now everything. (even God could not claim such) Math is pure and simple, 1+1 = 2, but the universe is not necessarily limited to expressing it's self based on a model man creates. note: I am not saying that the universe is irrational or can't have an accurate model created, just that not every model will be true and complete.

It is necessary for each man to weigh the evidence himself guided by evidence and reason and not by various social pressures. Aether22 (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that both of these suggestions dovetail well with trying to make a singular article rather than the "tiered system" we had before. This way we can deal with each instance on a case-by-case basis. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I do not see consensus to conflate the two types of groups. The burden is on those who assert such a novel formulation (quite OR, really), and common sense has prevailed: no consensus to do so. We should continue to make the distinction; exactly how that plays out in titling and organization remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic that we'll be able to compromise. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

Scienceapologist removed referenced material sourced in scientific publications without justification; I am replacing this. What possible justification can there be for eliminating well-referenced and appropriate text? The above discussion points out the danger of giving undue weight to skeptics over scientific publications. Scienceapologist now is attempting to eliminate the science from this article! hgilbert (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't sink to SA's level by protesting that small but real differences are "outrageous". The stuff you're putting in may be well-sourced, but it also is spun a little too favorably to the subject mattter, IMHO. I would suggest self-reverting and bringing the material here for a collective re-write. regards, Jim Butler (t) 18:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Small but real differences are fine. Reverting well-sourced material is not.

The wording I have added is as follows: "a larger review concludes that anthroposophic therapies are associated with long-term reduction of chronic disease symptoms and improvement of health-related quality of life. Anthroposophical treatment of cancer has been demonstrated to improve survival rates of cancer patients. Anthroposophical medicine has also been demonstrated to be effective in treating respiratory and ear infections as well as mental illnesses." How is this spun? This is what the sources say, in some cases word-for-word. What changes would you suggest to bring it into closer alignment with the sources? hgilbert (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is about the fact that anthroposophic medicine has pseudoscientific aspects. It's effectiveness is irrelevant here. Just because something has a source doesn't mean it's relevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This list isn't for long descriptions of the subjects. That should be done on the subject's own article. Here it is relevant to very briefly (1) give a description of what the subject is, and (2) why it is relevant to list it here at all. Nothing more and nothing less. Just describe its relation to the subject of pseudoscience (PS). THAT (PS) is the subject of this article. Just keep it short and to the point. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that something is not pseudoscience is as relevant as evidence that it is; otherwise the article violates WP:NPOV and is effectively a WP:POVFORK.

• "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article" hgilbert (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... so your claim is that this entire article is a POV-fork of anthroposophic medicine? I think that claim is dubious at best. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors have argued that only material that support any subject's classification as a pseudoscience, not material that disputes this classification, will be included here. This is a clear POV-fork. I do not know if anthroposophical medicine is the only topic for which relevant evidence is being excluded in this article; I only know that editors are clearly - by their own statements - excluding all but one POV for all subjects here. This is a POV-fork, plain and simple. hgilbert (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Except the citations you give do not dispute the classification of anthroposophic medicine as pseudoscience. They merely claim to provide "evidentiary" support for anthroposophic medicine, and, though we may argue about the shoddiness of said sources, our concern here is not whether you can dig around to synthesize an article that will pander to your cherished beliefs about anthroposophy. See WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(belated) I agree with hgilbert that the section on anthroposophy should be treated under NPOV and WEIGHT, not become a POV fork paragraph about the topic, and contain appropriate balancing information, including efficacy which is likely to closely related to pseudo in the mind of any reader (if we say X is pseudoscientific by including it on a list with this title, readers will assume it doesn't work). (Check WP:MEDRS on where groups like CSICOP fall -- basically nowhere -- and also . --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance is covered by WP:WEIGHT, of course. If the particular sources seem to address the subject of pseudoscience directly, then we certainly should consider them and consider the inclusion of the subject. However, using scientific literature that simply claims a level of "evidence" for "efficacy" is not the same thing as discounting a pseudoscience claim. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have added sources to balance the statements that "the system is not based in science" and "no thorough scientific analysis of the efficacy of anthroposophical medicine as a system independent of its philosophical underpinnings has been undertaken; no evidence-based conclusion of the overall efficacy of the system can be made at this time". --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Pursuant to the above comment, I restored Eldereft's version of the discussion of anthroposophical medicine. We are here to write about its status as a pseudoscience, not to make apologies for it. .

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me (clearly). That entry was 287 words long - far more verbiage than is needed to say medical treatments inspired by Anthroposophy diverge from medicine in a couple of ways. Properly weighted depth of treatment is entirely appropriate at Anthroposophical medicine, but not here. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That there is a reasonable claim for a scientific basis for anthroposophic medicine (clearly shown by the numerous studies cited) is ignored in the current version. This gives a false impression through giving undue weight. A summary must be NPOV as well as a main article. hgilbert (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened the article; what needs to go is material about the approach not related to judgments about its scientific validity. Any material related to this is clearly relevant. This section is titled "POV-pushing"; I would call suppressing scientific evidence and including only one POV's viewpoint POV-pushing. I am in favor of both POVs being represented. This is called neutrality. hgilbert (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about the scientific basis for anthroposophic medicine (there is none, just like the rest of the attempts by anthroposophists to claim scientific support for their spirituality). This is an article solely about those subjects which have been described as being pseudoscientific. To put it another way, it is an article for explaining what aspects of certain ideas have been labeled as pseudoscientific. We aren't here to pander to the anthoposophic masses who yearn for scientific recognition of their amazing new ideas. This is naked POV-pushing at this point from an avowed anthroposophist. Are we ready to escalate this to pseudoscience law-enforcement officers? ScienceApologist (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just passing... It seems to me that the Hgilbert version is far too much of an advertisment for anthroposophic medicine, an attempt to persuade the reader that it is a valid system. It needs to be pruned back to something more like the ScienceApologist version, which is a much better and more balanced summary of the topic from the perspective of this article. This is not the right place for extended treatment of the topic, pulling in as much as possible to "prove" its value - if anywhere, that sort of stuff belongs at Anthroposophic medicine. Here we need just a brief review of how it is considered a pseudoscience. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the SA version is much more neutral. Verbal chat 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

hgilbert has not yet mentioned that he has complained about this at the NPOV noticeboard: dougweller (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adherents

Hgilbert, based on this edit, I surmise that you disagree with the use of the word adherents to describe people who use Anthroposophic medicine. Referring solely to health care providers in the context of that sentence seems unduly limiting, as it excludes everyone else who makes their health decisions in that context. By way of analogy, it would be absurd to state in Aspirin that it is only used when directed by a doctor. Is there some third wording that would be better? - Eldereft (cont.) 22:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "practice" implies (to me, at least) that the sentence refers to practitioners. The practitioners of anthroposophical medicine are doctors, with M.D. degrees or the equivalent. I have tried an alternate wording that avoids the issue; what do you think? hgilbert (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I think that that wording is perfectly acceptable, thank you.

2) What is wrong with Hanssonn?

3) Ernst is a systematic review, which should generally be considered reliable to make unqualified statements. Is the source being misused, or is it out of date? - Eldereft (cont.) 23:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since we know that there are at least 3 studies of the sort he claims there are none of (see the studies I cited in the last edits) with dates 2004, 2005, and 2007, we should either remove his claim as being out of date or at least qualify it heavily.

I would consider that Hansson does not critique anthroposophic medicine explicitly enough for a citation here, but I will not stand in the way of it being put back in if others disagree. hgilbert (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I added the Hansson citation some while ago, so waiting for additional editors to weigh in seems sensible.

Hamre et al. (2004)(PDF) is not randomized.

Grossarth-Maticek and Ziegler (2006)(PDF) is a bit of a CV-padder in a pretty new journal, but we should not expect the creme of the scientific crop here. One arm was randomized, but the paper discusses only iscador; this is not the definitive paper for that treatment. However, a sentence on mistletoe might not bloat the entry unduly, as it is by far the most widely utilized Anthroposophic medicine.

Hamre et al. (2005) is non-randomized, among other issues of study design.

EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing addresses the scientific principles behind, and applications of, evidence-based healing practices from a wide variety of sources, including conventional, alternative, and cross-cultural medicine. It is an interdisciplinary journal that explores the healing arts, consciousness, spirituality, eco-environmental issues, and basic science as all these fields relate to health.

And now there is new text for me to check since last night when I tracked down these papers which completely miss the issue. Please be more careful. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kienle and Kiene (2007) is at least a systematic review, so we are starting to get somewhere; some of the trials included were randomized, even. I will note, however, that as of later that year, the American Cancer Society said of the evidence base for mistletoe (though all types were included, not just Iscador): Available evidence from well-designed clinical trials that have studied mistletoe did not support claims that mistletoe could improve length or quality of life. Can we start a new subsection below to discuss Iscador?

I would also like to make sure that we keep separate the issues of theoretical justification and evidence-based efficacy - Intelligent falling makes far more accurate predictions than any medical system could ever hope to, but it is still (parody) pseudoscience. Both issues do have some place in this entry, but they should not be conflated.

I would also like to quote here the sentence being cited to Ernst to emphasize how the thusfar proposed modifications are not supported by the above sources: Available evidence from well-designed clinical trials that have studied mistletoe did not support claims that mistletoe could improve length or quality of life. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out above that at least three of the sources presented here post-date Ernst's article; his comment thus cannot be assumed to apply to them. hgilbert (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have gotten mixed up with my copy/paste. The actual sentence cited to the Ernst systematic review is: No thorough scientific analysis of the efficacy of anthroposophical medicine as a system independent of its philosophical underpinnings has been undertaken; no evidence-based conclusion of the overall efficacy of the system can be made at this time. This does not apply to those studies for more reason than anachronicity. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) There is a more recent publication that thoroughly reviews the efficacy of anthroposophic medicine; this is an updated version of a comprehensive review undertaken under the aegis of the Swiss governmental "Health Technology Assessment Report". Kienle, Anthroposophic Medicine, 2006, and partially available at Google Books. hgilbert (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Iscador

This appears to be currently the best source for the use of mistletoe in cancer therapy: Ernst E, Schmidt K, Steuer-Vogt MK (2003). "Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised clinical trials". Int. J. Cancer. 107 (2): 262–7. doi:10.1002/ijc.11386. PMID 12949804. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). If we want to treat the evidence base for the most prominent Anthroposophical medicine, this would seem the way to go. A brief sentence explaining why Steiner decided that mistletoe would cure cancer would also be in order. As I mentioned earlier, it is my opinion that the Anthroposophic medicine entry is already about as long as any individual entry should reach. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It would not be fair to represent this without also mentioning that it is generally accepted that "mistletoe extracts can inhibit metastasis, reduce size, and cause necrosis of induced tumours" (British Canadian survey of mistletoe research) in animals and have antitumoral effects in vitro. hgilbert (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The National Cancer Institute offers the most thorough and up-to-date review of the treatment of cancer with mistletoe extracts.hgilbert (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That source you cite severely criticizes the studies. I think it criticizes them enough to warrant no inclusion of studies here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the NCI position on the use of mistletoe to the article.Desoto10 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic

First, QuackQuru, you and most other editors are well aware that chiropractic is a controversial inclusion, because editors have differed on which category of WP:PSCI it falls in according to RS's. (Not "obvious" PS. Verifiably "generally considered" per an RS? To be determined. "Questionable science?" Yes, it fits that; some critics, but not necessarily a sci-consensus source.) So, if you're going to have one more go at putting it in, you might (a) let editors know on this page, (b) use a descriptive edit summary per WP:ES instead of the remarkably uninformative "meets inclusion crieteria". Thanks, QG.

That said, I'm reverting SA's revert of TheDoctorIsIn, because I'm virtually certain that we've never reached consensus as to whether articles published in Skeptical Inquirer represent official endorsement of CSICOP. (An analogous question would be whether everything published in NEJM carries the considered endorsement of the Massachusetts Medical Society. I believe the generally-accepted answer to that question is "of course not".)

Finally, ScienceApologist, your edit summary in rv-ing TheDoctorIsIn violates WP:NPA, did not advance the debate, and was inappropriate: "Obvious agenda". The demarcation of certain topics, like chiropractic, is non-trivial. You don't own the objective high ground in this case at all. You've got an opinion that you are free to argue here. Do so according to the same rules we all are expected to follow, and we'll be able to have a straightforward exchange of views. To the extent you lapse into uncivil POV pushing, misrepresentation of consensus, WP:IDHT, personal attacks, or other issues already amply cataloged at ArbCom, you will merely be adding to the stack of evidence on the "unfavorable" side. --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The references are reliable and are currently in the main chiropractic article. The references easily meet the inclusion criteria for this article. If you think the references are not reliable please remember there is consensus for similar text and the same references for inclusion at chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As an IP pointed out, the inclusion criteria are different here because this is a "List of Pseudosciences". Inclusion means that WP is affirmatively saying a topic is pseudoscience, just as the earth is round (oblate spheroid). Which means we have to meet WP:PSCI, the criteria for which are, as you know, easily visible at the top of the page. Sticking the material in at chiropractic is simply citing an RS in an "according to..." manner, consistent with WP:PSCI's "questionable science".

For all editors seeking to include the material:

• Please remember that WP:BURDEN places the burden on you to include material. Saying it's "sourced" is insufficient, since the issue is whether the sources meets WP:PSCI. Since the inclusion criteria are disputed, the proper thing to do would be to exclude it until and if consensus settles on inclusion.
• ScienceApologist, please don't misrepresent consensus; this is at least the second time you've done so on this page.
• Verbal, I see that you reverted "per WP:BRD" and then failed to discuss at all. What's up with that?

thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The source or sources explain the pseudoscience of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Every editor on this page knows exactly what I'm referring to above re sources needing to meet WP:PSCI. --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem the reliable reference. The source meets WP:PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't! --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to all articles on Misplaced Pages. WP:PSCI also applies to all articles on Misplaced Pages when we use the label pseudoscience. At the chiropractic article, we label chiropractic pseudoscience and it meets the inclusion criteria of WP:PSCI. If labeling chiropractic pseudoscience at chiropractic has no objections then there should be no objections here. QuackGuru (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, BLP applies to all articles on WP, although articles come under its purview only to the degree that BLP material is discussed in them. Same deal with WP:PSCI: its "razor" only kicks in when we are concerned with "categorizing" or "characterizing" topics as pseudoscientific. If we're just mentioning the views of some critics, that's fine as long as we have an RS; that's what WP:PSCI means by "questionable science".

However, if we're having WP affirmitively state that a topic is PS, e.g. by putting it in category:pseudoscience or here in "List of Pseudo...", then we've got to meet a higher threshold in terms of source: topics "which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

The sources in the passage you'd like to add are both apparently OK on WP, though at the low end of reliability; neither appears to be from a scientific peer-reviewed publication. There is certainly no reason to belief that they are RS's for what the sci community "generally considers" to be the case. (Interestingly, I feel quite sure that sources of such marginal quality, if cited for a contention like "chiropractic is not at all pseudoscientific", would be eviscerated by some of the strongly "skeptic"-leaning editors.)

That about sums it up. --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Backin72 is essentially supporting his comments with originally researched innuendo. QW has sources. Therefore, QW is the one in the right. Let Backin72 find sourced evidence to back up his synthesis, but until then we should not be using it as justification for any edits. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Explain where the synthesis is, please. All I did was cite (and repeat, in my own words) WP:PSCI, which draws distinctions between "questionable science" and "generally considered pseudoscience", and states the type of source required. You do remember the debate over categorization at the RFAR on pseudoscience, in which both you and I commented, so I'm sure this is familiar territory for you. So, where's the synthesis? Questioning whether Keating speaks for the sci community, or what?

Also, your reversion once again misrepresented the existence of consensus. All we have here on the talk page are QG and I discussing, with you just now weighing in. We also have a few editors not discussing but giving ES's of varying degrees of coherence. Whatever that is, consensus it ain't. It is, however, a good example of your "damn the torpedos" approach, which unfortunately won't work very well in a situation where you're not self-evidently right. I's one thing to debate creationism or perpetual motion, and quite another to debate whether we have adequate sources for demarcation of well-known topics that aren't trivial judgement calls. It is that behavior that is corrosive to building an encyclopedia. --Backin72 (n.b.) 20:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All you do is original synthesis based off of your parochial understanding of WP:PSCI. You have no sources which disparage QG's sources, nor do you dispute QG's sources are saying what he is telling you they are saying. Instead you are trying to Wikilawyer your way into removing alternative medicines which have had parts of them verifiably described as pseudoscience. I think the encyclopedia building is going fine without the feet-dragging and the false claims of (non)consensus that you are making. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please treat this as a real debate, not foot-dragging to be smacked down. (1) You say I'm doing original synthesis, but only offer up a pejorative ("parochial"), and never explain why. (2) The burden is on editors to provide adequate sources. If you suggest the Boy Scout Handbook as a source for sci consensus, I don't need an RS disparaging it. The same apply to Keating, Homola and the Skeptical Inquirer article: RS's for opinion, i.e. inline attribution, but not sufficient (per WP:ASF) for presenting their opinions as facts, particularly in the case of topics falling under WP:PSCI. (3) "Wikilawyering" -- that accusation is the first refuge of those who can't defend their position. (4). And you repeat the false assertion re consensus. Look, as I said before, this isn't a debate over AIDS revisionism or something where the facts are clear. You do not have the objective high ground here, and the issues aren't trivial. All I'm asking is that you change your talk page edits from "battling creationists" mode to "substantive discussion" mode. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1)You are using your own opinion to frame the debate even though I and others have insisted that there is no reliable source which distinguish between sources in the same way you do. Skeptical vs. scientific is not a distinction I have seen reliable sources make. 2) The sources are adequate. That some people dislike them is another matter. 3) I only remark that you are wikilawyering because you continue to make arguments from vague reinterpretations of policies rather than content suggestions. I note that the rejection of your proposal for clarification to arbcom indicates, in part, that this is your tactic. Just because some people in the past have used the accusation inappropriately does not mean that it is being used inappropriately now. 4) The assertion regarding consensus seems true to me. Reasonable people may disagree on whether consensus exists or not: it's not a clear-cut measure. However, your posturing is not helping matters. I'm trying to have substantive discussions, but it is quite difficult when people refuse to acknowledge basic facts (such as the point about a false demarcation between skeptical and scientific sources). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:PSCI: Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." We are not generally characterized it as pseudoscience. We are attributing it to when it was mainly pseudoscience for the chiropractic entry and attributing it to the skeptic groups for the Traditional Chinese Medicine entry. According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. If you think we are asserting it too strong as pseudoscience then you are free propose or modify the wording to improve the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, chiro is "questionable science". According to WP:PSCI, "questionable science" shouldn't go in a category or list that definitively says it's pseudoscience. Certainly, the article on chiro, or a list of alleged pseudosciences or something similarly qualified, can contain such criticism. However, we cannout put chiropractic into category:pseudoscience. Nor can we put it on a "List of pseudosciences...", which is similarly definitive. Numerous other editors have acknowledged this point in the past; it's just a straight reading of WP:PSCI. I see you guys are tag-teaming on edit warring and while not addressing the argument very substantively, so for now I won't pursue the matter further here; you're asserting a local consensus which (a) doesn't exist and (b) is contrary to global consensus on NPOV. --Backin72 (n.b.) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. Where does it say in WP:PSCI it cannot go on a list? QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the list is. We don't put Menachem Begin in "List of State Terrorists" because there isn't broad enough agreement among RS's to do so. Similarly, we don't put "questionable sciences" on a "List of Pseudosciences...". No matter how much explaining may be done under the entry, it's already been affirmatively categorized as pseudoscience. That is not OK under NPOV.

"Questionable sciences" are defined as "theories that have a substantial following... but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience", and may contain information to that effect: that is, we cite and attribute the criticisms (cf. my edit to chiroractic, which added the necessary attribution to Keating. What we cannot do with "questionable sciences" is characterize them as pseudoscience:

• we can't put them in category:pseudoscience (but we might put them in category:disputed science);
• we can't say that "X topic is pseudoscience" (but we can say "according to so-and-so, X topic is pseudoscience); and
• we can't put them on a "List of pseudosciences..." (but we could put them on a "List of alleged pseudosciences").

That's it in a nutshell. We report facts about opinions unless we have a source reliable enough to report information as facts per se (e.g., the HIV virus causes AIDS). --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about which list chiropractic belongs to, but I do have an objection to that edit of Chiropractic. The text in question did not claim that chiropractic is a pseudoscience, and what it did claim is supported by several reliable sources (including chiropractic ones) and is not disputed by any reliable source. For more about that particular edit, please follow up in Talk:Chiropractic #"by Joseph C. Keating, Jr.", a thread I just created. Eubulides (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not just Keating. When it is not just Keating attribution seems unnecessary. See WP:ASF. According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. To that effect, it can be on this list as long as it is written in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading it, the Keating source is not calling chiropractic a pseudoscience; nor does the text at Chiropractic make such a claim. Eubulides seems to agree with this above when he/she states: The text in question did not claim that chiropractic is a pseudoscience.... Further, the Keating source is speaking from a historical perspective (up until the 1970s) and does not necessarily reflect current opinion. That said, if there was a list of items historically characterized as a pseudoscienc (in the past), then this sources may serve well. But as it stands, this source does not meet the inclusion criteria set forth by this list article specifically. (Nor does it qualify to meet the requirements of WP:PSCI.) -- Levine2112 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I previously explained how the source meets the inclusion criteria. It does quality under WP:PSCI. There is more than one source and there are more sources at the main chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources which you have presented characterize chiropractic as a pseudoscience; nor does the current Chiropractic article characterize it as such. If you believe differently, please present us the text from the particular source which characterizes the subject as a pseudoscience. Honestly, that would be the best way to move forward from here per WP:BRD. -- Levine2112 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with QW's addition. It is well-sourced and explains the situation plainly despite Chiropractic true-believers' objections. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't characterize me as a "true believer" per WP:NPA. We don't need personal attacks here. What we need here is a recent and reliable source which represents the views of some notable skeptical society and characterizes the subject as pseudoscience. Thus far, none has been presented. If you have one, please provide the source here along with quotes from the source which espouse such a characterization. Until then, please refrain from re-inserting the text into this list. Thank you. -- Levine2112 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The same text and references is in the main chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As Eubulides and myself have explained above to you, the Chiropractic article does not characterize chiropractic as a pseudoscience anywhere. If you are refering to the Keating sources, then please provide the quotes from these sources which characterizes chiropractic as a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time for QuackGuru to finally stop this campaign of inserting chiropractic into this article. I count at least 25 times in the past two years where he/she has attempted to insert chiropractic into this article in some form or another with similar or weaker sources - all of which have been rejected in past discussions such as there:

1. Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive_9#Chiropractic_and_New_England_Skeptical_Society
2. Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive3#Chiropractic_.3D_Pseudoscience
3. Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive7#Chiropractic

Despite these discussions - all of which ultimately rejected QuackGuru's reasoning for inclusion, he/she continues the campaign to include this material via edit warring. Here are at least 25 instances of QuackGuru attempting to insert chiropractic into this article for the past two years:

These edits had been reverted by many different editors. Several discussions have taken place on this talk page, each coming to a consensus that no source has been presented which merits the inclusion of chiropractic. Despite this long history, QuackGuru returns every so often and attempts to edit war this material back into this article. I truly feel that QuackGuru's campaign has worn down our patience here at this article and suggest to him/her that it is time to move on. -- Levine2112 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the source: A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That source has been rejected in the past discussions I list above because it is nearly 12 years old and even still doesn't characterize chiropractic as pseudoscientific. The source talks about pseudosceintific ideas within the profession, but it doesn't label the entire professional as such. These days, those "ideas" are only perpetuated by some minority - albeit perhaps a significant minority - of chiropractic doctors. -- Levine2112 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The source has not been rejected at chiropractic. According to the source the pseudo-scientific ideas are a continuing barrier. This meets the inclusion criteria for this article and the chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The source has been rejected at this article. Yes, it is accepted at Chiropractic, but it is not being used to characterize chiropractic a pseudoscience. This has been told to you over and over and over again. Please cease with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments. You are wasting our time and trying all of our patience. For two years you have been edit warring, trying to include this material - and for two years your insertions and arguments have been rejected by the community at large. It's time to move on. -- Levine2112 06:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. To that effect, it can be on this list as long as it is written in accordance with NPOV.

According to source A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.

When the source states it has continued "pseudo-scientific ideas" it is characterizing chiropractic as pseudoscience anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am done until you move on from these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments. -- Levine2112 06:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No specific or valid objection has been made to my previous comment. The text is well sourced and in accordance with WP:PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with QG. There seems to be a bit of WP:POT to boot. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the statement above of "several discussions have taken place on this talk page, each coming to a consensus that no source has been presented which merits the inclusion of chiropractic", could someone provide links to these discussions? Thanks, --Elonka 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar text has consensus at the main chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Verified according to source as requested

Levine2112 asked for verification on the talk page and in his edit summary: Reverted to revision 262039080 by Levine2112; the sources given say nothing of the such. please provide exact quotes on talk page as requested.. using TW.

According to the source: A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.

The text has been verified as requested by Levine2112. According to the source the pseudo-scientific ideas are a continuing barrier. Per the source, we need to get the present tense corrected. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying it meets WP:PSCI certainly doesn't make it so; there is no reason to believe that chiro falls into "generally considered pseudo", and "questionable sciences" shouldn't be on a "List of Pseudosciences" any more than they should be in "category:pseudoscience". QG, I think the list Levine compiled above is prima facie evidence of WP:TE on your part. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. We can include information to that effect according to PSCI. Levine2112's objection was sourcing. I provided verification as requested by Levine2112. Chiropractic is clearly associated with pseudoscience according to the sources presented. Where in policy does it specifically say we can't include it on a list. QuackGuru (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

as I've explained below and repeatedly, the sources are not adequate because they don't meet WP:PSCI's high requirements for sourcing topics that are "characterized" (i.e., affirmed without qualification on WP) as pseudoscience. --Backin72 (n.b.) 12:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Levine2112 the source is adequate becuase he requested verification of the text. Please read his edit summary: Reverted to revision 262039080 by Levine2112; the sources given say nothing of the such. please provide exact quotes on talk page as requested.. using TW. When an editor requests the exact quotes from the source it means that editor agrees the source is adequate and just wantsd to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting and discussing

User:Backin72 reverted to his preferred version, but it doesn't look like he is part of the discussion. Seeing this, I reverted him. I do not think it wise that people ignore the points made by QG. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I posted less than an hour before you just did:

• 22:36, 5 January 2009

And before that:

• 23:07, 4 January 2009

...and see talk page history for more. In the last 100 edits, I count 17 by myself and 18 by yourself; I didn't check how many were minor. In any case, I've obviously been discussing this ad nauseum with QuackGuru.

SA, you're hard to figure out. Do you habitually distort the record because you think you'll get away with it, or because you truly have blind spots? In any case, congratulations; your falsehoods have pulled me from retirement. I'm going to make sure all evidence of this type is put before ArbCom. --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (struck stuff possibly inappropriate for this venue --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

No specific objection has been made to this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely false also; see here. (You asked the question several times, but the diff above is the answer I gave, and I haven't heard back from you about the points I raised.) --Backin72 (n.b.) 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. We can include information to that effect according to PSCI. Levine2112's objection was sourcing. I provided verification as requested by Levine2112. Chiropractic is clearly associated with pseudoscience according to the sources presented. If you read PSCI carefully we can included information about chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

QG is correct. QG has responded to all of Backin72's attempts to obstruct and Backin72 has responded to none of QG's points. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

SA's comment does not hold up to even a cursory reading of the talk page. --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't read with a cursory attitude, then. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

QG is incorrect. Psychoanalysis has been called pseudoscience and it is not allowed to categorized as such. Find something else to push. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained how I am incorrect. Is it because I am correct? QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between a list versus a category. We have a list on Misplaced Pages that resolves the pseudoscience issue. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a list's inclusion criteria must be NPOV and these aren't. You remember your first attempt at an article don't you - List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts. I think you started that article actually. Rembember how the inclusion criteria was too vague and violated NPOV? Then of course there is the ArbCom that SA was a part of. No Chiropractic and Acupuncture do not belong just because you have a commentary article that uses the term. But don't trust me, take it to the arbcom committee and see aht they say. Maybe things have changed, like chiropractic and acupuncture have both been intergrated into medicine since then. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a specific objection to the text or references. Vague comments are not helpful. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dematt can speak for himself, but I'd say the objection is to the inclusion of all of the text, and that the references don't meet those required for a "generally considered pseudoscience by the sci community". I mean, Keating in two non-peer-reviewed articles? One article on CSICOP, neither a group statement from the org or itself a legit peer-reviewed journal? Come on, not even close to meeting the sci-consensus standard. As for "questionable sciences", yes, "information may be included to the effect" that critics exist, but only in articles or categories that don't explicitly "categorize" or "characterize" the topic as PS. You've asked that question about 10 times, and I've answered it about twice now. I've never objected to including "grey area", "questionable sciences" in an article with a looser title. Why not push for that? --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

According to PSCI we can include information to that effect but not a category. This list is not the same as a category. The reference is the attribution to the skeptic group. It is not alleged to be pseudoscience when it is referenced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The list's title unambiguously says everything on it is a pseudoscience. That's the same effect as "categorizing" or "characterizing". List titles matter. I've always said that if it were changed, I'd have no problem including "questionable sciences" with inline citations. Otherwise, I'm against it, and so are Dematt and Levine2112 and maybe some others, so we don't have consensus yet. --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Where in Misplaced Pages policy does it say a list is exactly the same as a category? QuackGuru (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere, of course. They don't have to be exactly the same for our purposes. WP:PSCI uses the terms "categorized" and "characterized". I take those to refer to categories and lists (i.e., those with unqualified names like "category:pseudoscience" or "List of Pseudosciences...") as well as any article when the depiction is made without inline attribution. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is simply wikilawyering. QG has provided excellent sources which establish the pseudoscience association. Sooner or later, it's going to be in this list. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And both he and you totally ignore the arguments specific arguments re WP:PSCI, categorizing/characterizing, sourcing, and this lists's title. Instead, you offer up "wikilawyering" as the sole rebuttal. Is that the best you can do? I mean, "wikilawyering" is almost on par with Godwin's Law around here.

While we're at it, another instance of ignoring consensus: Verbal's edit. I then posted on his talk page asking, not nicely but within civility, to stop doing that. His reply was to remove the material and call me a "troll with an agenda". As if. If Verbal continues as he is, he's headed for RfC/E land. I know I sounded a bit rude, but everything I said was correct and backed up by evidence, and any scientist ought to be able to look at data, and not insult fellow editors by making false statements. Good faith is at a nadir around here, and a great deal of it has to do with the "ends justify the means" mentality that underlies many edits from the looser-demarcation advocates. --Backin72 (n.b.) 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like I'll start a wiki-etiquette alert as I think it is you that is being highly uncivil, and not me. Your language and behaviour was inappropriate, and the majority of your comment above is unsuitable for this talk page. We can see what the wikietiquette people think for a third opinion about your behaviour if you like. Returning to the topic, I'm not convinced, and neither are others, and nor the long standing consensus of the page, by your interpretation of PSCI. Verbal chat 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Show me evidence of that supposed long-standing consensus on the page. I, Dematt, Levine, and others have objected. Out of ca. 10 regulars, I don't think that's quite consensus. Do you disagree? Explain why. As I said to SA, you don't own the objective high ground here, so stop acting like you do. We're debating a fairly subtle issue of demarcation, NPOV and sourcing. Where I accept that reasonable people can differ, you and SA and QG act as though those who differ are basically full of shit and it's not even worth hearing their argument, just like with all the other pseudoscientists. That's exactly how you've acted. See how it might be a poisonous approach to editing?

On my post to your talk page, I asked you to fix three specific things about your editing that are Wikiquette violations. I was brusque, but civil, and everything I said was true and backed up by diffs. Your response to this request to improve your Wikiquette was to blank the comments, call me a troll, and complain about my Wikiquette. Lovely. WP:POT much?

It's reasonable for and editor to ask, and for you to work on, not misrepresenting consensus, being wrong re WP:BURDEN (same diff), and failing to practice on the talk page what you preached in an edit summary re bold, revert discuss (i.e., you didn't discuss at all). Those are all substantive, reasonable things. Why do you need a Wikiquette alert to get them further explained to you? --Backin72 (n.b.) 13:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, and your first ever interaction with me was very rude and highly combative. Please keep discussion on this page on topic - improving the article, per WP:TALK. I will not reply to further such comments here, and I ask any other editor to remove such off topic posts made by anyone. Verbal chat 14:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's get down to basics. Please show me evidence of that supposed long-standing consensus on the page regarding PSCI. I trust that request is not rude. And please withdraw your claim if you can't support it. That's fair also, isn't it? --Backin72 (n.b.) 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Verbal is right, the entire thing is getting way out of hand. We have sourced inclusions and people opposing the sourced inclusions. It's as simple as that. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not address the question re: your assertion about consensus? --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112 requested verification and I provided verification. No specific objections to the verification has been made. Does that mean we have consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not; not unless the editors objecting have examined the verification and agreed it is sufficient. (No offense. I just like to examine and consider the evidence myself. Pesky habit, I know, but it's a science thing.) Please provide a diff showing whatever new sources you've found. Thanks.

Addendum: if it's this, no, I don't buy that either is sufficient. Two non-peer-reviewed articles? Fine (at best) for inline attribution in chiropractic; not fine for categorizing or placing on definitively-titled "List of Pseudosciences...". That's per WP:PSCI's requirements: stronger claims of something being seen as pseudoscience require stronger sources. Nowhere else in science do we presume that if some dude whispered "A = B" somewhere, and non contradicted him, that A = B must be regarded as factual (not even attributable opinion, but fact) for purposes of an encyclopedia. --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A list is different than a cat. WP:PSCI's requirements have been met. I provided verification. See Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Verified according to source as requested. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how the list is titled: "List of pseudosciences" says, to a WP reader, exactly the same thing as "category:pseudoscience" does: everything here is a pseudoscience, full stop, no caveats. If we do caveat sections on the list and allow "inclusion criteria drift", then it's time to change the list's title. (I've said all that before, yes? Didn't you hear that?) --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It tried a compromise by adding attribution to the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text for Chiropractic entry

Much as I respect the opinions and work of many of the editors contributing to this article, I would like to see the proposed text discussed here, consensus established, and a general collegial atmosphere maintained. Also, unless I missed it, the current discussion omits information about what chiropractic actually is. I would like to think that we can agree on something along the lines of Chiropractors perform spinal manipulation . , though many still adhere to the vitalistic principles on which it was founded. . , , and has neither a prophylactic nor curative effect on any organic disease. We might also consider: the (sourced) anti-vaccination stance of some in the profession; the (sourced) dangers of relying solely on chiropractic to the exclusion of (other) medicine; the (sourced) straight/mixer/etc. terminology; the (sourced) use of homeopathy, applied kinesiology, and other pseudoscientific practices; and the (sourced) overuse of x-rays, though I am not certain if those are the most relevant points to make. To that end (drawing heavily on Chiropractic and associated articles and talkpages):

*Chiropractic is a healthcare profession within complementary and alternative medicine focusing on spinal manipulation. Many modern chiropractors target solely mechanical dysfunction, and offer health and lifestyle counseling. Many others, however, base their practice on the vitalism of D.D. Palmer and B. J. Palmer, maintaining that all or many organic diseases are the result of hypothetical spinal dysfunctions known as vertebral subluxations and the impaired flow of innate, a form of putative energy. These ideas are not based in science, and along with the lack of a strong research base are in part responsible for the historical conflict between chiropractic and mainstream medicine. Recent systematic reviews indicate the possibility of moderate effectiveness for spinal manipulation in the management of nonspecific low back pain. The effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been demonstrated according to the principles of evidence-based medicine for any other condition. Spinal manipulation, particularly upper spinal manipulation, carries some risk of side effects with possible neurologic involvement (fainting, dizziness, light headedness, headache, or numbness or tingling in the upper limbs), and low risk of more serious complications such as subarachnoid hemorrhage or vertebral artery dissection.

I am aware of but not a participant in the current brouhaha at Chiropractic. To avoid forking productive discussion, I would like to focus on points that have been settled there, and update this entry accordingly. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Healthcare professional? No. OrangeMarlin 22:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How about alternative healthcare? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic (at least earlier today) said "health care", so I took that as a starting point. Would omitting that clause entirely (replace the above proposed first sentence with: Chiropractic is an alternative medicine practice focusing on spinal manipulation.) be better? To forestall the other anticipated objection to that sentence, the preponderance of non-Chiropractic reliable sources seems to describe it as complementary and/or alternative medicine. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is a short summary of the main chiropractic article but does not focus on the topic of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We need the first sentence for context and something along the lines of the second for NPOV (think of it like a hat note informing readers that the field is not unified, perhaps). Would you prefer to drop everything after the conflict sentence? Perhaps it could be replaced with some elaboration on the hugely pseudoscientific aspects, with the issue of the tenuous-at-best evidence base reserved for the main article? - Eldereft (cont.) 16:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The text proposed by Eldereft above looks OK to me. I oppose the current text, and in particular I oppose this edit; adding "characterized by" to the lead is OK, but removing it from the sentence about chiropractic results in what appears to me to be a non-NPOV sentence, asserting an opinion from a source as if it were a fact. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ASF. On Misplaced Pages, we assert opinions as fact when there is no serious disagreement among reliable source. I think you should understand this by now. The current proposal is off topic and is not specifically about pseudoscience. It is irrelevant how the text looks. We should stick to adding relevant text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ASF says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." It does not say that we "assert opinions as facts". ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

According to ASF, we should assert opinions as fact when "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic Consensus versus Scientific Consensus

Scientific consensus does not support the theory that vertebral misalignment or "subluxation" is a cause of organic disease (College 1996, Crelin 1973, Jarvis 2001, National Council Against Health Fraud 2005). Spinal nerves primarily supply musculoskeletal structures. Organ function is governed by the autonomic nervous system in concert with psychic, chemical, hormonal, and circulatory factors. Autonomic cranial and sacral nerves that supply the body's organs do not pass through movable joints. Spinal nerves are commonly irritated or compressed by bony spurs, herniated discs, and other abnormalities in the spine. Even the most severe compression of a spinal nerve, however, which cripples the supplied musculoskeletal structures, does not cause organic disease. It is unreasonable to assume that slight misalignment of a vertebra or an undetectable vertebral subluxation complex can cause disease or ill health when those effects do not occur because of gross displacement of a vertebra or as a result of impingement of a spinal nerve.

On June 15, 2005, the World Federation of Chiropractic, at its Eighth Biennial Congress, unanimously agreed that chiropractors should be identified as "spinal health care experts in the health care system . . . with emphasis on the relationship between the spine and the nervous system" (World 2005). This definition fails to place proper limitations upon chiropractors who use spinal adjustments to treat general health problems, plunging the profession deeper into pseudoscience and away from establishing an identity for chiropractors as back-pain specialists. Most states continue to define chiropractic as a method of adjusting vertebral subluxations to restore and maintain health, allowing chiropractic treatment of almost any ailment.

The following text says vertebral subluxation is pseudoscience.

Comments on Chiropractic Consensus versus Scientific Consensus

According to the source scientific consensus does not support vertebral misalignment or "subluxation". Moreoever, vertebral subluxations has been characterized as pseudoscience, plunging the profession deeper away from establishing an identity. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, when you have anything other than your synthesized original research let me know. -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I provided exact quotes from the reference. Your vague comments are unhelpful.

Adjustment of a selected vertebra would release vital nerve flow so that so-called "innate intelligence" could heal the body (Wardwell 1992). This theory has since been rejected and ridiculed by the scientific community. QuackGuru (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What scientific community are you pointing to? I only see Samuel Homola writing a commentary piece. He uses the word pseudosceince, but who is he? A chiropractor. Where is your scientific community? The onus is on you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You previously claimed it was synthesized orginal research but now you saying something different.

You have ackowledged the text is verified which is from a skepitc group. This skeptic group meets the inclusion criteria for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change in accordance with Misplaced Pages's standard. The skeptic group meets the inclusion criteria for this list. QuackGuru (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Dr. Homola is writing as a skeptic, not the official mouthpiece of CSICOP. The opinion of one skeptic doth not make a scientific consensus. -- Levine2112 05:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The skeptic group reviews what they put on their website. The source is relieble. Please see WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is whether it's an RS for this article and this item, as opposed to a "generic" RS for Misplaced Pages. Just as BLP articles have specific rules, so do PSCI ones. Regarding CSICOP, we've never had consensus that something published by X group is officially endorsed by X group. And I, and others, have accepted as a compromise this version that includes skeptical groups, even though I have grave reservations that these are RS's for scientific consensus. (please see my second paragraph just under section above; see diff). Again -- my position is loosen the list title to reflect where you want to take the criteria, and that will be fine (even though I would wonder if a list of everything ever criticized in Skeptical Inquirer were really encyclopedic). --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps now is a good time for all of us to review how we deal with lists at Misplaced Pages and remember that lists should not be used to push any POV. This seems to be the problem here; POV pushing through lists. -- Levine2112 08:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that this is bald obstructionism on the part of editors who do not with to see certain ideas associated with pseudoscience though they generally are. QG has found excellent sources that associate the ideas with pseudoscience. It is very unseemly that these sources are essentially being ignored in favor of innuendo and Wikilawyering. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add that it is obstructionism by a minority of editors with a well known bias. Verbal chat 12:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys can make ominous noises like that all you want, but it doesn't make the charges true, nor does it obscure the fact that your edits have been problematic: very heavy on misrepresenting consensus and WP:IDHT. Better to start talking on the merits rather than making boilerplate claims. --Backin72 (n.b.) 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I see consensus as supporting the inclusion of the following ideas:

1. Traditional Chinese medicine
2. Certain aspects of chiropractic
3. Subluxation

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence please? Head count? --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic did not have serious research to test chiropractic theories for most of its existence, and is continuing to be hampered by antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas that sustained the profession in its long battle with mainstream medicine. Scientific consensus does not support chiropractic's vertebral subluxation and it is characterized as pseudoscience, away from establishing an identity of back pain specialists. The text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant show me the editors on each side and show how there is consensus. (I really have no idea, QG, how you intended the above passage to apply to my question.) --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am allowed to make a proposal. I reccomend to editors to focus on improving the article instead of any attempts to block sourced material. In another thread there is a proposed chiropractic entry that is more detailed than my proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal assumes that our objections to the sources aren't legitimate. When we're citing scientific consensus (per WP:PSCI), we need better than Skeptical Inquirer articles and the like. Several editors hold this view, and that's why the "consensus" you and others prematurely assert is not present. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." According to WP:PSCI: it may be categorized as pseudoscience. A list is not a category. QuackGuru (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there is scientific support or consensus for the statements in this passage, above, or that they are necessarily true: (the passage beginning "Autonomic cranial and sacral" and ending "impingement of a spinal nerve.") This talk page is not a place for arguing about the subject matters themselves, but only about the content of the list. See WP:SOAP. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The text is supported by the reference. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title

This is not the first time this has come up, but this is the first time I have seen such clear proof that the article title contravenes Misplaced Pages guidelines. From the guidelines for lists:

Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous British people" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be the simpler "List of British people"; per WP:BIO, individuals will be listed only if they pass the Misplaced Pages:Notability test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists".

That seems clearly applicable to this article title. hgilbert (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have supported a title change all along. We get into these disputes because of this non-NPOV title. Just change it and we'll be able to move on and include the items without problem. I don't recall all the suggested alternatives, but here is a previous discussion. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the earlier discussion, it seems clear that there was quite widespread support for, but that there are also genuine concerns associated with the name change. To meet these, I would suggest that:

• We do not relax the article criteria (i.e. not everything that anyone has ever alleged to be pseudoscience should be listed)
• We find a name that balances the concerns that we don't want to whitewash the fact that some topics are surely pseudoscientific, nor do we want to imply that everything listed has been clearly demonstrated to be so.
• We honor the above-mentioned guidelines about a term that is in dispute. hgilbert (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We agree, I think, that:

1. The sourcing criteria should be that reliable sources must have identified pseudoscientific aspects of ideas in order for them to be included.
2. Balance is covered by WP:WEIGHT. When there are positive reviews of ideas, they must be independent, third party evaluations and they must explicitly address the "pseudoscience" accusation. So, for example, using an astrologer as a source for "astrology is not pseudoscience" is unacceptable.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good progress here! Agree with Hgilbert's points. Agree with SA's point #1. Not sure I agree entirely with #2; just as not every sci academy gets around to commenting on every pseudoscience, not every RS gets around to rebutting some CSICOP or Shermer article deeming a topic pseudoscience (and let's be real; these guys can and do get carried away with flinging the label around from time to time). An alternative: along with rebuttal of the pseudoscience claim, allow 3rd party commentary affirming the scientific or utilitarian aspects of the topic in question. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about List of Pseudosciences and Purported Pseudosciences? That should do it. --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty broad-based (in a positive sense) - what do others think? hgilbert (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Something in that direction is what I'm seeking. The even simpler List of purported pseudosciences would work even better. This gets us totally away from edit warring over which division to place an item in (of the four WP:PSCI divisions). We just list V & RS that make a claim that something is a pseudoscience and let readers make up their own minds. We should have some inclusion criteria in the lead that limits contributions to obviously science-friendly sources, otherwise we'd be open to constant WP:POINT violations by PS POV pushers who will attempt to include their favorite anti-medical and anti-science quotes. Let's face it, the term does get used as a type of retaliation which can fool some ignorant people. Why this requirement? Because "pseudoscience" is an often derogatory term used by those on the scientific side of the fence to describe fringe ideas and concepts that don't jibe with the current scientific data. Other uses are POINT violations. If scientific data changes, some inclusions that would previously not be proper, might become proper. Until then it would be a POINT violation and OR. We just follow the scientific and skeptical sources, and any other sources that are overtly pro-science. Sources skeptical of science exclude themselves. Sources that claim to be scientific but aren't (an important part of the definition of pseudoscience!) are also out. That would be established by using scientific and skeptical sources that criticize them as PS. Another thing that be of great service to readers is liberal use of attribution. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"How about List of Pseudosciences and Purported Pseudosciences? That should do it..." We must be aware that a vast corpus of mainstream science was once categorised with pejorative titles,... Purported... seems to allow the reader to be skeptical of the skeptic!... who may?... or may not? be an ignorant fellow, unfamiliar with the empirical evidence that supports the claims s/he is skeptical about. The general public now look to Misplaced Pages for information on many topics that are often categorised as pseudo-science. The man in the street has a gut instinct that gems are often mixed with dirt! Allowing the reader to discern for themselves what is? or is not? pseudo-science, prevents a biased editor from exercising unwarrented censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Carnegie (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to call things "purported" per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Subjects without referents. Pseudoscience is always "purported" so including that WP:WEASEL word is unnecessary and essentially spoonfeeding the reader into questioning the article/list. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSCI sees things a bit differently, and does distinguish between cases where we can affirmatively label a topic and cases where we have to attribute the classification as opinion. That's why we don't stick everything ever called pseudoscience in "category:pseudoscience": ArbCom never said anything about spoonfeeding the reader; it's simply NPOV to attribute classifications that aren't obviously majority ones. In that light, Hgilbert's suggestion of ""List of fields described as pseudoscientific" sounds pretty good. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The cited arbitration refers to unreal phenomena such as mythical creatures. I'm not sure we are ready to place pseudosciences in this category.

I've seen no response to the very clear guideline, so I'll repeat it here: "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists". What about "List of fields described as pseudoscientific". hgilbert (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that that is nothing more than an essay, which is simply the opinion of one or more wikipedians, it is not a guideline. The "List of pseudoscientists" example is also not clear as that is a bad title due to WP:BLP concerns. Verbal chat 19:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

True re the special case of BLP, but BLP is essentially just an extra-rigorous elaboration of the foundational principles of NPOV/VER/OR. So the same concerns do apply. Same idea with WP:CG#Category_naming, which is an actual guideline: "Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (e.g., if an event is considered a war crime), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed." --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you have the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community for this incredible extension of guidelines/policies in the direction you are proposing. A well-worded post to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, or WP:NORN (though I'm not sure where that one would go) might clear up matters for you. Outside opinions are things you could definitely use. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevant sources

I agree with points 1 and 2. About point 2, we should include relevant sources and not let this article be a dumping ground for any references. References must explicitly address the "pseudoscience" accusation for inclusion and not just dump any references. QuackGuru (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reply in the section below, "Traditional Chinese Medicine and balancing sources". Just because this is a list of topics labeled pejoratively doesn't mean we abandon NPOV. In our brief annotations, we can describe arguments for topic's scientific side in an NPOV way by using, as SA suggested, 3rd party sources. --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. WHO and NIH as "dumping ground" type sources? Count me in, that sounds like a good place to be. ;-) --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please show how the sources are relevant to the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They provide balancing views that the subject has scientific and clinical value, that's how. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please show and not assert how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. This article is about pseudoscience. Please provide the exact quotes from the source or sources that address the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I replied below; no need to duplicate. --Backin72 (n.b.) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with subdivision

I think there's a clear and obvious problem with dividing obvious pseudosciences up between those that have been explicitly labelled as such by scientists and those that have only been noticed and critiqued by skeptical organizations.

The division is a false one and ignores the fact that pseudosciences can be objectively recognized by their use of the language of science and their lack of acceptance by the scientific community. Thus per WP:WEIGHT the criticism of a body by a notable skeptical organization, in the absense of countervailing scientific credentials, is sufficient to denote a pseudoscience. --TS 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We have therefore changed it and continued the conversation lower down on this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine and balancing sources

Look, there's never been consensus to include any topic based just on articles published in "Skeptical Inquirer" or other single authors. We've had several editors (ScienceApologist and QuackGuru mainly, also Verbal and Fyslee) tag-team reverting several other editors who are less inclined to edit war (myself, Dematt, Levine2112, hgilbert). (Not precisely the same as "consensus", last I checked.) But if such topics are going to be included over the objections of several editors, the least we can do is provide a fair summary of the topic. That principle is straight out of NPOV, and the article's "inclusion criteria" are irrelevant: once a topic is in, it's described and summarized per NPOV.

This revert from QuackQuru was entirely unnecessary, and smacked of tit-for-tat since I've been objecting to his sources on chiropractic. My additions were the second and third sentences; its seems self-evident that the entry is better with them:

*Traditional Chinese Medicine. Practices such as acupuncture, qigong and ideas such as chi are held as "quackery" and pseudoscientific by skeptic groups like CSICOP. According to the NIH consensus statement on acupuncture, these traditional Chinese medical concepts "are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture." The World Health Organization lists 28 conditions "for which acupuncture has been proved - through controlled trials - to be an effective treatment", and several dozen more for which evidence is suggestive.

--Backin72 (n.b.) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We should include relevant sources and not let this article be a dumping ground for any references. References must explicitly address the "pseudoscience" accusation for inclusion and not become a dumping ground for irrelevant references. Adding irrelevant sources is not helpful. Please show how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't at all agree that the above is "dumping" -- it's balance, and frankly, in terms of number and weight, the WHO and NIH are like 800-lb gorillas compared to the guinea pig that CSICOP is. NPOV requires that we treat topics fairly, especially topics that are closer to "questionable science" than "generally agreed pseudo" or "obvious pseudo". Your actions do nothing to improve good faith and the 4RR is self-evidently disruptive. Look, you editors in the "label-pushing" camp are starting to get your way on chiro and Chinese med through brute force edit warring -- the least you can do is allow these highly mainstream things to be balanced out by impeccable 3rd party sources. What's next on the list, psychotherapy? --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not shown the references are relevant for this article. The references should be specific to the topic of this article. Please show how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I explained exactly how they are relevant: they provide balance from 3rd party sources regarding the scientific-ness of the source under discussion. NPOV, in other words. We don't explicitly need a good RS saying "no, it's not pseudo"; we need sources providing adequate balance to the criticisms. And in WP:PARITY terms, WHO and NIH crush CSICOP like an ant. It's really unfortunate that WP:PSCI is being so thoroughly ignored here, and all the moreso that the means of doing so is edit warring. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please show and not assert how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. This article is about pseudoscience. Please provide the exact quotes from the source or sources that address the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your reply crosses the line into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have nothing to add beyond the above, and will let other editors weigh in. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again: Please show and not assert how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. This article is about pseudoscience. Please provide the exact quotes from the source or sources that address the pseudoscience debate. You have not shown how the sources are relevant to pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They are relevant to NPOV treatment of the subjects. They don't have to contain the magic word "pseudoscience" as long as they in some way address the scientific or practical value of the topic, or otherwise provide balance or clarification that is relevant to the criticism. That's why lists are good; they can contain annotation. It violates NPOV not to cite countering views, especially when they're overwhelmingly, in WP:PARITY terms, stronger RS's than the source asserting that the pseudo label applies. --Backin72 (n.b.) 01:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You were adding non-specific references that are not about the pseudoscience topic and do not meet the inclusion criteria. It would be best if we used references that are specific to the pseudoscience debate and not dump irrelevant references. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The goal is neutrality. If some sources are provided which use the "pseudoscience" term, it seems reasonable that other (reliable) sources may be provided which present a balancing viewpoint, even if they don't necessarily have the word "pseudoscience" in them. --Elonka 02:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The goal is neutrality using relevant references that is in accordance with the inclusion criteria and PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Once we have the source(s) needed to meet inclusion criteria, others may be added in order to explain or provide balance. That's entirely consistent with NPOV, of which WP:PSCI is the relevant part for inclusion criteria. Other parts of NPOV, like WP:WEIGHT, shows why the further sourcing (for balance, explication etc.) is appropriate. --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the sources are relevant to pseudoscience. References that specifically discuss pseudoscience are relevant. After reading the lead of this article we should use only relevant references that meet the criteria for inclusion. The type of references that are relevant are the ones that discuss pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for this pointlessly rigid interpretation of the list, and as Elonka pointed out, NPOV in fact demands inclusion of balancing material. Such material should be germaine to the science demarcation a/o provide counterpoint to criticisms, and should be from good sources. NIH and WHO qualify. There is simply no reason not to include them, and good reasons to do so. The lead says: "Some subjects in this list may be questioned aspects of otherwise legitimate fields of research, or have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them. For instance, while some proposed explanations for hypnosis have been criticized for being pseudoscientific, the phenomenon is generally accepted as real and scientific explanations exist." That's the spirit. Every topic for which there is a good WP:PARITY source should include a sentence or two for balance. --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For the time being I attempted a compromise. I added a higher quality source. See WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad compromise, but the NIH thing is especially germaine as it specifically addresses the use of TCM ideas in practice, and WHO represents a significant POV as well. Why exclude them and not Ernst? All are secondary sources meeting MEDRS. -Backin72 (n.b.) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We should use a higher quality peer reviewed source per WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself; it's not advancing discussion. NIH and WHO are close to scientific-consensus sources, and if anything are better than Ernst, good though Ernst is. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDRS: Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed. Be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed reporting material in a different field. (See the Marty Rimm and Sokal affairs.) Please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Summarize scientific consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read that passage, thanks. I've read the whole page. Several times. It doesn't elevate Ernst over NIH and WHO. It's ironic, isn't it, that a great many of the sources being used for inclusion in this article don't meet MEDRS, while at least some of the topics have balancing material that does? (That is, the stuff in the "skeptics" section.) What does that say about how far the label-pushers have pushed this article? Here's another key passage:

Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Misplaced Pages, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field.

That's kind of amusing, because CSICOP is at best a sig-minority view (and doesn't meet MEDRS at all). NIH, WHO and Ernst all fall under "recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs" (well, not that recent for NIH, but their general point re delivery of care hasn't changed). --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ernst is more-or-less one of the most respected sources on alternative medicine we've got. Deprecating him is about as silly as deprecating Stephen Hawking in an article about general relativity. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Version 1.3

I've tried to make this balanced and acceptable, with proper weight given to RS's representing the spectrum of significant views:

*Traditional Chinese Medicine. Practices such as acupuncture, qigong and ideas such as chi are held as "quackery" and pseudoscientific by skeptic groups like CSICOP. According to the NIH consensus statement on acupuncture, these traditional Chinese medical concepts "are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture." The effectiveness of acupuncture remains controversial. A 2007 review led by Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst finds that research is active and growing and the "emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions." The World Health Organization lists 28 conditions "for which acupuncture has been proved - through controlled trials - to be an effective treatment", and several dozen more for which evidence is suggestive.

What do you think? regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 09:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick general point while I inject my coffee - this says little of why anyone would consider quackery practices based on putative energy and nonexistent anatomical structures. I would focus more on that, then qualify it by stating that the effectiveness of acupuncture (and anything else that needs qualifying) independent of its philosophical basis remains controversial. If we provide a couple strong citations and links to the relevant articles, that should be sufficient to serve our readers. My proposed entry for chiropractic suggests my idea of how to strike this balance. Still, more useful talkpage discussion is a great step. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the exact point we need to focus on here. We need to look at the title of the article (which I wish were changed...) and then stay on topic. The objections to chiropractic and acupuncture that are related to charges of being pseudoscientific aren't related to questions of efficacy. In this connection that is another matter and rather unrelated to the subject here. They are considered pseudoscientific because of claims made about them and their metaphysical base. If we took the meridians and acupuncture points out of acupuncture, and the vertebral subluxations out of chiropractic, the objections would disappear into thin air. Why? Because, to quote a noted reform chiropractor:

• "Crelin showed that one of the bedrock principles of chiropractic - the hypothesis that the vertebral pinching of spinal nerves impairs nerve functioning - is almost certainly invalid. Chiro-practic without this principle is analogous to meridianless acu-puncture." Craig F. Nelson, DC

Craig Nelson could not have chosen a better analogy. Acupuncture "points", "meridians" and "chiropractic subluxations" have this in common: They do not exist as physical, biological entities, but are metaphysical beliefs. Their existence has never been proven. They are metaphysical fantasies.

A stellar acupuncturist, Felix Mann, has firmly distanced himself from beliefs in the existence of acupuncture points and meridians. He has stated in his book Reinventing Acupuncture: A New Concept of Ancient Medicine:

• "The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes." (p. 14)

and…

• "The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography. If someone were to get a spade and tried to dig up the Greenwich meridian, he might end up in a lunatic asylum. Perhaps the same fate should await those doctors who believe in meridians." (p. 31)

We just need to stay on topic and not be diverted by matters unrelated to the subject at hand. Effectiveness isn't the (only) reason for subjects being listed here. At best it is only peripherally related, and at worst it is totally unrelated and is being used to divert us from the task at hand. Effectiveness should be discussed in the individual articles, not here. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee, I agree with your statement, but I am not sure I agree with your conclusion, because I don't know what it is. If an important aspect of something is pseudoscientific and another important aspect is OK, then we must make that very clear. If a pseudoscientific medical method is known to be effective (with some restrictions, obviously), then that needs to be said because otherwise our readers will draw incorrect conclusions. Do you agree? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and effectiveness are seperate issues. We should not conflate the two together. We should use references that specfically address the topic of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hans, I think I understand your point, and in some instances that might be feasible, but it could also take us off-topic. By focusing on the PS aspects, it should be clear that we are not "condemning" the whole subject. Just because chiropractic would be mentioned in connection with documented condemnation of VS as PS, and acupuncture and TCM would be mentioned in connection with condemnation of meridians and acupuncture points as PS, it should be self evident that we are being specific, and readers can then draw their own conclusions as to what degree such associations damage the profession or method. Does basing a profession like chiropractic on a fiction damage its reputation? That is certainly contended by mainstream scientists and medical authors, as well as many notable chiropractors and chiropractic leaders. Will readers buy their documented opinions? That isn't really our business. We just present the documentation from V & RS. It isn't necessary or on-topic to mount a defense here. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Several good points to ponder in discussion above. I'd have to disagree that efficacy and degree of "scientificness" aren't connected. If they weren't, then Fyslee's recent edit at Acupuncture#Criticism_of_TCM_theory wouldn't have been a reasonable one. If a naive reader sees that a medical treatment is classified as pseudoscience (...a problem we could help fix by changing the article's title), s/he is likely to assume it doesn't work. Moreover, I think Hans has an excellent sense of how WP:WEIGHT should apply here. (I strongly urge a re-read of the first two paragraphs at that wikilink; they're spot-on.) Different entries in the list will be annotated differently according to what RS's say (and don't say): Intelligent design (ID) will naturally get far less in the way of "balancing views", if any at all, since pretty much every RS for scientific opinion has been screaming "ID IS PSEUDOSCIENCE!!" (when they're being polite) for some time now. OTOH, who's saying Traditional Chinese Medicine is pseudoscience? CSICOP. And the utterly neutral Stephen Barrett. Not quite the same as the National Academies of Everything cutting the legs out from under ID, you know? CSICOP and Barrett (and the chiro sources as well) are OK on WP, but not considered sufficient for stating scientific consensus. All we can infer is that a sig POV exists that the topic is pseudoscience. That's what we call "questionable science", in Misplaced Pages-land, per WP:PSCI. WP:WEIGHT and WP:PARITY require balance particularly in cases like this, where we don't have an obvious consensus view.

Furthermore, mainstream scientists are studying acupuncture (yes, not just efficacy, but also physical basis of meridians). Dozens or even hundreds of articles per year (depending on what kind of article you count), according to Pubmed, with the pace increasing over the last decade. These scientists obviously see something worth studying there, so we can use Ernst's simple "research is active" to note that, and provide balance to the pseudo claims. Ernst is good for efficacy too, as is WHO; the latter use a coarser sieve than Ernst, but nonetheless represent a significant, worldwide POV. (Need I add that as a MEDRS, WHO crushes CSICOP like an ant?)

Regarding the supposed pseudoscientific-ness of meridians and acupoints: Yes, Felix Mann and others have gone all "mavericky" and claimed to reject acupoints and meridians, but they still keep using LI4 and ST44 for orofacial pain, PC6 for nausea, SP6 to induce menses (and avoiding SP6 and LI4 during pregnancy), and UB67 for turning a fetus from breach presentation. Seems that the ancients, with their "prescientific" worldview, managed to "encode" some clinical pearls along the way. And so far, there is nothing that I know of in Western medicine that would predict the efficacy of these points for those specific conditions. Therefore, pragmatic clinicians wink at the TCM concepts as metaphors or mnemonics (which even CSICOP reported), or perhaps speculate about them as emergent constructs, and keep on using them. So, just as we note that astrology had an astronomical component, it's only "fair and balanced" (not to mention "truthful and accurate") to note the fact that these traditional ideas are still found useful in clinical practice. I think the NIH quote is pretty rock-solid as an RS for that.

Anyway, I'm glad we're discussing, and think we've got a fair amount of ground to cover. The inclusion of chiro and acu never had consensus, and have basically been edit-warred onto the list by force by a couple of determined editors, who have blown off concerns raised by others. That's not the way things are done on WP. Even if that approach helped in some black-and-white areas, it's not justified by any kind of factual high ground here; we are in fact debating grey areas of demarcation. I am, as promised, taking this to Arb in the next couple days, where we'll all have a chance to weigh in, and hopefully what comes out of that will be reasonable (e.g., they may nudge us toward a title change). --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a title change will solve many of our problems here. Our wording needs to be improved so we are being specific. It's not sufficient or proper to just prop chiropractic and acupuncture in and say that they have been accused of being pseudoscientific. It needs to be explained what aspects of them have been so accused. It needs to be clear to readers that it is those aspects that are the problem. It isn't spinal manipulation (SM) itself that is PS, nor is it needling itself that is pseudoscientific, it is the basis and claims made for them that are the problem. SM and sticking needles into people are phyically testable acts with a possibility of producing physiological effects, some good, and some not so good, just like any other modality or medicine. It is the claims made for them that are problematic, and the accusations made against chiropractic and acupuncture are being made because they continue to make these claims. It then becomes hard to separate the sin from the sinner. If chiropractic would officially renounce any adherance to the unproven (after 104 years!) theory of vertebral subluxation and state that "we are going to concentrate on being back pain specialists and will only use SM as one method with no magical claims for its efficacy beyond what is scientifically proven," and if acupuncture would openly state that "we reject the claims made about acupuncture points, which have not been proven to be histologically existing entities, and will do research on whether sticking needles into people can have a beneficial effect," THEN those professions would be more accepted and would step into the scientific limelight in a more effective manner. Their research would no longer be hampered by an agenda designed to "prove our existing theories," but an agenda designed to see if something is happening, and why it's happening, and if it's not happening we will change our theories accordingly. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense, for the most part. Qualification and balance with entries are naturally going to flow from WP:WEIGHT and other rules and guidelines. On meridians and acupoints, I agree they're not proven to have a physical basis, but Truzzi would say Mann has taken on a burden of proof by asserting a negative hypothesis about them. Helene Langevin and others have done some interesting research, and Mann might be proven wrong. Also, even if they're structually elusive, functional activity is a good enough reason to keep them around, at least to some degree. I get the sense that a great many acupuncturists and researchers accept the meridians and acupoints provisionally, as clinical starting points. As the standard teaching text from Shanghai College says:

"The theory of the channels is interrelated with the theory of the Organs. Traditionally, the internal Organs have never been regarded as independent anatomical entities. ... From the beginning, however, we should recognize that, like other aspects of traditional medicine, channel theory reflects the limitations in the level of scientific development at the time of its formation, and is therefore tainted with the philosophical idealism and metaphysics of its day. That which has continuing clinical value needs to be reexamined through practice and research to determine its true nature."

That's a rock-solid RS for TCM theory as it's now taught in China and the West, and is hardly a pseudoscientific argument. Some of the stuff you'd like to see done in acu research is actually happening now. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 09:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that acupuncture's "theorizing" is dismissed as pseudoscientific posturing by a number of the sources already in the article. As to whether there are "evidence-based benefits" to being poked with needles, well, Ernst points out that nausea does somewhat abate in such circumstances. The mechanism by which this abatement happens is not associated in the literature with Traditional Chinese Medicine theorizing, though, so the critique more-or-less has not been contradicted by the clinical trials mentioned. Note too that WP:CRYSTAL should be invoked whenever people begin making claims about whether the stuff that should be done will be done (or is "actually happening now). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to this article. For now, the pending request, where editors are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Better version

I reinstated the version of this article which is better since it doesn't try to demarcate between publications made by groups whose verifiability and reliability reasonable editors can disagree about. I fully expect some of the more strident promoters of pseudoscience to revert me, but we need to have a record that this version is better, and the ownership being waged against this article is getting out-of-control.

Here is the diff:

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tip o' the hat to User:Eldereft who reintroduced Melanin theory to the article (it's hard to keep track of all these): . That's the best version yet, IMHO.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nod, my battery died literally between pushing save over there and pushing save over here, and then RL intervened for a while.

To save everyone else the trouble of double checking, that edit (props to WikEd): reorganizes the list according to topic rather than source (see interminable discussions above and in the archives); rewords the introductory material a little; adds to the Dogon people and Sirius B entry; slightly rewords the Paranormal subheading; tweaked the hypnosis entry; restores the Biblical scientific foreknowledge subheading; and applies miscellaneous minor formatting fixes. It also dropped the Melanin theory entry, which as noted above I restored under Scientific racism. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions of further subcategorization:

• Psychic surgery and Therapeutic touch are currently listed as Paranormal and UFOlogy, but would arguably fit under Health and medicine. I am leaning towards moving the latter but not the former - what do others think?
• Scientific racism is I think more anthropology than "health and medicine" - should we pull it down to Other?
• I moved Attachment therapy from Health and medicine to Psychology. Feel free to revert and discuss if you feel this was in error. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think those suggestions are all fine. I'm also wondering about the various anti-gravity theories that currently do not grace our page. The Woodward effect comes to mind, for example. However, there are some other idiosyncratic theories which may be bundled up and sent to such a location. Although associated with perpetual motion and free energy suppression, I think it is somewhat different. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Entries moved as I proposed; agree regarding most dreck published supporting anti-gravity (with sources, of course). - Eldereft (cont.) 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this edit at all. It was quite obviously contrary to the result (or lack thereof) of the RfC above. Bold editing is ok, but it's too bold to ignore an RfC. Given the concerns expressed about skeptical groups by additional editors, such as II and LLM, and the lack of consensus to make the change in the first place, I am reverting (as best I can: that is, I'll restore the old organization while attempting to preserve any intervening changes).

I don't mean to say that we can't work out a compromise in terms of organizing. In the meantime, I'm reverting to the consensus version. Sorry it's not as nice aesthetically, but it's better pedagogically in that it doesn't err by conflating different types of sources. If you choose to revert, please be able to show I'm wrong about that RfC and consensus. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixing lead

What is the best approach for the lead. Instead of changing the title of this article we can add attribution to the lead sentence. Such as... "regarded or characterized" or "regarded or described"

Which wording do editors prefer? QuackGuru (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think characterized is better. Adding a label to an idea is hardly a "description". ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is better to add the attribution to the lead instead of any entry on this list unless there is disagreement among reliable sources per WP:ASF. In a nutshell, it is better to let the readers decide and come to their own conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the lead as it stands in the current and immediately preceding version:

This is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts regarded or characterized as pseudoscientific by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or by notable academics or researchers. The existence of such expressed opinions suffices for inclusion in this list, and therefore inclusion does not necessarily indicate that any given entry is in fact pseudoscience.

Commentators may have explicitly described a field or concept as "pseudoscience" or used synonyms, some of which are identified in the references section below. Also included are important concepts associated with the main entries, and concepts that, while notable and self-evidently pseudoscientific, have not elicited commentary from mainstream scientific bodies or skeptical organizations. Notable parodies of pseudoscientific concepts are also included.

Some subjects in this list may be questioned aspects of otherwise legitimate fields of research, or have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them. For instance, while some proposed explanations for hypnosis have been criticized for being pseudoscientific, the phenomenon is generally accepted as real and scientific explanations exist.

I think this is very good, and applaud the recent changes by QuackGuru and other editors. It does a very good job of explaining why some of the the topics on the list are only partly pseduoscientific, or only have pseudoscientific aspects; and it even goes so far as to say that inclusion on the list doesn't mean that the topic is in fact pseudoscientific.

Can we come up with a decent title capturing that nuance? Clearly, if some of the stuff on the list has been called PS but isn't really (verifiably) widely seen as PS, we can't just call it "List of Pseudosciences". "List of topics referred to as pseudoscience", which Fyslee proposed, is good. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 00:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet included

Obviously missing:

1. Orgone
2. Reiki

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I had to apologize to Fyslee in the post below, when I accidentally posted a response to this in his section, creating a false impression that my post was about the inclusion of chiropractic, which I know nothing about. But orgone is a concept in psychoanalysis, something more of a philosophy than a science/pseudoscience, akin to Aristotle's analysis to human mind, Schopenhauer's will to life theory, and the contemplation of human nature by Locke and Hobbes. Those things cannot be empirically "proven" as in labs, but they are not listed as "pseudoscience", because those theories belong to the purview of philosophy, not physical science like chemistry. As Plato divides human mind into physical desires, spiritedness, and intellect, Freud separates it into ego, id, and superego. Neither of which I would assert to be completely correct, but neither should be pseudoscience. Wandering Courier (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly Reich thought that he could invent devices that could control the flow of "orgone" which he believed was a legitimate form of energy. I understand that various "out-on-a-limb" allegories/metaphors/archetypes get bounced around the psychoanalysis circuit to some effect that is extra-scientific, but it is undeniable that people use orgone to advance a particular "pseudoscientific" goal. Cloudbuster is a good example of this. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic sub-subjects

1. Innate Intelligence Chiropractic historian, Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD., stated "So long as we propound the 'One cause, one cure' rhetoric of Innate, we should expect to be met by ridicule from the wider health science community. Chiropractors can’t have it both ways. Our theories cannot be both dogmatically held vitalistic constructs and be scientific at the same time. The purposiveness, consciousness and rigidity of the Palmers’ Innate should be rejected."
2. Vitalism According to Williams, "today, vitalism is one of the ideas that form the basis for many pseudoscientific health systems that claim that illnesses are caused by a disturbance or imbalance of the body's vital force." "Vitalists claim to be scientific, but in fact they reject the scientific method with its basic postulates of cause and effect and of provability. They often regard subjective experience to be more valid than objective material reality."

QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

These likely would go beneath the Chiropractic heading in alphabetical order with vertebral subluxation. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of those are philosophy rather than purported science, so they shouldn't really be "pseudoscience". No one can prove Plato's theory of forms but we wouldn't list that here. Psychoanalysis, for example, is a philosophy, and it has received unfair attacks from scientific fields. Wandering Courier (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While they are chiropractic philosophy, they are much of the reason for why the chiropractic vertebral subluxation (VS) is a pseudoscientific concept, since it's not a confirmed anatomical reality. VSs are claimed to interfere with the flow of Innate Intelligence, which is related to Vitalism. They all hang together. No Vitalism -> no Innate Intelligence -> no Vertebral subluxation -> no (real) chiropractic. Because VS is claimed to be a physical reality, thus making it a falsifiable claim, it enters the "claims to be scientific" realm and is liable to be charged as being a PS concept, not only because of the lack of evidence for its existence, but because of its intimate connection with Vitalism and Innate Intelligence. In contrast, medical subluxations are not claimed to interfere with any supposed vital energies. God, whether personal or Pantheistic (II is a Pantheistic concept), isn't considered part of the equation from a purely anatomical standpoint. Questions about God's involvement in the creation of our bodies is a theological question, not a scientific one. Some Christians consider it impossible to be a "real" (straight) chiropractor and be a Christian at the same time, since straight chiropractic involves Pantheistic beliefs, whether the chiropractor realizes it or not. This makes sense, since DD Palmer was a spiritist, and thus believed in mediums and using seances to contact disembodied spirits in the afterlife, all practices forbidden by Scripture. His religious beliefs were definitely not Christian, and he even aired the idea of making chiropractic a religion, with him as the logical head. The guy was not only a quack, but a megalomaniac, and his son a conman who got his training in the circus. For a funny desription of "Why does the public give so much credence to this mostly pseudoscientific hogwash?" (a sentence from the article), read the humoristic article Chiropractic History: DD Palmer's Magical Kingdom by Paul DesOrmeaux. While obviously tongue-in-cheek, it is based on many historical facts about chiropractic and its colorful founders. It's a very entertaining and informative article. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, my post was not targeted towards the inclusion of chiropractic. I know virtually nothing about chiropractic, and my reference about philosophy vs. scientific claim was towards ScienceApologist's previous post about "not yet included", Orgone, etc. Wandering Courier (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No problemo, amigo. BTW, if you will take 3-5 minutes to read the article named at the end of my previous post (and the ones at the end here), you'll get a quick summary of the subject. It's a fascinating subject, since it is like no other "medical" profession, being the "Flagship of the Alternative Medicine Fleet", Part 1. (Part 2). The "flagship" articles clearly label it as a pseudoscientific profession several times. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a funny article (the magical kingdom one), so many sarcasm. Mary Baker Eddy was a morphine addict? Well, it is unbelievable. Christian Science is very against smoking, an issue I wish I had listened to their advice =\. Beekeeping and grocery peddling certainly gave Palmer a lot medical training =). At the same time though, his interest in metaphysics and the esoteric is somehow commendable. I say this from heart as myself has taken a course on The Republic and knows how one must put much concentration and mental labor to explore those things. Wandering Courier (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Vertebral subluxation is the claimed pseudoscientific aspect of chiropractic according to some skeptics (not by scientific consensus). Therefore it is redundant to list both chiropractic and vertebral subluxation in the article. As such, I eliminated chiropractic and opted to keep the listing for the claim pseudoscientific aspect. -- Levine2112 05:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and you did not have consensus to delete the entry and other entries. QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Further, I reworked the text to actually describe the concept of vertebral subluxation. The previous text made a wild claim that there was not scientific consensus, however the source from which this statement is ultimately sourced doesn't meet the criteria of WP:RS. -- Levine2112 05:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is RS and rewording it because you claim it is not RS is not how things work on Misplaced Pages. If it is not RS then why you did not delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not a reliable source to be making the claim that we were using it to make. Otherwise, it is a reliable source of the author's opinion in this case, but nothing more. -- Levine2112 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems, dispute resolution ideas

Here are some thoughts on problems remaining with this article, and principles that could help resolve disputes. Feedback very welcome.

Problems with this article (as some editors see it):

In the past few months and weeks, several changes have been made for which consensus was never obtained, including:

• Statements by individual researchers (used as inclusion criteria)
• Articles published by skeptical groups, as opposed to statements by the group (used as inclusion criteria)
• Inclusion of any "questionable science" per WP:PSCI's criteria (i.e., anything lacking a proper source, such as a formal scientific academy, for what is "generally considered pseudoscience)

These changes were either slipped in quietly, without adequate discussion, or else were pushed in with edit-warring and attacks on those holding an opposing view (e.g., "alt-med POV-pushers" and the like). These methods are not appropriate on WP.

These changes should have been discussed, and still need to be. If they are to stay, the list title has to change. Expanding the list more and more, while keeping the unqualified title, is an NPOV violation and not a place to ignore all rules. We can't have our NPOV cake and eat it too.

Dispute resolution ideas:

• We should explain our views in detail rather than !voting. More discussion, less edit-warring.

• We should engage good-faith questions from other editors, and address the strongest arguments of those holding an opposing view, rather than caricaturing their views. That is the best way to conduct a fruitful debate.

• This list is not an exception to WP:BURDEN: the burden is on editors who want to include new material. If there is not consensus to include a topic, it should not be included.

• Disputes here are almost never about "science vs. anti-science". That happens on WP, but here, we have honest disagreements over grey areas. Resolving them will be a matter of how we apply NPOV and VER along with the demarcation problem.

• If consensus exists among editors, we know it. Claims that editorial consensus exists are superfluous, and misrepresentations of consensus are unacceptable. Editors can speak for themselves.

What do you think? ArbCom seems inclined to throw the ball back to us, so it looks like we'll have to make a strong effort to elevate the discussion and make some compromises. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your listing is fairly one sided and doesn't lend much light to the situation. As it is, there are a great number of editors who think that this list has been a problem for some time. I'm inclined to see where this takes us. In fact, I would prefer a system where instead of making sweeping declarations such as you are making, specific concerns are addressed one at a time. The article title leaves something to be desired, we all acknowledge that. However, I am inclined to believe that we should make the article title simpler (along the lines of List of pseudoscientific subjects) which would probably raise the rankles of more than a few editors. This is something we should discuss, but to frame it as you are doing (that the list name must change) is needlessly dramatic. Moreover, the rest of your commentary seems designed precisely to make the discussion on your own terms rather than addressing any of the concerns raised by editors other than the particular group of editors who support you (and who, I might add, have not been adding any content to our article for the last few weeks). I'm all in favor of dialog, but I find this statement to be too argumentative as a starting point.

As an alternative, let me suggest that people who have problems with specific listings, citations, wordings, etc. list them on the talk page so we can discuss them one-by-one.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi SA, I'm sorry you took the above as a sweeping declaration. In fact, I did raise several, bullet-pointed, specific concerns. One of them was:

"We should engage good-faith questions from other editors, and address the strongest arguments of those holding an opposing view, rather than caricaturing their views."

In my view, your response above is a good example of that. You characterize my post (which is mainly a list of particular issues), as a "sweeping declaration", which implies it's too general to respond to. Yet instead of giving you nothing to respond to, I gave you plenty of specifics to choose from. Why not address one of them? I would certainly extend such a courtesy if you posted something similar, even if I objected to some of its premises.

As a matter of fact, several of the things I said above were about objections I've had to your editing style. Particularly objectionable was your asserting there was consensus to add a topic of topics, then brute-force edit warring the subjects onto the list. That is so 180 degrees from how things should be done.... --Backin72 (n.b.) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't mentioned any particular change except to say that you want the title to change, which we are discussing below. You haven't made an specific requests that I can respond to. Courtesy has nothing to do with it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are these specific enough? 1. Statements by individual researchers should not be used as inclusion criteria. 2. Articles published by skeptical groups, as opposed to statements by the group should not be used as inclusion criteria. There was never consensus for either. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Unequivocally disagree and I think most of the people here on this talkpage disagree with you as well. 2. Unequivocally disagree that you can determine this "in general". Specific instances can be challenged on a case-by-case basis. I believe there are more people who support my opinions on these two instances than people who support you. Therefore I claim that consensus is going my way and not yours. This is just my opinion, mind you, but as I've said above I do not think your attempts to make blanket rules are helpful and I will continue to resist them. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. How do you defend your positions re #'s 1 and 2 in light of WP:PSCI? Why do you belief these sources are reliable to make the demarcation between "generally considered pseudoscience" and "questionable science"? We're undoubtedly headed to RSN with this. As for your opinion on # of people supporting, you may be right -- or not. Take a survey of editorial opinion, don't just assert it. Anyway, editorial consensus is not about a simple majority.

Nor is consensus about marginalizing a plurality of editors by calling them names, like "alt-med-POV-pusher". Every time you call an editor who disagrees with you a name like that, I'm going to respond according to WP:DR: I will point out that you are violating WP:NPA, and we'll go from there. I am going to stand up for civility, and (going out on a limb) I think most editors would agree that you ought to respect WP:CIV as well. (It makes sense to do so, from a practical standpoint: after all, if you get all attacky, and you get sanctioned under editing restrictions, you won't be able to edit very effectively.) --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Positions 1 and 2 are entirely in line with PSCI. If you would like to discuss a particular source, please let us know which one it is. The rest of your comment is irrelevant to or simply ignoring what I wrote. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(change comments) I'm going to feel free to discuss both specific entries and general inclusion criteria, SA. Sorry if you object to that. TCM and chiro topics were both, in my view, placed on the list too boldly: unsupported by consensus. We can revisit that with a survey, maybe. As for your assertion that statements by individual researchers, etc., met WP:PSCI's criteria for "generally considered pseudoscience", there isn't much to say except that it remains merely an assertion. You've provided no reason to assume that these sources are predictive of general scientific opinion. Scientists are generally quite careful about presuming such things. You're free to disagree, but your mere assertion of the point is not persuasive. --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it best to be explicit about what inclusion means. Landed little marsdon (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion means the topic is a pseudoscience, full stop, no qualifications, according to the title. The text is looser, suggesting the list includes topics that some have called pseudoscience, but for which no scientific consensus exists. I think we need to bring the title and contents of the list in line with each other, ideally by keeping the text loose and loosening the title than vice-versa. One possible title is "List of Topics Referred To As Psuedoscientific". regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. For Eldereft:This differs from "Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram according to mainstream physicists" because (1) pseudoscience is very slippery to demarcate, and (b) we have a wide range of people using the term "pseudoscience", and not all are even close to as reliable as mainstream physicists commenting on physics. We even have an RS, CSICOP, criticizing Michael Shermer. Backin72 (n.b.) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

Thee title does not, as you put it, indicate that a topic is pseudoscience, full stop. It indicates that a topic has pseudoscience or pseudoscientific concepts incorporated into it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it says "List of pseudosciences". That's unambiguous. If you call something an apple, that doesn't mean it has apples or apple-y concepts incorporated into it. It means it's an apple. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (sorry, just had to highlight that --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

To be fair, "pseudoscience" is a nebulous term. The featured list, List of cultural references in The Cantos is similar in that vein. There are certainly things listed there which are arguably not "cultural references" as well as some things not listed in that list which may be. The sourcing is all we have to go on. The title is fine -- specific instances can be disputed and discussed on the talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that NPOV demands that we make the title and explication congruent. Narrow title = narrow inclusion criteria. Broad title = broad inclusion criteria. Right now, we have a narrow title, and broad inclusion criteria, including some topics (chiro, TCM) that you and QuackGuru edit-warred onto the list, brute-force style. You say you don't like "blanket rules"? Your comments, and actions, suggest a "blanket rule" that anything called pseudoscience by an RS, irrespective of WP:PSCI, should go on the list. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply disagree with you that the title is "narrow". ScienceApologist (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. That is probably because you believe that all the sources we're citing are equally RS's for demarcation. If one were to accept that, then it would seem obvious that everything on this list is "equally pseudoscientific" or "generally agreed" to be. However, a lot of us are having problems swallowing your premise. But we're identifying the issues in question, and that's good. --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Backin72's contention. We are using a narrow title, but have broad content. That's wrong. We should have a broad title that will justify the current content. The narrow title justifies the supporters of certains PS ideas in excluding those ideas from mention, but many opinions published in V & RS mention those ideas as PS ideas. They should be mentioned, but the current title doesn't allow that. It is too bound to the WP:PSCI ruling. We need a list that covers the opinions found in the real world, not some ArbCom decision. We shouldn't allow believers in PS to keep such published opinions out of this list. Let the list reflect the real world by including those sources. The ArbCom decision only allows us to "categorize" or "label" a very narrow group of ideas. If we change the title and include more sources, neither we nor ArbCom will be "categorizing" or "labeling" anything. The sources will do it, and readers can make up their own minds. Follow the sources. That's always the best policy here. We should let the sources speak for themselves. I definitely support List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific as an excellent and broad enough title. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the current title of the article that has worked for years. An entry called pseudoscience by an RS is complying with WP:PSCI. There is a difference between a catagory and a list. The lead makes it clear to the reader what is in the body of the article. Inclusion means the topic has pseudoscience concepts. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(rm earlier comments) The title should reflect the actual inclusion criteria of the list. We can't know for sure that acu or chiro are pseudosciences, because our sources aren't strong enough -- anymore than some right-wing political group is a reliable source about Obama being a terrorist. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for a new article name

I would like to see some proposals for a new article name. Here are a few I thought of:

• List of pseudoscientific ideas
• List of pseudosciences
• List of subjects containing pseudoscience
• List of subjects containing pseudoscientific aspects

The idea is to get across to the reader that this will be a list that includes subjects that have pseudoscientific aspects to them. There are two competing ideals:

1. Misplaced Pages:NAME#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name
2. Misplaced Pages:NAME#Be precise when necessary

The question we need to ask ourselves is, "is precision necessary if we will come up with a name that is not easily recognizable/understandable"? It isn't going to be clean, but we need to have the discussion.

My feeling is that we should sacrifice precision in favor of recognition simply because we can write in the lead of the article what the inclusion criteria are.

Please comment.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep the current title but if it were changed I would look at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific aspects. I don't see any good argument to change the current title. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there is a problem with the title, and putting wide disclaimers in the title might open it up to too much stuff being added, and create a long and unwieldy name. "List of PS and concepts considered PS by recognised authorities" is a bit long winded. I'd like to see Fyslee's suggestions but I can't find them... Verbal chat 20:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The last suggested title is the best of those offered, but it would still be better to have a title like the one suggested by Fyslee, "list of topics referred to as pseudoscience". Several of the things included in this article are not pseudosciences, although the title implies that they are. Hypnosis is indisputably real. Acupuncture has not been called a pseudoscience by a scientific authority, and researchers have concluded that it appears beneficial for certain conditions. Chiropractic spinal manipulation is not pseudoscientific when used for back pain. Some herbs used in Ayurveda are promising (PMID 15834238), the hygiene aspects are good (eg neti pots), and it included valid surgery. II | (t - c) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion you offer makes me want to insert a {{by whom?}} tag. I don't believe that's going to be acceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where would you put the "by whoms"? Feel free to insert them if that's easier, and I'll answer. Glance up at the top of the page: only obvious and generally recognized pseudosciences should be characterized as such. This page includes several things which are not generally recognized as pseudoscience, but the page title categorizes them as such. Thus, the page does not comply with WP:PSCI. Misplaced Pages has never been about authoritatively stating as fact what a few editors and an organization such as CSICOP hold as their opinion. Controversial statements such as the ones made here should be attributed, and the page title should be one which does not authoritatively impose the pseudoscience category.

Additionally, this page should be used to broadly include questionable science which has been criticized as pseudoscience, rather than particular medical examples which SA dislikes. The social sciences (perhaps better called social studies) are often criticized as pseudoscience. For example, Serge Lang famously criticized Sam Huntingon, and an article in the Skeptical Inquirer argued that econometrics can be pseudoscience . Basic axiomatic mathematical economics has been criticized as pseudoscience, as well. I wouldn't feel comfortable including these here because the title is so unequivocal. II | (t - c) 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an inline request related to Template:Specify. In other words, the title is fundamentally problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The "referred to" will be answered in the article. Leaving the title fundamentally vague is necessary, since this article draws from a range of sources such as the Skeptical Inquirer, individual medical researchers, books, ect. There's no reason to restrict this to statements from societies, and if we did, we would have to delete a large swath of references. II | (t - c) 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't think that's reasonable. Can you point to any other article/list on Misplaced Pages similarly named? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

List of cults has been through a series of redirects, now points to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. Obviously just "List of cults" had NPOV issues. There is no "list of terrorists", but there is, e.g., List of designated terrorist organizations, which is the closest analog to Fyslee's proposal I could find. --Backin72 (n.b.) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

List of "designated" terrorists is similarly problematic, but I won't belabor the point here. The List of cults redirect is really good, but I don't think that it is similarly applied here. The academy recognizes explicitly the existence of deprecated pseudoscience while it denies the deprecation of New Religious Movements. List of new religious movements is closer to what this article is like. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, because "pseudoscience" is a pejorative, like "cult". That's why we can't characterize topics as PS unless our sourcing is rock-solid. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that what you say about the "academy" is true and important in the way you suggest it is; the problem is that WHO and the Royal Society represent that academy while CSICOP and the Skeptics society do not. In other words, you defeat your own argument due to the difference between the authority your argument requires (e.g. the academy/WHO) and the authority, or lack thereof, you actually rely upon (CSICOP).Landed little marsdon (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Fyslee's suggestion is best.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I like Fyslee's too, which was: List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific (or "as "pseudoscience", whatever). --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences fits perfectly. --TS 01:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony -- have you read WP:PSCI? What is your take on how that applies here? --Backin72 (n.b.) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...one more time. There is a clear guidelinehelpful essay about titles for pseudoscience: the guidelines for lists:

• Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous British people" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be the simpler "List of British people"; per WP:BIO, individuals will be listed only if they pass the Misplaced Pages:Notability test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists".

Are we respecting Misplaced Pages guidelines here or not? hgilbert (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hgilbert - There is not a "clear guideline", or at least that isn't it. That is an essay - and not a very good one (as I've told you the last two times you mentioned it. I'll WP:AGF that you missed my previous comment and aren't wilfully misrepresenting this, and suppose that you will strike and amend your comment). I would like Fyslee's, but I think it opens the page to being filled with so much junk that advocates can hide their pet theory amongst utter dross and make the article useless. Verbal chat 11:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree, we're certainly not bound by that essay. I think the point is a good one, though. Seems like a solid interpretation of NPOV. About Fyslee's idea: I think we should be able to agree on some criteria to keep the B.S. out (e.g., no "evolution", for obvious enough reasons). --Backin72 (n.b.) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate guideline is WP:LISTS, but it doesn't seem very relevant to this discussion. Verbal chat 11:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Verbal: I did indeed miss your response to my second mention of this essay, and still can't find your response to the first mention - am I missing something or did you miscount? In any case, the essay is helpful, has been supported unanimously (as an essay) by a range of editors evaluating it, and clearly recommends a practice relevant to our considerations here. But, as you say, it is not a guideline. hgilbert (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, cool.... so, that said, is there anything we can take from it? I think the original point has good foundations in NPOV and VER. Granted, it was talking about BLP's ("List of Pseudoscientists" vs "List People Referred To As...", or whatever). But the basic point about nuance and WP:ASF (facts about opinions) is valid, because the term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative. That puts us a little bit closer to BLP's, where NPOV and VER still apply, "only more so", in effect. That was what the original intent of WP:PSCI was: to make sure we demarcate properly, and don't over- or under-reach. --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I really wish I could think of a good name. I see the problems with List of pseudosciences since, for example, all of traditional Chinese medicine is not "pseudoscience" (some of it is just plain old tradition). However, I think that many of the people advocating for a change in the list name to something with attribution in the title are trying to spoon feed the reader into doubting the veracity of the list. It looks like a ploy to me. Anyway, Tony Sidaway's suggestion is fine with me too. What's not okay is anything that is an unspecific attribution in the title. According to whom? Should not be the first question someone asks when arriving at this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "putative" a bad title word? I don't see how we're going to do it without some kind of qualifier indicating multiple sources. "List of Pseudosciences According To Scientists And Skeptics" doesn't feel quite right either. Since there are other lists (I cited them elsewhere) with language like Fyslee's version, that one still feels best to me. Over to you. --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that a simple "List of pseudosciences" would actually be better than trying to hedge it around with "have been considered as..." or "according to..." in the article title. Too vague, too much of a hostage to fortune, and likely to increase rather than decrease the amount of arguing about the inclusion or exclusion of X. It is a core principle of Misplaced Pages that it is a tertiary source that relies on reliable external sources, and therefore "according to reliable sources" is implicit in any WP title. When we have a list headed "pseudosciences" it is by wikipedia-definition the case that they are pseudosciences according to a reliable source. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snal -- have you read the section of NPOV at WP:PSCI? It distinguishes among topics that should and shouldn't be called pseudoscience, based on what sources say. Here, we have a range of RS's, some that are definitive for scientific opinion, and others not -- such as the skeptical groups, which represent a significant view, but can't really considered RS's for majority scientific opinion. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The guideline for lists is clear that lists should maintain NPOV. This list fails that by rejecting any source, however authoritative, that does not support the point of view that some thing is a pseudoscience. The problem with the article is therefore far more severe than having a misleading name. It seems in fact that having this type of one POV only list is expressly forbidden,Landed little marsdon (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the actual guideline or what hgilbert linked to? The title is descriptive and does not have a "POV", so that doesn't come up. What you seem to be asking for a "list of pseudosciences and not pseudosciences" which wont work. I don't think the title forces POV on anyone, so long as the actual entries are well references and in context, and the inclusion criteria is clear. Verbal chat 19:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The guideline. But you misunderstand. The title is a problem but much more serious is the exclusive focus on only positive PS identifications. This in effect means that, for example, one million scientists saying no can be excluded totally in favor of one magician saying yes. That's why it is not NPOV.Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's get away from these vague hypotheticals. I know of no case where one million scientists are being excluded in favor of one magician. That's a straw man argument. If you have a particular objection to anything included in this list, please let us know. However, these kind of arguments need to be avoided as they do not help us with the development of this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think LLM does have a point in terms of our general inclusion criteria. One thing, for sure, is that we should certainly not include any topic that a majority of scientists don't think is pseudoscience, such as evolution, which has been widely called pseudoscience among creationists (which is more like 1 million scientists and 1,000 ministers). The other case is more problematic: what if one magician does call X pseudoscience, and 1 million scientists are, best guess, evenly split among "yes, maybe and no". Chiro and acu are exactly like that. LLM, point well-stated. --Backin72 (n.b.) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic and acupuncture are manifestly NOT like that. There are not 1 million scientists "evenly split". There is a general consensus that both of these practices contain explicitly pseudoscientific aspects. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that, SA? I said I was "best guessing". Are you guessing too or do you have an RS that there is "general consensus"? --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent sources have been provided by Fyslee and QG. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the sources used in the article, i.e., Keating, Barrett and CSICOP? Sorry, I don't think so. They're not even from the peer-reviewed literature. It's quite an OR stretch to assume what percentage of the sci community they speak for. WP has well-established sourcing guidelines, such as WP:MEDRS. None of those qualify. I don't mean to be unduly disparaging, but I find your assertion groundless. Happy to take this to RSN if we agree on the basics of the dispute. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.)It is not true that the list rejects "any" source that does not support the point-of-view that some thing is a pseudoscience. For example, sources that criticize creation science also criticize certain creationists who label evolution "pseudoscience". You don't see evolution appearing on this page for good reason: no reliable source says it is pseudoscience and there are enough reliable sources which say it is not pseudoscience to warrant exclusion. Contrast that to anything else found on this page: the sources that try to argue that any subject on this page is not pseudoscience or does not contain pseudoscientific aspects are not as reliable as the sources which oppose them and we marginalize (sometimes to the point of exclusion) those poor sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WHO doesn't call acu pseudoscience at all, and there is no reason to think they would. They say it's effective for all sorts of stuff. WHO is a more reliable source that CSICOP and Barrett. But there is an undue weight problem if we rely on the latter sources to classify TCM/acu as pseudoscience, when superior sources do not make the claim. TCM/Acu should be filed under "topics that some sources have called PS". And the list's title should reflect that the list contains both PS's and marginal subjects. At the edges of demarcation, being "pseudoscientific" is not an either/or thing. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The WHO, though a wonderful organization, does not declare acupuncture to be "not a pseudoscience" simply by not pointing out that it is a pseudoscience. The efficacy of acupuncture (or lack thereof) is really irrelevant to whether it uses pseudoscientific argumentation. The classification is not as the entire endeavor as pseudoscience, the point is that much of its rationalizing is pseudoscientific. The claims of acupuncture rely mostly on magical thinking as a means to explore efficacy. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the argument about "aspects" being pseudoscience. You are wrong in your last sentence, but that's no matter, since we just go with what RS's say and weight them properly. There is still an obvious editorial divide on whether skeptic orgs are just as reliable as mainstream sci orgs for demarcation. --Backin72 (n.b.) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But above solid medical sources seem to have been excluded in favor of sources such as quackwatch, entirely on account of the type of "he said it so it's in" argument I object to in my last post. Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and join the discussion above. I do not see "solid" medical sources being excluded at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems that there is an argument above about WHO and NIH versus CSICOP, and in the article the reliability of the NIH source is guestioned. There's also a long discussion about whether there is any difference between the Skeptics Society and the Royal Society!Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't be having a discussion about the discussion, we should actually have the discussion. The arguments for whether WHO/NIH are really "versus" CSICOP are interesting, but seem to me to be irrelevant. The "differences" between the Royal Society and the Skeptics Society are probably not that great when it comes to pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to gently object to your attempt to control discussion. It's OK, IMO, to talk about assumptions we are making and whether we are asking the right questions and making the right comparisons. LLM is quite right, IMO, that it's too facile to equate the Royal Society and Skeptics Society. I don't believe they're equally reliable for demarcation at all, due to self-selection bias: the Royal Society would have someone like User:Gleng in it; the Skeptics Society will have more people of, e.g., your worldview, and will therefore lack the moderating influence of a Gleng. Self-selection bias is operative, IOW; that's my criticism of the skeptic groups. And of course they often fail, e.g., WP:MEDRS. All in all, you have not made much of a case for their reliability other than simply asserting it. --Backin72 (n.b.) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC

I'd be in favor of calling this article "List of pseudosciences" if (and only if) we limit it to include only those topics which have been labelled a pseudoscience by general scientific consensus or are an obvious pseudoscience. In essence, I see no reason why the inclusion criteria of this article should not mirror WP:PSCI precisely. -- Levine2112 04:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to prefer a more open title and list, but I certainly agree that NPOV and VER demand that they have to be consistent with each other, whichever way it tips. cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from WP:FTN

I can see that you have been working hard on this article, and in a very serious way. Having said that, I think that the article does not yet get off the starting blocks in history of science terms. But first, some things I'd expect to see included/more detail on. 1) climate change denial notions, e.g. the claims of Piers Corbyn that he can explain it all (and give you a long-range weather forecast for a fee) on the basis of sunspots. 2) Wilhelm Reich and orgone therapy 3) Related to scientific racism, the ideas of Lombroso, measuring skulls to see if people had criminal tendencies. 4) Again part of scientific racism: the notion of "polygenesis".

Now to the problems I see. I'm unhappy that Ayurvedic medicine and TCM appear in a list alongside the likes of Brain Gym. These are both centuries-old traditions with a religious as well as a scientific nature. If these appear, then why not their Western equivalents: the theory of the four humours, doctrine of signatures etc. I fully understand that notions purportedly based on these traditions are pushed today by unscrupulous quacks of all sorts, but the past is far more complex than that. And the history of medicine is not simply a story of unscientific nonsense being replaced by enlightened fact. The concept of Chi in particular is not only a concept within Taoism, but also deeply embedded in eastern Asian culture and languages. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I could see a place for placing Ayurvedic and TCM in the Religious beliefs/spirituality section. Alternatively, we could just make a faith healing point and make oblique reference to these terms. The issue with these two traditions is that there are two aspects to them: one is the "folk tradition" aspect which is not pseudoscientific at all (may be more correctly termed "protoscientific") and the other aspect is the co-opting of the terms by modern "practitioners" who use "Ancient Eastern Traditions" to sell various pseudoscientific devices. Unfortunately, the latter is by far the more common use in today's world since most folk practitioners are being culturally sidelined and moving toward extinction.

I think your comments would be very valuable on that talk page. Please go over there and help!

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see that, but can you state more clearly between the difference between true "folk practitioners" and modern fakes? Thanks! Wandering Courier (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

completeness

For the sake of completeness I think philosophers of science should be included as a group able to identify PS in that identifying PS is a philosophy of science issue. Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with these edits. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, QG? Why? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would ask the same question as ScienceApologist. Philosophers of science generally dwell in their offices and classrooms, and often do not participate in real v. pseudo science controversy. They are more interested in theoretical things. However, when they do go out and say something must be a pseudoscience, they mean it strongly and usually have valid points. Wandering Courier (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosophers of science is not something the readers will understand. I think at this point it reads better. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think readers are as capable of understanding the concept of "philosophers of science" as anything else. We can always pipelink to it, as I just did. OTOH, "academics or researchers" sounds even better. With inclusion criteria broad enough to encompass one individual's opinion, despite the fact that a majority of scientists may be agnostic or mum on the subject, LLM , II, Fyslee and others are right: we really do have a huge NPOV problem with the title. --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Demarcation

I believe that we still need to demarcate between items which have been declared pseudoscience by scientific consensus (Academy of Science) and those which have only been called such by critics of the subject or skeptical societies. This aids the reader of this article to see the all to important deliniation of sources. -- Levine2112 03:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Researchers are not critics. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Let's have a lot more action on this page (talking), and a lot less on the article (edit warring). Semantics ("critics") aside, the point I think Levine2112 is making is that he disagrees that every source is equally reliable for demarcation. This is certainly a concern shared by several other editors. Since the RfC generated no consensus to pursue SA's novel conflation of sources, we come back to the question of why SA's edit should stick at all. Given no consensus, and the fact that the burden lies on him to show that sources should be treated the same (and not on me to prove they aren't, e.g., I don't have to prove the Boy Scout handbook doesn't meet WP:MEDRS), it's pretty clear that the edit was premature. Too bold. QG, I really don't think edit-warring is going to work very well; we're all subject to potential sanction given the subject area. The only option is to discuss further, I'm afraid. :-) --Backin72 (n.b.) 04:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any policy on Misplaced Pages that says to segragate sources in articles to different sections. QuackGuru (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true. What this really boils down to is using attribution more, and in an NPOV manner, IOW don't include editorial comments or format differentiations that would indicate any prejudice for or against a source. That shouldn't be any problem. No one suffers from doing that. It's standard practice in scientific articles, so why not do it here? It will raise the quality of the list. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Attribution is only necessary when sources disagree. See WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But we can't do OR and assume that everyone else agrees when we're only sourcing a couple of people. Keating, for example, makes his case about chiropractic, but neither he nor you provide any reason to extrapoloate those opinions (which are in sources that don't even meet WP:MEDRS!) to the scientific community at large. --Backin72 (n.b.) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change. No policy on Misplaced Pages says we should create different sections for different sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no Misplaced Pages policy which says we shouldn't demarcate between the two types of sources. Please don't revert in the face of "no consensus" on the RfC at the top of this page. -- Levine2112 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy that supports segregation on Misplaced Pages. QuackGuru (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First, there is no policy disallowing the demaraction. Second, yes there is a policy supporting the demarcation: WP:PSCI. There are the obvious pseudosciences by scientific consensus - those items which can be described as pseudosciene on Misplaced Pages. And then there is the rest - items which shouldn't genrally be characterized as such. -- Levine2112 05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a list and not a cat. Anyhow, you are not applying the policy correctly. QuackGuru (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about a cat? And according to you which policy am I not applying correctly and how should I be applying it? -- Levine2112 05:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re QG's statement "There is no policy that supports segregation on Misplaced Pages": Of course there is! First, there is WP:PSCI, which separates topics based precisely on scientific opinion, which (as Levine alludes) is naturally a function of sourcing. Second, the whole point of categories and lists is to sort (or segregate) things according to common attributes. And here we're talking about, in effect, not lumping in "alleged criminals" with "criminals". You may disagree, but I trust you see my analogy, and why I and others do object that since some sources are much more reliable than others, we do need some measure of segregation and qualification.

BTW, QG, nice job on the wording of the lead. It's really much better now. If we can just come up with a satisfactory title, and discriminate among sources either by "tiering" or perhaps some variant of your footnoting suggestion, I think we'll be close to the promised land. Seriously, I think resolving those two things would make for a great, stable article. --Backin72 (n.b.) 05:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) WP:ASF is always good to re-read, and I found this little pearl:

• "A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is."

That's an excellent point, and explains why so many editors have questioned the reliability of skeptic groups and invividual authors for accurately depicting scientific opinion on demarcation. On their face, CSICOP, Shermer, Barrett, etc. do not and cannot demonstrate to what degree they speak for the scientific community. That's why User:Simoes, a philosophy graduate student who grokked the philosophy of science better than most editors, suggested relying only on scientific academies, whose statements embody the process of reaching scientific consensus. --Backin72 (n.b.) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds perfect to me. Sometimes I have a hard time expressing my thoughts so succinctly and clearly, but "relying on scientific academies, whose statements embody the process of reaching scientific consensus" is precisely where I stand for determining scientific consensus (and I'd imagine that would be the bare minimum for any other rational skeptic). The inclusion criteria of this article should be in accordance to WP:NPOV or more specifically, WP:PSCI - part of the NPOV policy FAQs. -- Levine2112 05:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Keating source meets MEDRS when you have not presented a better source for chiropractic pseudoscience.

The best way to apply PSCI is for admins to ban editors who misapply PSCI and segregate sources into different sections.

There is no policy that says we should segregate sources on Misplaced Pages. PSCI does not support segregation. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It hink that is a very hardliner look at things and not very cooperative. WP:PSCI does create a distinction about what can be characterized as a pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages and what cannot. The text from PSCI even reads: In an Arbitration Committee case, which can be read in full here, the committee created distinctions among the following:. I really can't see how you can claim that PSCI doesn't make distinctions when it so clearly does just that. -- Levine2112 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you know you have not presented anything in PSCI that says to segregate sources in articles and create different sections for sources in articles. QuackGuru (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and? Editorial discretion allows us to create subsections of lists according to the criteria we agree are important. I understand that that style is not your preference, but nothing in MOS, etc., forbids it. --Backin72 (n.b.) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your editorial discretion is WP:OR in the real world and not part of any Wikipipedia policy. Backin72, at least you are honest that it is your editorial discretion and NOT Misplaced Pages policy. QuackGuru (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, QG. Editorial discretion, as in organizing articles and creating subsections and so on, is very much alive and well within standard WP operating procedure. It's no more OR than my choice of a font. --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I think the argument which QuackGuru is giving is not very rational and I would be surprised to see if any other editors really agree with it. However, I am open to stand corrected. PSCI tells us how to make the distinction and QG has presented no policy which would forbid us from making the distinction. I am personally against including items in this list which are only characterized as pseudoscience by some skeptic or skeptic group; however if we are to keep that section we really need to do ur best to comply with NPOV and particularly PSCI. -- Levine2112 06:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please show and not assert your view. Editorial discretion is not part of PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And round and round and round we go! Yet again, any discussion of content or format is a complete waste of time until we get settled on a title that is NPOV. The current one is not and only allows the inclusion of a very few absolutely airtight examples, according to WP:PSCI. Either change the title or get rid of most of the content. I am interested in building, not breaking down, and therefore suggest we retitle the list so it harmonizes with the content. I suggest we retitle this article List of topics referred to as pseudoscience. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we should not retitle just to get around WP:PSCI. We should possibly retitle but certainly adhere to PSCI in terms of inclusion criteria. A sub-list of items which have been characterized as pseudoscientific by possibly one skeptic is really not all that encyclopedic. If the skeptic or skeptic group is notable, then their views on what they consider to be pseudoscientific would be better placed in their respective articles. If the skeptic or skeptic group is not notable, then who cares what they think is pseudoscientific? -- Levine2112 06:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current title is fine. QuackGuru (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To be totally honest, I think the current title is fine too. It is the inclusion criteria and the subsequent content of the article which I am more concerned about. The inclusion criteria right now seems to be at odds with Misplaced Pages policy. And rather than trying to agree on some ellusive and vague title which may help us skirt around a pillar of Misplaced Pages, I'd rather us just adhere to the section of NPOV which lays out the criteria for inclusion quite clearly. -- Levine2112 06:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Levine, are you saying you're outright opposed to a broader list including topics like acu and chiro but with proper weighting and balancing views? --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When is the last time you have been totally honest? PSCI does not apply in this case to create different sections in an article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Editorial discretion is NOT Misplaced Pages policy

Backin72 wrote: Yes, and? Editorial discretion allows us to create subsections of lists according to the criteria we agree are important. I understand that that style is not your preference, but nothing in MOS, etc., forbids it.

We should not continue a discussion when editors are making strange edits not based on any Misplaced Pages policy. QuackGuru (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

References

This section contains references used in the above discussions. Please keep it below other sections.

1. ^ scientific community
2. ^ skeptic organizations
3. ^ reserchers
4. "An Introduction to Chiropractic". National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2007-11. Retrieved 2009-01-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. "Standards for Doctor of Chiropractic programs and requirements for institutional status" (PDF). The Council on Chiropractic Education. 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-14.
6. Nelson CF, Lawrence DJ, Triano JJ; et al. (2005). "Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession". Chiropr Osteopat. 13: 9. doi:10.1186/1746-1340-13-9. PMC 1185558. PMID 16000175. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
7. Grod JP, Sikorski D, Keating JC (2001). "Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest state, provincial, and national chiropractic associations and research agencies". J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 24 (8): 514–9. doi:10.1067/mmt.2001.118205. PMID 11677551. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. Keating JC Jr, Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. Retrieved 2008-06-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
9. Keating JC Jr (1997). "Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side". Skept Inq. 21 (4): 37–43.
10. Michael, DeRobertis (1999-02-03). "Nobel Laureates Criticize York University Affiliation with Chiropractic". Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 2009-01-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
11. DeRobertis, Michael (Summer 2001). "York U. Rejects Chiropractic College" (PDF). The Ontario Skeptic. Skeptics Canada. Retrieved 2009-01-06. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
12. Ernst E, Canter PH (2006). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation". J R Soc Med. 99 (4): 192–6. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192. PMC 1420782. PMID 16574972. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
13. Bronfort, G. (2008), "Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization", The Spine Journal, 8: 213, doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.023
14. Assendelft, Willem J.J. (2004), Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000447.pub2
15. Ernst, E. (2008), "Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation", Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 35: 544, doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004
16. Thiel HW, Bolton JE, Docherty S, Portlock JC (2007). "Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey". Spine. 32 (21): 2375–8, discussion 2379. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181557bb1. PMID 17906581. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
17. Ernst, E. (2007), "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review", JRSM, 100 (7): 330, doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330, PMID 17606755
18. Vohra, Sunita; Johnston, Bradley C.; Cramer, Kristie; Humphreys, Kim (2007), "Adverse Events Associated with Pediatric Spinal Manipulation: A Systematic Review", Pediatrics, 119 (1): e275, doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1392, PMID 17178922
19. Ernst E (2002). "Spinal manipulation: its safety is uncertain". CMAJ. 166 (1): 40–1. PMC 99224. PMID 11800245. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
20. Barrett, Stephen (2008-07-31). "Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2009-01-06.
21. Opinions involve both matters of fact and value; see fact-value distinction
22. Keating JC Jr, Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. Retrieved 2008-06-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
23. Keating JC Jr (1997). "Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side". Skept Inq. 21 (4): 37–43.
24. "Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China: A Report of the Second CSICOP Delegation (Part 2)". CSICOP. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
25. Barrett, Stephen (December 30, 2007). "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
26. ^ NIH Consensus Development Program (November 3–5, 1997). "Acupuncture --Consensus Development Conference Statement". National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 2007-07-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
27. ^ Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials. World Health Organization, 2003. Section 3. Section 3 (HTML); Cite error: The named reference "WHO 2003.3" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
28. "Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China: A Report of the Second CSICOP Delegation (Part 2)". CSICOP. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
29. Barrett, Stephen (December 30, 2007). "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
30. ^ Ernst E, Pittler MH, Wider B, Boddy K. (2007). "Acupuncture: its evidence-base is changing". Am J Chin Med. 35 (1): 21–5. doi:10.1142/S0192415X07004588. PMID 17265547.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
31. Felix Mann, quoted by Matthew Bauer in Chinese Medicine Times, vol 1 issue 4, Aug. 2006, "The Final Days of Traditional Beliefs? - Part One"
32. Acupuncture: A Comprehensive Text, p. 35. Shanghai College of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Translated and edited by John O'Connor and Dan Bensky. Eastland Press, Seattle, 1981 (Fourteenth Printing, 1997). ISBN 0-939616-00-9.
33. Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD. Commentary: The Meanings of Innate. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2002; 46(1)
34. Williams.W. (2000) The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Facts on File inc. Contributors: Drs D.Conway, L.Dalton, R.Dolby, R.Duval, H.Farrell, J.Frazier, J.McMillan, J.Melton, T.O'Niell, R.Shepherd, S.Utley, W.Williams. ISBN 0-8160-3351-X

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• List-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• List-Class physics articles of High-importance
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles