Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:24, 15 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

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)

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)

In general, it's mostly context. When you are looking into the anthropological context of folk medicines, that is essentially looking at the cultural contexts of these ideas. On the street corner of various disparate cultures, you will find practitioners of so-called "folk medicine" who are not culturally confined but instead are exploiting the stereotypes that surround that culture (e.g. the wise, ancient Asian ways). There are interesting borderline cases. What is the cultural context of a TCM shop in Chinatown? What if you transport that same shop to a town that is 99% not Chinese? These are not easy anthropological questions to answer, but it is clear that a shaman trying to heal swidden villagers in the last isolated parts of the mountains of South East Asia is not the same thing as the white guy selling chinese herbal remedies on the street corner. Gray areas, to be sure, but it's fairly clear that there has been pseudoscientific posturing done by groups co-opting TCM -- and that posturing is documented in the sources. I liken it somewhat to Dogon people and Sirius B. While we must acknowledge that traditional African people had an incredible understanding of astronomy, there are pseudoscientific falsehoods which have entered into the discussion with uncomfortable consequences. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:08, 14 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)

Editorial discretion is part of editing at Misplaced Pages. We have policy and guidelines, but the rest is up to us to work out amongst ourselves. -- Levine2112 06:35, 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)

Yes, I am outright opposed. Essentially, that is what we have right now. The article is always unstable and we must finally come to grips and ask ourselves, "Why?" The answer is becuase the article violates WP:PSCI as it characterizes items as pseudoscience even though they are not obvious examples nor are there scientific consensus supporting such a claim. Supporters of certain skeptical groups are pushing to include their favorite skeptic's or skeptical group's opinion included in this list article, but at the end of the day, such a push flies in the face of the policy which ArbCom created for us - WP:PSCI. -- Levine2112 06:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your editorial discretion is not part of PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the editorial discretion which I am employing complies better with WP:PSCI than the discretion which you wish to employ. And there we are. -- Levine2112 06:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Editorial discretion is not standard WP operating procedure. Let's be honest here. 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 standard 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)

I think you have misunderstood me pretty severely. By editorial discretion, I just mean that editors can decide how to organize items, what prose to use, which sources are best, etc. You know, using our brains rather than having bots write the article. I must admit I've doubted that Misplaced Pages is the friendliest place for the exercise of grey matter or the demarcation of grey areas, but we do our best.... --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Backin72 wrote in part: 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.

I disagree. Your editorial discreration is not standard Misplaced Pages policy. You don't WP:OWN the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

here is a short essay which I think will be helpful for us to all read. -- Levine2112 06:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a longer essay that is even more helpful. QuackGuru (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All right -- I gave it th old college try, but Levine's opposed to broadening, and with all the other disagreement that kind of kills my hope for fixing this up. I don't have anything more to do around here. See ya'll. Cheers, Backin72 (n.b.) 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC), vanishing away....

Purpose of retitling

I am not proposing a "retitle just to get around WP:PSCI," as Levine2112 says above. It has to do with the purpose of Misplaced Pages. We are supposed to document the sum total of human knowledge, as it is found in V & RS. Right now the current title is tied to the narrow limits of PSCI, but Misplaced Pages is supposed to be more than that. We are only allowed to categorize a limited number of subjects on a list of "pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts." That's the title, and the title must describe the contents of the article. If the contents don't match the title, the title should be changed, or the contents be fitted to the title, which means a radical reduction of article content.

Well, the real world has plenty of opinions about what is and isn't pseudoscience, and many of those opinions are published in V & RS, and if Misplaced Pages is to live up to its full function, those published opinions deserve a place. This is the logical place.

I find it rather ironic that SA, QG, and Levine2112 are all agreed that a title change isn't necessary, but that only Levine2112 is abiding by policy, albeit for the wrong reason - to keep out opinions from V & RS that he doesn't like. What a circus this is! Continual discussions about content and format, which is all pointless until the title matter is settled. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including the opinions of notable skeptics and skeptic societies at Misplaced Pages. I am just opposed to including their opinions here. Why? Because their opinions don't meet the standards set forth by WP:PSCI for characterizing a subject as pseudoscience. That said, these persons' and groups' opinions about what they feel constitutes a pseudoscience are more than welcome at each of their respective articles. That way, their opinions are documented, PSCI is complied with, and the sum total of all human knowledge is further recorded on Misplaced Pages.

I love that I agree with SA and QG on the retitling issue. However, I don't think it is proper for you - Fyslee - to say that I want to abide by policy for the wrong reason. And what reason is that? -- Levine2112 07:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then we are somewhat agreed, except that I think this is the logical place, which is why a title change is necessary. Since none of you are willing to change the title, and it's not NPOV, and the content isn't in harmony with WP:PSCI, will you start the deletion of content here that needs to go, so the content will be in harmony with the current title? -- Fyslee (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly would love to do that. And at the same time, I can move items which don't comply with WP:PSCI to each of their respective source's Misplaced Pages article (if applicable) as a statement of the source's opinion of the subject. Now I am will to do this work, but do you feel as I do? That my work will likely be reverted? -- Levine2112 07:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am feeling WP:BOLD and made my first attempt at such a deletion of content. To help with the transition of the skeptical groups' and individual skeptics' opinions to each of their respective articles (if applicable), I created this page as a worksheet. -- Levine2112 07:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And as suspected, my boldness was immediately reverted. So per WP:BRD, I am now open to discussion. Shall we dance? -- Levine2112 07:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:BRD I reverted. Please make smaller individual edits and justify them here so that consensus can be reached. Discussion of each edit first would be best, I think. Verbal chat 07:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that we can remove the "Topics which have been characterized as pseudoscientific but haven't been labelled so by any scientific consensus" section en masse because that is precisely the section which does not comply with WP:PSCI. So rather than going through the entire list one by one and justifying their removal with the exact same reasoning (that their presense in this article doesn't comply with WP:PSCI because the source given doesn't assert that the concept is an obvious pseudoscience nor one which as been deemed a pseudoscience by scientific consensus) perhaps it would easier for you (or anyone else) to pick out which entries you believe should stay in this article and why its continued presence will not violate WP:PSCI. -- Levine2112 07:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which part of WP:PSCI and why? I'd like to see more input on this too from other involved editors before any more deletions. Verbal chat 07:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say all of WP:PSCI. It's a short piece of policy after all. :-) Specifically, per that policy, we should only be including items in this list-article entitled "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" (which in essence characterizes all members of said list as a pseudoscience) that are either an "Obvious pseudoscience" or "Generally considered pseudoscience". The views of a skeptic or a skeptic society does not necessarily constitute the general views of the scientific community. I too would definitely like to hear some more input from both involved and uninvolved editors. But please let's stick to WP:PSCI as this is upon what this bold plan of action hinges. -- Levine2112 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained which part of PSCI and why. Anyhow, editorial discretion is not part of PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus process needs to take place. I agree with Levine2112's edits, as long as we don't change the title, but I think a title change would be best, IOW it would be best to not delete anything, and just change the title. That discussion needs to be finished. Start an RfC on the matter. I have to run. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You are aware editors disagree with the title change according to your edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. Yes, perhaps an RfC is the best next step. It should be worded to address the very context of this bold action - chiefly WP:PSCI and how the inclusion of non-obvious pseudosciences and non-generally considered pseudosciences in this article seemingly does not comply with this policy. -- Levine2112 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as we use the current title, some of the content doesn't comply with policy. We need to change the title. That would take the least effort and preserve the hard work of many editors. We just need to bring the title into line with policy. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Which content specifically do you feel doesn't comply with policy under the current title? -- Levine2112 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are to abide by policy, and I definitely believe we should, any content that doesn't fit the title, and thus the WP:PSCI criteria, should be deleted. Since I don't think that is the best solution, I think we should work for a title change that will allow the current content to remain, albeit possibly with some tweaking or change in format, especially with better attribution. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with the title and the lead is a reflection of the body. The current lead is in line with the body. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw man. We aren't talkig about the LEAD. It does match the body, but the title still doesn't match the entire contents. Change the title and we'll be on solid ground. Right now you are the best friend of fringe editors and I'm beginning to lose any AGF feelings about you. In fact I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't a plant who is attempting to not-so-subtly disrupt this process. Judging by your actions you might just be some banned extreme fringe editor. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is a problem with the title. It says that the list includes pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. However, some of the entries are not obvious pseudosciences nor are they generally considered pseudosciences. This violates WP:PSCI, part of the NPOV Misplaced Pages pillar. Also consider WP:LISTV which says that we should avoid creating lists based on a value judgement of people or organizations. If we are listing things which are only purported to be pseudoscience by a skeptic or a skeptic group, then we are making a values judgement. It also says that per WP:NPOV, lists should generally only represent consensus opinion. Clearly if some concept is not generally considered to be a pseudoscience, then there is no consensus that the concept should be labelled as such. So again, there is no problem with the title if we remove all of the items which are no either generally considered to be pseudoscience or are not an obvious pseudoscience. That is why it has been proposed that we remove all of the items in conflict with WP:PSCI and preserve these opinions in the articles corresponding to the authors of said opinions. Retitling doesn't seem to be a viable solution because it is only an attempt to get around WP:PSCI, but in the end policy - especially one of our pillars - will trump such an effort. So let's just save ourselve the headache of the brewing brainstorm and make this article comply with WP:NPOV by moving ahead as suggested by myself and Fyslee above. -- Levine2112 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The entries are considered or characterized as pseudosciences according to the references presented. See WP:V. There is no conflict with PSCI when you have not shown there is any conflict. The lead is the inclusion criteria. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The conflict is all around you, and it counts! -- Fyslee (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If a good title is suggested, then fine, but I don't see any problems with WP:NPOV or WP:PSCI with the article. Verbal chat 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you reconcile the presence of items which are not generally considered to be a pseudoscience in a list article named "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" given that WP:PSCI explicitly instructs us that we should not characterize such items as pseudosciences? -- Levine2112 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As I explained before, researchers and not critics. This is not alleged when it is referenced. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that either title change (preferred option) or mass deletion of all non scientifically sourced entries is essential. As things stand the title doesn't match the content. Landed little marsdon (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112 does not agree with you. He does not want the title changed. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that there is a possible title change which will solve our policy dilemma. I certainly haven't read any suggested title changes which solve the issue. That's why I support mass deletion of all non scientifically sourced entries - the same solution which Landed little marson and Fyslee support (second to their preferred solution of title change). I am certainly open to changing my mind if a title change is presented which somehow satisfies the current policy issue.

I still have this question for anyone who thinks that the current article doesn't have a policy issue: How do you reconcile the presence of items which are not generally considered to be a pseudoscience in a list article named "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" given that WP:PSCI explicitly instructs us that we should not characterize such items as pseudosciences? -- Levine2112 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have previously suggested List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific, and it has received support from several editors. That title makes it clear that WE as editors are not categorizing the content as PS. It is the sources who do so, which satisfies NPOV, WP:PSCI, and sourcing requirements. WP:PSCI governs editing, not sources. It tells US as editors that WE must not categorize some of the items currently in the list as PS, but if we change the title, we are simply including V & RS from the real world, which will make the list conform more fully to Misplaced Pages's goal of documenting all human knowledge that is published in V & RS. That's what I'd like to see. A list with a very narrow focus has limited usefulness. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the article correctly observes WP:PSCI by characterising PS correctly. The title isn't a problem, and the text is clear. Verbal chat 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please expand your answer? I am unclear how "the article correctly observes WP:PSCI by characterising PS correctly." What does "characterising PS correctly" mean? How does the article characterize pseudoscience correctly? Is it characterized incorrectly somewhere else in Misplaced Pages? -- Levine2112 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The text of the article observes WP:PSCI, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. It is clear in the article what the sources and what parts of larger domains are charaterised as PS. If there is any part that isn't in a correct section or is mischaraterising the sources, then bring it up in a new section for discussion. You should probably read WP:BLP too, but I think you've been pointed to that already. Verbal chat 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I myself am often guitly of writing unclearly, so please take this with a grain of salt, but I am really unsure of what you are saying above. What I am saying is that PSCI tells us that items which are not generally considered to be a pseudoscience should not be characterized as such. Yet, in this list called "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts", we have many entries included that are not generally considered to be a pseudoscience. This creates PSCI problem which can only be fixed by removing the offending content or by changing the title. I personally don't think that there is a title which can rightly satisfy the PSCI and still keep the entries that aren't generally considered pseudoscience. Anyhow, if you can make it plainly obvious to us how you are reconciling the presence of items which are not generally considered to be a pseudoscience in a list article named "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" given that WP:PSCI explicitly instructs us that we should not characterize such items as pseudosciences, I would greatly appreciate it. Sorry if I am being dense here, but I really don't understand your response to this question above. -- Levine2112 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To QG, Levine agrees that as things stand the title doesn't match the content, and s/he agrees with (at least) one of the possible solutions; i.e. deletion of the problematic entries which lack sound enough sources to be included in a list of pseudoscience as opposed to a list of alleged pseudoscience. BTW QG, it's pretty bad form to just ignore the arguments of about five editors here and act as if we don't exist as you did when you removed the npov disputed tag. I would be grateful for some explanation of why you chose to simply disregard our comments in that way.Landed little marsdon (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

LLM, you'll just have to get used to that. That's his usual MO. Repeat himself and ignore intervening comments, or keep switching sides. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposal of List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific is a gross violation of WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep the current title but if there ever was a decision to change the title it could be something like: List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific aspects. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You have suggested that one before without getting any reaction, probably because it is not significantly different than the existing title, and it won't solve the problems our current title creates. This suggestion demonstrates the truth of an old adage: "There must be change to make an improvement, but there can be lots of change without improvement." This sounds like change for the sake of change, but it won't solve our problems, nor will it stop the edit warring and total waste of time discussing content and format. They are determined by the title, which must harmonize with the content without violating any policies or the ArbCom decision. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific characteristics is another option. QuackGuru (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The current situation

Here's the current situation:

1. The title is a characterization/categorization of the contents of the list, and it must abide by NPOV. Because of WP:PSCI, it must also match content in an even more strict manner, but it doesn't abide by either with this content.
2. With the current title, it is a violation of NPOV and WP:PSCI to include some of the current content. This title creates very narrow inclusion criteria, similar to WP:PSCI.
3. With a new title that creates broader inclusion criteria, all the current content can stay. Just source and attribute it properly.

When replying, please refer to the items by number. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with 1 and 2, but I don't think that's important. We can change the title, and perhaps if we list them out below, and allow people to add new suggestions, we can discuss them. My worry with relaxing the title is that the criteria in the article will be relaxed and then the page will be swamped with "X once called the photoelectric effect PS" and "QM is regarded PS by Y". If this concern can be addressed then I'll support a change, or if I'm mistaken about the criteria becoming too broad then please convince me! I'm not trying to be disruptive in my comments, I'm worried about this list becoming useless and sidelined - the content now is pretty rock solid, and I would like a title and criteria that keep it this way. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Title's must be NPOV and describe the contents of the article or list. I don't see how you can disagree with that. The current title is so narrow that it doesn't allow inclusion or mention of subjects mentioned in many V & RS that fall outside of the very narrow limits set by WP:PSCI. Our job and PSCI don't allow us to categorize any but a very few items as PS (narrow inclusion criteria), but Misplaced Pages's job is to document the real world discussion of this subject (broad inclusion criteria). We can make this list (using the current content) fulfill the larger goal by letting the sources speak and let the readers make up their own minds.

I can understand your concerns about relaxing inclusion criteria, but what I'm suggesting would not change the current inclusion criteria as described in the LEAD and body of the article. If we were to start getting additions that are POINT violations (which has happened in the past), we can deal with them. I have addressed that situation elsewhere on this page, or in the archives.

As to title suggestions, the one which has garnered the most support has been suggested several times, so you have seen it:

• List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. Such a title is NPOV, has no categorization problems, and justifies keeping the current content.

With this title change, we can proceed to discuss content and formatting in an effective manner. Right now there is simply alot of stonewalling going on, and I'd hate to see three more or less skeptical editors get blocked or topic banned, but I'm going to support that if necessary. Then the supporters of quackery, pseudoscience and fringe ideas are going to win, simply because you don't show up to play the game. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the suggestion of "List of pseudosciences and questionable scientific concepts" given below, what do you think to that? If pushed I could support your title (I'm really not trying to be difficult) so long as the criteria are kept as they are in the body, like you say. Should there be an RfC or just a vote for a few suggested titles? Verbal chat 16:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Status of Out of Body Experiences

What's the consensus on categorisation for these? The Out of Body Experience article is listed under paranormal yet is increasingly subject to neurological studies. K2709 (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As with much pseudoscience, the successful neurological investigations are making the parapsychology look weaker and weaker as they mount up. But if a subject is to be included in this article you need to find documentary evidence that opinion has shifted towards regarding "out of body" rather than "neurological anomaly" explanations as pseudoscience (this shouldn't be difficult as the parapsychology was probably always a fringe view). --TS 12:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Flat Earth

The article says: "Flat Earth Society proposes that the earth is a flat, disc shaped planet with enough upward momentum to produce gravity." Shouldn't it be acceleration not momentum? And in that case is it really gravity which is produced? Redddogg (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they've abandoned Aristotlean physics from what I"ve read in the scant sources on the subject. In such case, they may think that forces are associated with movement rather than accelerations. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

167

{{editprotected}}

I request an edit to a protected page for a ref improvement to reference number 167. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I fleshed out the ref, but with a slightly different format. Hopefully it works for you. Pagrashtak 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A modest suggestion

There is a lot of heat about this list. Personally I think this list should not exist and we leave it to separate articles and a category, but deletion has been proposed twice and was clearly not supported by consensus. The lead:-

"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."

is quite clear and I do not think it is a breach of any policy or guideline. So let us take it seriously and for each entry in the list, clearly state which scientific organization, skeptical organization or academic has characterized the item as pseudoscientific. We could add a phrase like "This item was characterized by XX (and others) as pseudoscientific" followed by a reference. The items should not however be divided into sections on scientific organizations, skeptical organizations or academics, but listed alphabetically to avoid any POV or undue weight. We should not be battling here. We are just listing topics that have been labeled as pseudoscientific. It really does not matter who has so labeled the item as long as the labeling is notable; that is "who labeled it?" and "who noticed the labelling?". --Bduke (Discussion) 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

While WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution needs to be carefully avoided, but we can accommodate some of this idea, I think. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, if any particular entry is problematic please bring it up here for discussion. Verbal chat 21:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked this above, but perhaps it is better to also ask it here: How do you reconcile the presence of items which are not generally considered to be a pseudoscience in a list article named "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" given that WP:PSCI explicitly instructs us that we should not characterize such items as pseudosciences? -- Levine2112 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the name a good one for the article, and WP:PSCI concerns are irrelevant as the article text is clear and characterises things appropriately. As I said above. Please keep discussion to one thread. Verbal chat

I disagree that the title of the article is a "good one" since it creates a clear WP:PSCI violation by labelling items that are not generally considered pseudoscience as pseudoscience. I know that we attempt to remedy this violation with our lead text, but that really only puts a bandaid on a wound. And the suggestion about about proper attribution just places a bunch more tiny bandaids throughout the article. Wouldn't it be better to not have the wound (i.e. the policy violation) at all? -- Levine2112 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have particular concerns about individual entries, please discuss them. The general discussion about the philosophy behind this article seems to be moribund. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I think we can strike all of the offending items wholesale. And since the argument for removing them will be exactly the same - The source given doesn't support that the item is generally considered a pseudoscience. Therefore, per WP:PSCI we should remove the item from this list. - why not just take care of the entire problem in one shot? -- Levine2112 22:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your taking policy out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And how am I doing that, pray tell? Please be specific. -- Levine2112 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally considered a pseudoscience is not the inclusion crieteria for this article. PSCI does not require an entry to be generally considered a pseudoscience to be on a list. QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV applies to all articles. PSCI certainly applies to this article. PSCI is the criteria for any article dealing with pseudoscience. A pillar of Misplaced Pages trumps any cleverly worded inclusion criteria we can invent in an attempt to circumvent said pillar. -- Levine2112 23:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We are complying with said policy. Do you approve of the changes to the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No. It is just a cleverly worded attempt to skirt around the requirements of WP:PSCI. Imagine including information about how Larry Sanger is a pederast in his respective Misplaced Pages article, but then rewriting the lead to say that not everything in the article is necessarily a fact. My guess is that you would still be in violation of BLP, even though you attempted to skirt around it with a cleverly written lead. -- Levine2112 01:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting that properly sourced negative information is not a BLP violation. It's a matter of sourcing. If properly sourced, there is no skirting around any policies. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bduke makes a vital point when he says "we are just listing things that have been labeled as pseudoscientific". No! According to the title we are listing things which are in actual fact pseudosciences. This difference is key, and it is precisely the presentation of opinion in an article titled as if no entry was opinion that is the cause of all the problems. The fact that entries may only be opinion needs to be reflected in the title in some way. This or else the poorly sourced entries need to go.Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Well stated! :-) -- Levine2112 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke's and also LLM's comment, except that we shouldn't get sidetracked by a discussion of the quality of the sources, since that is often based on editorial POV. We need to get the title to match the fact that "we are just listing things that have been labeled as pseudoscientific". Right now the title means we are "categorizing" all the content as PS, and that means we are in violation of WP:PSCI. A better title will solve that problem. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current title but List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific aspects is a consideration. QuackGuru (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding attribution to the title is weasel wording. Sourced text is sourced. Claiming the sourced text is poorly sourced is incorrect when it meets WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add that it is the poor quality of the sources in some cases that means that the title needs to change. They are simply not reliable enough to go into an article with such a definitive title. Consider how the "List of Communists" would be misleading if many of the entries were sourced solely to one Joe McCarthy. All the caveats in the world could be added to the lead of that article but still the title would be unacceptable. Landed little marsdon (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of an article does not make a source unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I said entailed that it did. I said the poor quality of many of the sources necessitates a change of title, in that the title promises something that many of the sources cannot deliver. That this is so is amply demonstrated by the long list of disclaimers in the lead.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "I would add that it is the poor quality of the sources in some cases that means that the title needs to change."

No, we don't need to change the title. The sources comply with WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

QG, just because a reliable source that complies with WP:V says something does not mean we have to present the view as fact either explicitly or implicitly. Given that the PS status of some entries is dubious, as shown by the presence of the disclaimers, the title is far too definitive and therefore implicitly supports the idea that such views are true. The title therefore needs to be changed so that the list no longer does this. I still haven't seen this point addressed let alone answered. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP does not deal in truth. It reports what others say. We are not in the business of deciding whether something is pseudoscience. We are just reporting on what others say is pseudoscience, provided their statement is notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you be happy with an article entitled "List of Communists" that contained numerous entries sourced only to Joe McCarthy? Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How about a "List of Sinners" and sources are only from the Catholic Church? But wait, we can fix it by changing the title! How about a "List of people whom some notable clergymen say are sinners"? My guess is that we would still have BLP violatons in such an article. In the same way, we would still have PSCI problems in this article no matter what we title it. We have to change content to be aligned with policy; not the title to attempt to skirt around policy. -- Levine2112 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Grrh! I make a modest suggestion to calm things down and within seconds you are at each others throats again. Is it any wonder that you are driving good editors away from WP. WP:PSCI uses the phrase "but generally should not be so characterized". This is just a list and the lead makes it very clear what is to be included. I do not think the actual words of the title matter and I think that phrase with "generally" in it is more likely to apply to a list than a category or an article. Pseudoscience is always controversial. We have to make some compromises, so please stop fighting and reach a compromise consensus. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There already was a compromise. I and other editors made improvements to the lead. The new lead is the compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is not working unless people agree to the title and how the lead translates in how the content is organized. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There were a few new entries added to this list. Whenever the list improves a few editors attempt to delete the entries or try to rewrite the article. Read this edit summary: SA, QG, and Levine2112 are all agreed. Most editors agree with the current title. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, your suggestion is okay except it doesn't address the inherit WP:PSCI problem that the title presents. Clear attribution is certainly a tad bit better than what we have now, but as I said, it only serves as mini-bandaid for a gaping, festering wound. Landed little marson has said best. This list has far too definitive of a title to contain items which have only been called pseudoscience some skeptic or skeptic group. PSCI prohibits us from doing this and I don't think that this qualifies for one of the times when it is "generally" okay to characterize (or rather mis-characterize) items. Furthermore, that phrasing comes from the section on "Questionable science". That would mean that we would have to go through and show that each of the entries in this list that are only supported by skeptic sources are actually "questionable sciences" and not "alternative theoretical formulations" or something else. That doesn't seem very realistic and will probably spurn yet another cycle of endless debates. So here are the two compromises: 1) We come up with a title to this article which doesn't assert that the items contained within are definitively pseudoscience or 2) We excise any entry which isn't generally considered pseudoscience; and we can preserve what we excise as statements of the skeptical source's opinion of the subject in the skeptical source's corresponding Misplaced Pages article (when applicable). Those are currently the only two conceivable compromises (even though I personally don't think #1 is possible). -- Levine2112 01:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I obviously support number 1, and I think it can work. We just need to give it a try, because it totally changes the ground rules that govern the list. Then the rules that govern will be V & RS, NPOV, and for a limited number of items WP:PSCI will apply. Right now we are excluding many V & RS that deal with the subject. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think that such a title is possible, but I am always willing to read suggestions with a most open mind and readily be in the position of standing corrected. So if you want to present any suggested titles, please do so. -- Levine2112 02:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done above: List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. Such a title has no categorization problems. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Questionable science" is for alleged pseudoscience. When is it referenced it is not an allegation. We are simply reporting what the sources are saying. We can include entries that are not generally considered pseudoscience. Editorial discretion is not standard Misplaced Pages policy. We should comply with PSCI. When we comply with PSCI we can include pseudosciences that are not generally pseudosciences. "Generally considered pseudosciences" is for categorizing as pseudoscience. A list is not a category. See WP:PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

An allegation is an allegation, regardless of whether it is sourced or not. Just because many skeptics believe the allegation to be true is irrelevant here. We want to include such allegations from V & RS, since they are part of the real world we are documenting. Let readers make up their own minds as to the truthfulness of the allegations. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Questionable science" is for alleged pseudoscience. True.

• When is it referenced it is not an allegation. False. It is a referenced allegation.

• We are simply reporting what the sources are saying. True.

• We can include entries that are not generally considered pseudoscience. False. That causes a PSCI violation.

• Editorial discretion is not standard Misplaced Pages policy. False. Editors are people, not robots. Of course we are allowed to exercise editorial discretion, provided that we comply with policies and guidelines.

• We should comply with PSCI. True.

• When we comply with PSCI we can include pseudosciences that are not generally pseudosciences. False. This is a paradoxical statement. It's like saying, "When we comply with WP:CIVIL we can call people assholes." You can't call someone an asshole and still comply with CIVIL, just like you can't call non-generally considered pseudoscience a pseudoscience and still comply with PSCI.

• "Generally considered pseudosciences" is for categorizing as pseudoscience. True. But it is also for including information characterizing an item as a pseudoscience or to that effect. Read the whole policy please.

• A list is not a category. True. But a list does categorize items. I think you are confusion the Misplaced Pages term category with the English word "categorize".

-- Levine2112 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are taking PSCI out of context and applying your own policy. Editorial discretion is not standard Misplaced Pages policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

when an allegation is referenced it becomes a referenced allegation, and maybe even a verifiable and reliably sourced allegation, but it doesn't stop being an allegation just because it is referenced. The mere fact of it being referenced does not entitle us to present the content of the allegation as true in any way shape or form. At last the source of our disagreement is clear to me. Landed little marsdon (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

According to what policy sourced text is an allegation. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Allegation or opinion, it makes no difference. We include well-sourced allegations and opinions all the time. In fact that's what we do here. When it's controversial, we also attribute it. Standard practice. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

An allegation is not an opinion. When it is controversial to an editor we don't attribute it. When there is no serious disagreement among reliable sources we assert it as fact. An opinion is treated as fact when no serious disagreement exists. See WP:ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You've got it. Only a limited number of subjects that fit the PSCI criteria for PS can be categorized or labelled as PS by us without attribution. We can call them such anywhere at Misplaced Pages. The other items must be handled with care. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A list is not the same as PS category. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsensical comment. Makes no sense. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Potential ArbCom sanctions

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Right now, this page is not under discretionary sanctions, but is under indefinite protection, because of the edit-warring and other disputes here.

As an administrator, I've been watching the discussions and the editing here for awhile, trying to determine what kind of discretionary sanctions might have the best chance at helping the discussions here to be more productive, so that we can get protection lifted and allow normal editing to resume. Before placing any sanctions though, I wanted to get input from the editors on this page, to see if anyone has any creative ideas for what might help. Potential options that I've been kicking around so far:

1. Stay hands off, hope that the editors here are able to work things out on their own, and only step in if things start spiralling out of control.
2. Strongly encourage everyone to follow Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedures, such as to seek mediation
3. Place a revert restriction on the article, such as 1RR (one revert per editor per day/week) or 0RR (no reverts except for vandalism), which might help encourage everyone to try and find a compromise position on the article
4. Removing potential "stonewalling" editors from the talkpage for a certain amount of time, to see if that would help the other editors who are capable of working towards compromise, to try and hammer something out
5. Removing any single-purpose editors from the mix. Pretty much everyone here is an established editor, but a few of the editors here have become very single-minded on this one topic for quite some time. So a potential restriction could be placed that would only allow those editors who are working here and on other things as well (at least a 50-50 split) to be allowed to have a voice in the discussions, and any "single-minded" editors would be banned from the talkpage until they'd worked on some other articles for awhile, in order to try and regain some perspective.
6. (something else?) I'm open to suggestions.

Comments? --Elonka 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Settle retitling issue first. I see any continued discussion of content or format as a waste of time until we have reached a decision about retitling this list. Can we start there and focus on that issue alone? Once that is settled, other matters will have a chance of not being futile effort that just runs in circles.

I contend that the current title is not in harmony with the content of the article, as it effectively labels and categorizes the content as actual pseudoscience, which violates WP:PSCI. While it may be that, we as editors (we're the ones who choose the title) are not allowed to label or categorize some of the current content as PS because of the WP:PSCI ruling. The title isn't NPOV either. We need a title that will allow the current content to remain without violating any rules.

I have previously suggested List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific, and it has received support from several editors. That title makes it clear that WE as editors are not categorizing the content as PS. It is the sources who do so, which satisfies NPOV, WP:PSCI, and sourcing requirements. WP:PSCI governs editing, not sources. It tells US as editors that WE must not categorize some of the items currently in the list as PS, but if we change the title, we are simply including V & RS from the real world, which will make the list conform more fully to Misplaced Pages's goal of documenting all human knowledge that is published in V & RS. That's what I'd like to see. This list has such a very narrow focus that it has limited usefulness. Its usefulness would be much greater if it covered the whole topic as discussed in V & RS. ---- Fyslee (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would ask an uninvolved administrator took interest, rather than one who has personal disputes with several involved editors and refers to them as a "tag team". I think this problem is due to a misreading of WP:PSCI and that if a good title is suggested then it can be changed. Verbal chat 07:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka is an "involved admin" and has no standing here. I won't participate in her one-person ruling without the participation of an admin whom we can trust to be fair. She has blocked two editors, capriciously, both overturned immediately, starting with this falsely based statement. I'm requesting other help on the matter. OrangeMarlin 16:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Potential retitle

Given that the above is tl;dr, has anyone considered List of pseudosciences and questionable scientific concepts which would allow inclusion, and clear marking as suggested above, of "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" as defined by WP:PSCI. Obviously the list will still seem biased to some, for starters it has no mention of storkism :-/ . dave souza, talk 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a title I could live with, so long as the criteria of the current article are kept (see my reasoning above). Thanks, and great suggestion, Verbal chat 15:04, 15 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. Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD. Commentary: The Meanings of Innate. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2002; 46(1)
5. 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
6. Hazel Muir (2001). "Ball lightning scientists remain in the dark". New Scientist. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

• 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