Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 4

Recent deletions

I've re-added several deleted items that clearly belong in the list. They were deleted after 5 days w/ a fact tag by a para-psyc promoter. Seems the note at the top ==Reasons for inclusion== which refers to the listed subject articles should cover this. Subjects with articles indicating their pseudoscience status would seem to belong here. Citation requests should be in the parent articles. Vsmith 14:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with re-adding the items. I could probably provide citations from my reference books, but I simply don't have the time. Bubba73 (talk), 16:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I will leave the items in for a few more days so that sources may be found. The idea that the citations are not needed because that is covered in the relevant linked articles is not valid in all cases; furthermore, in some cases where the is significant dispute as to whether the item is pseudoscience, it cannot merely be listed as being unequivocally pseudoscience. In some cases you have a scientific consensus against it, for instance astrology. In other cases, the assertion must be modified. I am not a "parapsych-promoter", and you should learn to spell it. I will, however, putting an "uncyclopedic" tag on the article, due to phrases like this: "is a crackpot idea that states your mind can alter the reality around you through". Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The tags I carefully selected as being right for this page were removed, along with some citation requests. So if we can have only one tag, it'll have to be totally disputed. Please don't remove citation requests. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. It is not OK to say that the items are cited in their pages, unless you are going to 1) actually read the pages and see if this is so, and 2) update this page very frequently, as other pages change. So, since that is not going to happen, citations must be provided in this article- which should probably be deleted anyway. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I added citation requests to psychic on Nov 1, 2006 and they were promptly removed. Furthermore no citations were provided in the article, but they were said to be in the talk page, threfore not needed in the article. That's not the way it is supposed to work. Bubba73 (talk), 02:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right, and if I deleted them you have my apology. However, I only joined Wikipedia about that time, or a bit earlier. I don't recall what your're talking about now. Anyway, why didn't you put them back in? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not you who deleted them. Bubba73 (talk), 03:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are two articles that might be relevant, but I don't have time to read them right now:

1. Is Parapsychology a science?, Paul Kurtz
2. Parapsychology: Science or pseudoscience, Anthony Flew, first published in Science, Pseuoscience, and Society. Both republished in A Skeptic's Handbook of Pasapsychology, edited by Paul Kurtz, chapter 21 and 22, 503-18, 519-36. Bubba73 (talk), 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has to have more, as per discussion above (I mean in other sections here), than articles which say it is a pseudoscience. Because you can't just assert that based on a source, without a discussion; that's not NPOV. I'd like to draw people's attention to this: Wikipedia:List#References_for_list_items Which says:

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit.

The attribution policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." The responsibility for providing a citation rests "with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In the case of edits lacking citations, according to Wikipedia:Attribution:

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding <!-- before the section you want to comment out and --> after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.

The problem is with the nature of the list. The topics are too deep to deserve inclusion simply because a person or even a peer-reviewed article says they belong. You have to depend on the articles to back up inclusion on the list- which they sometimes don't. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martinphi - I think pragmatically it would be better if you would let fact-tagged stuff stick around longer than a few days. Will be better collaboratively (i.e. editors will be more inclined to assume good faith toward you) in the long run. Just my two cents. Regarding sourcing, the issue is not settled, but you may want to look at discussion above. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jim (: Yes, I'm going to let them hang around a while. I'll come back to it. I did read the discussion about the two-tiered system. It looks fine, I think anyway. It will be hard to include parapsychology in a first tier, because even if you find some source, it will be contradicted by others. As long as the system is thoroughly explicated in the article, I'm OK with it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Facilitated Communication (FC)

Thanks QuackGuru for adding[1] a ref for that. Carroll is not a bad ref, but as I said in my edit summary, for this list I'd like to see a "tier 1" or "tier 2" source, per emerging consensus above. (See here and subsequent section). To summarize that discussion, statements from Academies of Sciences or specialist sci org's ("tier 1") can be taken to reflect scientific consensus, and would suffice for inclusion in a proposed section "Pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts"; the second section, "Subjects regarded as pseudoscientific by mainstream scientific skeptical bodies," would require a statement from a group such as the Skeptics Society. FC is certainly controversial, so it's important to do it justice both in NPOV and ATT terms. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru has added more refs to this article than anyone. Over a dozens refs. Where does it state in policy it does not meet the requirement or you have a different standard than Wikipedia. QuackGuru ^TALK 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, regarding how to get WP:NPOV and WP:ATT right for sourcing and populating the list. Read the discussion above. If anything about it remains unclear to you, just ask. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (btw, I'm commenting only on your FC reference, so your comment about having added others isn't relevant to our discussion. Jim Butler^(talk) 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Consensus does not address the reliable of the reference. Accordingly, where in the reference policy it states this reference is not reliable. Reliability of the reference trumps consensus by far. What if a reliable reference was in an article but consensus was reached to remove for no valis reason. The reference should stay and the poor decision making should be put to rest. Logically, where does it state in policy about the a "tier 1" or "tier 2" sourcing? Did you get this idea about 1 or 2 tier from other editors or from official policy? Policy is good by me. QuackGuru ^TALK 03:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If a source was removed for "no valid reason", then consensus, and ascending stages of WP:DR, is how to fix the problem. Consensus IS itself a WP policy, and is how we figure out how to apply content-guiding policies such as NPOV and ATT to particular articles. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies.

I know of no policy specifically saying how to populate a list of pseudosciences, so here's the place to talk about it. If you have arguments for or against the tiering idea that has garnered support here, tell us about them. Arguing against the process of consensus itself won't get you very far.

As you know, per WP:ATT, the burden of justifying a source falls on the editor who wishes it to remain. The reliability of a source depends on what it's being cited for. Why should any one person (e.g. Carroll) be taken as representing what scientific consensus is, or what major sci-skept org's believe? See List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design for examples of sources that can be taken as representing more than a random sampling of views. Also see the recent ArbCom case on pseudoscience, excerpted and linked in talk above. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcam has nothing to do with the reliability of sources in policy. There is no such thing as 1 or 2 tier sourcing in policy to justify removal of other type of references. You seem to want to dump all relevant policies and stick with consensus. Consensus by a group of editors who personally believe a reference is not reliable is a mob consensus when the reference is reliable. Again, please tell us where in reliable sources policy does it state that the reference does not meet or surpass the standard of Wikipedia. I added a reliable source. QuackGuru ^TALK 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) The reliability of a source depends on what it's cited for, per NPOV and ATT. Consensus is the process by which editors apply NPOV and ATT. This is a pretty basic issue. (2) This list isn't a list of everything someone has labelled a pseudoscience. For my further reply on both these points, see below, beginning with the sentece "Well, let me try again." thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What you're trying to do in the article is to say what things are reguarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience. Thus, sources must speak for the scientific community as a whole- on the first tier. On the second tier, they must speak for a large skeptical organization. That is, if I understand the thing correctly. Carroll doesn't speak for either. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter about tiers. There is no policy against have a reference that does not meet your standard. I go by Wikipedia's standard and inclusion criteria. The lead is the inclusion criteria. Arbcam does not mean anything either. It is irrelavant what if any tier is the Caroll reference. Tiers do not mean anything to Wikipedia policy about different types of attributable reliable sources. QuackGuru ^TALK 01:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You can of course include it, if it meets general criteria. I thought we were talking about sources sufficient for inclusion in the list? Nice signature, BTW. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference meets the inclusion critria. Some Wikipedians have a different inclusion criteria. I stick with Wikipedia and not blinded consensus. I do not understand what Jim is talking about (sigh). QuackGuru ^TALK 01:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me try again. Please read principles 14-18 here. The reliability of a source depends on what it's cited for. John Doe, PhD, may call foo a pseudoscience, and that might be mentioned in the article on foo. But to put foo on a list or category requires more than just one guy's opinion. Is that clearer? Your statement "I stick with Wikipedia and not blinded consensus" represents, imo, a fundamental misunderstanding of WP. I already suggested you read Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies. I also recommend re-reading NPOV and ATT carefully, and possibly getting another editor as a mentor. Jim Butler^(talk) 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The superb reference also has many more references cited. Clearly it is reliable no doubt. Consensus is by collaboration and not a blinded consensus or a misinterpertation of the reference. QuackGuru ^TALK 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And you're not collaborating. You're ignoring every point I make (as well as the comments of other editors to which I referred you) and are just repeating yourself.

But perhaps you, or someone else, would like to answer this: you appear to be saying that if some person (who is notable in WP:BIO terms) characterizes a topic as pseudoscientific, then that topic should be characterized as such on WP. Is that so for every topic? Psychoanalysis? Toba catastrophe theory? Evolution? Why or why not? When would you not include a topic on this list, despite what your superb reference may say about it? Hint: the ArbCom talked about this. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If a critic characterized it as pseudoscience or pseudoscientific and the critic is notable is meets the threshold for inclusion. Or there could be a study. Or a report. It could even be a single article if it is well referenced. A book is also fine by Wikipedia's standard. Remember, we go by collaboration and not blind consensus. Use a little logic if you will. Try common sense. Good luck. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck to you as well. --Jim Butler^(talk) 06:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated draft

See Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts/Draft. I'll add in the rest of the descriptions shortly. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Simões! Looks great. The criterion for the first section, "regarded as pseudoscientific by a sufficiently large number of scientists (from multiple fields)" is rock-solid encyclopedically, so I'd support this version without any qualms. Topics in the second section can always be annotated accordingly if additional groups (such as scientific specialist org's, per earlier discussion) have commented on them. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This draft appears very poor. Your choices of what is "alledged psuedoscience" appears arbitrary and deeply biased. I strongly favour keeping the article as it stands. Jefffire 16:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain please how the draft's inclusion criteria are biased? --Jim Butler^(talk) 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The plan this draft is instantiating already has consensus. I'm sorry you missed that discussion; you can read through it above. If you think the draft is missing something the plan calls for, on the other hand, feel free to point that out. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This draft was first linked this morning, it seems a bit premature to declare that there's consensus for putting it in. I think the structure is good, but it seems to be missing quite a few terms from the current list. I can't support switching over until that is addressed. A major change like this needs to allow time for editors to see and discuss it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that the relevant issue isn't whether it's missing terms from the current list, but whether the list's criteria and sourcing are encyclopedic. Statements of groups of scientists, or at least sci-skeptic groups, provide some measure of reliability that cannot be inferred from individual opinions (cf. WP:NOT#IINFO and ArbCom ruling, items 14-18). thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What about "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." It seems that there's an odd shifting of the burden of proof here. Shouldn't a topic claiming to be scientific need to demonstrate that claim? And isn't a topic that fails to demonstrate that it is scientific, pseudoscientific? It seems like a pseudoscientific topic can avoid inclusion on this list simply by being obscure enough to avoid comment from mainstream science. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that especially obscure subjects should be excluded per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I think the "obvious" ones that were referred to above are (1) well-known enough to warrant independent articles, but (2) nonetheless uncontroversially regarded as pseudoscientific (i.e., the only people insisting on the topics' scientific status are their lone, respective proponents). Time Cube is perfect fit for that. We can throw this category in there if most here think it's worth it. I don't really have an opinion on it either way. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This draft was first linked months ago. As I said, there is already consensus for the plan it instantiates. It was reached over multiple weeks after the rejection of two previous drafts. See Added noncompliant template tag, Lead, Characteristics section, Cleaning, Impossible task, New problem, new solution, Draft, Nomination of draft to replace current version, Other Options, New proposal and argument, What exactly is the problem here?, Revision, Info dump from the Skeptic Encyclopedia. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The previous draft never ever had any consensus. Many editors rejected the draft. I reject this draft too. I vote to keep the current article. This new draft is not worth wasting our time to talk about (sigh). QuackGuru ^TALK 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, as you might gather, is the resident disruptive element here. He's mostly ignored, although every now and then someone will indulge him for while. More of his antics can be found in the above-linked discussions. I recommend especially the brief "Other Options" exchange. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The criteria proposed in Revision (supra) and subsequent discussion was a lot more nuanced than the criteria in this draft. Why the change? Fireplace 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only change I noticed was the omission of scientific specialist org's (e.g., an Association of Plasma Physicists) from the first section. That could be added, of course, though it would dilute the rigor of the criterion "regarded as pseudoscientific by a sufficiently large number of scientists (from multiple fields)". thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the lack of the B group, I wanted to get the C section filled out first. I wasn't really sure how to handle B (viz. just throwing the specialized societies in with the academies or separating them out). Is there something else it's missing? It's possible I might have forgotten something. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, the highest level group. Emphasis on Academies of Science at the exclusion of other, equally authoritative scientific bodies. Specification that the source should be derived from the content of the underlying article. Specification that the source needn't use the word pseudoscience. Allowance for including subjects which are pseudoscientific by consensus but which are too obscure for scientific bodies to have explicitly commented on. Correspondence between the list and the category. This was all discussed above. Fireplace 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. The "obscure" section has now been added and the lead and first section's opening modified. However, it's rather unusual (unheard of?) to have an article mention its associated category. Is it really necessary? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The language seems confusing now. I'm not sure what "organizations that are varyingly representative of views found in the international scientific community" means. And why insert the requirement that obscure topics be associated with a "main" topic? As to mentioning the category and mentioning the source of the citations (the latter you didn't address), both are important to promote consistency between the articles/category and the list, and to reduce redundant labor (and more importantly, redundant debate). I repropose the language above:

A field, practice, concept, or theory should is, or is to be, included if one of the Academies of Sciences or a specialized scientific organization that is widely considered to be authoritative regards the topic as pseudoscientific. A citation should must be included in the underlying article. The sources does not need to do not always use the word "pseudoscience," but they must at least characterize the topic so as to clearly fall within the definition. Alternatively, some topics are included if (1) mainstream scientific bodies have not taken a position on the topic (because, e.g., it is too obscure) and (2) there is consensus that it should be included. Fireplace 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

An article shouldn't have have instructions for editing. That's what the talk page is for. The lead needs to state what sort of items are included, not what ought to be. Could you reword your proposal to reflect this? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. (Although, I don't know that I agree that there is such a rule, or that there is a bright line between "criteria" and "instructions.") Fireplace 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The criterion and definition of "Alleged pseudoscience" is completely arbitrary, and includes a wide range of subjects which are clearly widely considered pseudoscience. I whole heartedly reject this draft as it stands. Jefffire 12:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that most of those would be scooped up under the "consensus that they are pseudoscience, but too obscure for major scientific organizations to have said as much" language. I suggest we focus discussion on the criteria first. Fireplace 13:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we can agree for one thing that "alledged" is weasel wording. Jefffire 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think that, but it's simply not the case. It would be weasel wording had there been no explicit attribution of who made the allegations. I note that there is, in fact, such an attribution. Also, I have no idea what you mean by "arbitrary." How are the criteria I'm sure you have in mind not arbitrary? Finally, if you know that certain fields listed in this section are "clearly" widely considered pseudoscience, I humbly invite you to find a verifiable source showing as much. If you can do this, there is nothing else to prevent any of the "alleged" items from being bumped up to the next tier. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm starting to lose track of the thinking behind multiple tiers. Why not go with the disjunctive criterion proposed above (namely: authoritative source OR obscure+consensus among editors), and leave "List of pseudosciences according to Skeptics Society" to a secondary article? As as first step, I suggest moving that criterion in, letting it sit for a while, then filtering through the list/category in accordance with the criterion. Fireplace 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons immediately come to mind:

1. "Consensus among editors" is the means by which we decide whether a source is reliable; it's not a source in and of itself. We can't simply take an informal vote and then say the content is verified. That something is pseudoscientific needs to be externally referenced.
2. WP:NPOV#Undue Weight mandates that we not even mention the most obscure subjects. We certainly shouldn't be placing them among the main entries. If they're to be included at all, they can be placed in a small, final section before external links, other readings, and references.

Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we say wikilawering? QuackGuru ^TALK 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The second concern is easy: we're only talking about topics with their own articles that have already passed the WP:N threshhold. Undue weight doesn't come into play. (Also, remember that this is merely a list article... afaik there's no proposal on the table to further sort topics in terms of prominence.)

As to the first concern, consensus is a standard pervasive through wikipedia and is not limited to evaluating reliability. The topics that would fall into this category include things which uncontroversially and verifiably satisfy the defining characteristics of pseudoscience, such as TimeCube. This is well short of WP:OR. Fireplace 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How serious an encyclopedia do you want this to be? We shouldn't even get close to misleading readers by putting Wikipedian editorial consensus about Time Cube into the same basket with statements by Academies of Sciences on Creationism. A little respect for WP:ATT, please (not to mention undue weight). --Jim Butler^(talk) 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From the ArbCom ruling on pseudoscience: "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Also, keep in mind that the sources will be attached to each entry, so there is no "misleading" going on. Fireplace 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of a list (see WP:CLS) is to allow the kind of annotation that differentiates among monumental, arguable and trivial examples. Lumping the trivial with the monumental as you suggest, and putting the arguable in a separate article, would be a rather absurd result. What comparable risk do you see arising from the proposal of multiple tiers (which seems to me a sensible application of section headers to NPOV and ATT)? Pseudoscience is a "man-made" category, and the whole point of the ArbCom decision was to differentiate among topics according to scientific consensus on the matter. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I used to support this kind of hierarchy, but after having seen the results it generates (in the most recent draft proposal), I'm backing off because it spits out bizarre results like listing Time Cube as being on a lower tier than, say, intelligent design. That is, the topics on the lower tiers end up being no less uncontroversially pseudoscience than those on the higher tiers -- the only thing that the tiers differentiate is the kind of source available: and that is not particularly interesting information. Fireplace 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks Fireplace, yes, I don't think you're the only editor who feels this way. But no one who feels as you do has yet suggested a reliable, objective way of determining what is really pseudoscience, particularly while complying with NPOV and ATT.

The quality of the source is front and center when discussing science and pseudoscience. Some editors seem content with citing any non-self-published source. But the problem with that is that it's just a random sampling, and not necessarily a reflection of scientific consensus or even a significant scientific view. Statements by groups, per current draft, come much closer. True, they don't cover every topic some editors feel should be included, but it's time we face up to the fact that that is an inevitable consequence of the "verifiability, not truth" criterion. Scientists, speaking on the record, are more conservative than individual, label-happy, mass-media debunkers of popular ignorance. That doesn't mean excluding common-sense stuff like Time Cube: but those are fringe topics. Notable topics will have had some commentary by reliable sources, and not all sources are created equal, which directly bears on how reliably we can say something is "really", i.e. per the scientific community, pseudoscience.

It's exceedingly uninteresting to read a list of topics that happen to have been deemed pseudoscientific by Wikipedia editors. Who would ever want to cite such a thing? It's just more of the internet sucking, just a bunch of compiled opinion and information, with atrocious parallelism:

• Topic 1<ref>Robert Todd Carroll said so</ref>
• Topic 2<ref>California Academy of Sciences</ref>
• Topic 3<ref>teh pseudoscience per teh Wikipedia consensus</ref>, etc.

In contrast, the proposed draft, citing statements by "(1) organizations that are representative samples of the international scientific community and/or (2) mainstream scientific skeptical bodies" is the sort of thing that one might expect to see in a "real" encyclopedia, with trivial/fringe examples appended for good measure. BTW, what did you think of the different possibilities WP:CLS pointed to? I didn't take from that guideline that the cat and list had to coincide. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk)

I suggest this updated proposal be put to rest. This confusing and unwarranted draft will never fly. The reference standards is not policy. This is original research policy. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be less concerned if the categorization-by-type-of-source method weren't hierarchical. The current draft implicitly suggests that the topics in the first tier are somehow more certain to be pseudoscientific, or that there is more widespread agreement that they are pseudoscientific -- but that is just not true (most of the topics in the second tier are "obviously bogus," but not important enough for academies of science/etc to have said as much). I think this problem would be abated if the list were ordered by specific source, or perhaps by a more fine-grained type of source such as "Academies of Science" "Medical organizations" "Physics organizations" "Skeptical organizations" (rather than "really authoritative sources" vs "kind of authoritative sources" which is the current version and generates the problem above). There would be redundancy, but there's nothing wrong with a long list. Fireplace 11:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course topics in the first tier are more certain to be pseudoscientific. What on earth does WP:ATT mean otherwise? "Widespread agreement" among whom? To be clear: "Skeptical organizations" are in no way as authoritative as Academies of Sciences with regard to scientific consensus. Suggest you take a stroll across Harvard Yard to any of the science departments and ask if you're not sure about this.  :-) thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See List of cults and List of groups referred to as cults in government reports which (although the intros are messy) follow essentially this structure. Fireplace 12:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that List of cults redirects to List of groups referred to as cults. That's a much more NPOV approach worth considering here. best, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of having "tiers", it just confuses things. I agree with the suggestion above that the list include topics said to be pseudoscientific by a reliable source, as well as topics which declare themselves "scientific" but fail to demonstrate that assertion (such has having an article on the topic in a mainstream scientific publication). Or at the very least, follow parity of sources and include topics which are declared pseudoscientific by sources of the same "repute" as the sources declaring the topic to be scientific. It's a bit ridiculous to insist that editors "disprove" that a fringe idea is not a science when the burden of proof is on the topic to prove itself as a science. Scientific publications don't publish articles declaring fringe ideas to be pseudoscience, they often don't even mention those topics at all. Requiring top-level sources to "prove" a topic that has only appeared in fringe publications is pseudoscience just doesn't follow NPOV, and you'd end up with a list where the more pseudoscientific a topic is, the less likely it is to appear on the list. As arbcom said: "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Do we really want to insist that we can't call Time Cube pseudoscientific unless an Academy of Science declares it so? --Milo H Minderbinder 12:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I agree with much of what you say, but the sword is double-edged; please see my reply below to Fireplace, under "Another Proposal". FWIW, Time Cube is specifically included in Simoes' draft. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Telekenesis

There has been objection to calling telekenesis "pseusoscience". If not pseudoscience, what is it? Science? Magic powers? I'm not sure if the objection is because it doesn't claim to be scientific, or because it truly is scientific (the article does make mention of scientific aspects). Could someone clarify? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is part of parapsychology, which is called a pseudoscience (I think), by some (and only some) in the skeptical organizations. It is not known if it is a pseudoscientific concept, but there is some evidence that it might happen. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that anything that is "part of parapsychology" just gets included with parapsychology instead of being judged on its own? And you didn't really answer the question. If you don't think it's a pseudoscience, are you saying it's a science? --Milo H Minderbinder 12:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo, it isn't a science. It might be a scientific concept, or a pseudoscientific concept, but not a science. So the question wasn't really put right. There are scientific -parapsychological- sources that say it exists. There are skeptical sources that say it doesn't. I object to inclusion of any and all items on the list without a source- even though in my belief all but maybe 4 or 6 of them are pseudoscience. If they are not sourced, I will insert citation requests, and eventually delete them. They should be sourced to something like an Academy of Science. This would be OK in any case in which said source is not contradicted by an equal or better source. If they are cited to a source that doesn't represent all of science, I will insert in the list item who says it is pseudoscience. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You said: They should be sourced to something like an Academy of Science. According to what policy? Answer. Original research policy. I hope you are not trying to make of new policy and call it consensus. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So I guess you'll tag Time Cube and remove it from the list since an Academy of Science hasn't sent down the stone tablet from the mountain declaring it a pseudoscience? (I note that your recent tagging was limited to your pet paranormal topics which you have been heavily POV pushing lately - I'd like to assume good faith, but it's obvious that your actions are to give credibility to topics you support and not actually make the list better) I'll also point you to the arbcom's finding: "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." --Milo H Minderbinder 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to state it: "it is a pseudoscience" instead of attribute it: "Carroll says it is a pseudoscience," then you need a source that speaks for science in general. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice opinion. You do realize it is your opinion. Try stating official policy. Try again. Ψ QuackGuru ^TALK 09:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Ψ

OK. Here is the official policy: if it isn't sourced, and can't be sourced, it is OR. Therefore, it should be deleted. That's all. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." --Minderbinder 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo: first, be nice. Second you quote ArbCom: "Obvious pseudoscience: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." So that's fine. Keep time cube. But you have to source those nearer to science- no matter what you personally think of them. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal

New proposal The details would need to be worked out, but I think the basic idea tackles most of the concerns people have. The content would begin as a content dump from the current article, and then editors could sort/source things accordingly. Fireplace 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that this list will have to include Evolution with the "Individual academics" box ticked, right? Other than that and the improper reference to a project page (one that, furthermore, contains directives that are in direct contradiction with the new policy, making them outdated), I think it looks alright. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're winning me over on the WP:ATT point. I think that by including a "media" category, we'll catch all the articles people have worried about missing (everything from Time Cube to Crystal Healing). Changing draft to reflect. (N.B.: as far as I can tell, WP:ATT does not reflect a policy change, but merely a change in presentation, so I believe the ArbCom ruling still stands.)

As for the evolution problem you raise, I think the best solution is to regard the "one reference" criterion as creating a rebuttable presumption towards inclusion, which is reversed with evidence of a scientific consensus that the topic is not pseudoscience (or a consensus that there is no consensus). I changed the proposal to reflect this (see inclusion criterion #2). Fireplace 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Fireplace, your proposal is a creative one that has merit, but in its present form also has some serious problems with NPOV and ATT.

Recall that WP:ATT says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." Given that, your "rebuttable presumption towards inclusion" is dubious. Whatever approach we take needs to make sure to fairly treat topics to which the ArbCom referred as "questionable science" and "alternative theoretical formulations". Debate of the topic in mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals, with evidence of what WP calls a "significant minority view" among scientists, ought to exclude a topic from being characterized as pseudoscience per se in a category, list or series box.

Above, toward the end of the "updated draft" section, Milo makes a good point[2] that we don't just label things as science because their proponents say so. I suggest that we also be careful about labelling things as pseudoscience just because a critic said so. Better to avoid labelling something as either science or pseudoscience rather than violate NPOV and ATT. Let facts, or lack thereof, speak for themselves.

It's noteworthy that List of cults, which you mentioned above, redirects to List of groups referred to as cults. The NPOV and and ATT reasons for doing that are obvious enough. Pseudoscience, whose definition depends on the definition of science (and on whether misrepresentation occurs), is a less fuzzy term than "cult" but still a controversial one, especially at the boundaries. I suggest that your draft is a fine starting point for a "List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific". A list of pseudosciences per se ought to be much narrower. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your last two sentences. I'm reconsidering my concession above to Simones, so here's another proposal (I may be all over the place, but at least I'm generating new ideas):

A topic is included if:

1. the mainstream academic community regards the topic as pseudoscientific; OR
2. the topic, while purporting to be scientific, is obviously bogus.

Neither criterion is mechanical but, as we've seen, mechanical criteria generate problematic results (and, anyways, most criteria on Wikipedia aren't purely mechanical). The second criterion is word-for-word from ArbCom, so I'm comfortable with it on policy grounds unless there's actually been a change in policy since Dec 6, 2006 (and, as I understand it, WP:ATT includes "no policy innovations" [see discussion page at the top]). The talk page/commented-out language would include specific instructions for interpreting "obviously bogus" (e.g., evidence of significant minority accepting the view is grounds for exclusion, etc. -- details to be worked out). Fireplace 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Those two criteria appear substantially similar to secton headers #'s 1 and 3 from Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts/Draft. I think we should be able to get this worked out. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation requests

OK. I've been waiting and waiting. Seems you've now decided that "mechanical" means of deciding what goes on the list won't work, cause it wouldn't include enough. Fireplace's draft looks OK. It is a list of things someone, whoever, thought or thinks are pseudoscience. Fine with me, as long as it is clearly stated. I'll include the Million Dollar Challenge, pseudoskepticism, and maybe psychology, and a few other things. I can source those, and there is no scientific consensus that they are not pseudoscience.

But anyway, could someone tell me how long I should wait on this article for citation requests to be filled? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll submit that the topics you tagged are obviously bogus, and may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. --Minderbinder 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange. If that is so (and some of the tagged items are the most scientifically justified on the list), why are people discussing sourcing this article? It doesn't need better sourcing. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No one ever said anything about the "mechanical" means not working. As far as I can tell, Fireplace is holding this show up because he finds it aesthetically unpleasing to have obscure topics in their own section. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's unlikely there is a satisfactory purely mechanical criterion for category-inclusion." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so Fireplace said it once. This is quite an exaggeration, though, because his complaints are aesthetic or of the "item X isn't on the list" sort. Neither of these should be show-stoppers warranting starting from the beginning again. It actually works just fine as far as policy is concerned. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I have no problem with mechanical means- but Fireplace is right that it give funny results. So how long do you think it is fair to wait for people to source and attribute the things I put requests on? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Draft of most recent proposal

See here. It's a simple, boring criterion that is easy to apply in the clear cases, and will generate debate in the borderline cases: and that's exactly the kind of transparency that results from a good criterion. It's also lifted almost word-for-word from WP:ATT and the relevant ArbCom decision. Fireplace 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be identical to the current version except for insubstantial changes to the lead. Is this the extent of the changes you're proposing? Furthermore, WP:ATT and that section of the ArbComm ruling conflict. Why should we consider such parts of the ArbComm ruling to have any bearing here at all?Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the intro changes aren't insubstantial insofar as they clarify and distill the inclusion rules. Second, the entries will, of course, be subjected to the new criteria (I didn't bother doing this in advance). Third, I'm quite happy to take ArbCom policy findings made in light of current policy as authoritative. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy ("Principles are general statements of policy on Wikipedia"). Fireplace 19:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but in cases where an ArbComm ruling conflicts with a policy, I take the policy as authoritative. Is this going to be an impasse? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'd suggest you review Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy again. See also Wikipedia:List_of_policies. "The Arbitration Committee exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes. It is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed." Fireplace 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in Simoes' draft that conflicted with the ArbCom ruling, or vice versa. (See here for excerpt of relevant sections of ruling.) "Obscure and parody pseudoscience", and the explanation,is entirely consistent with that ruling. Per WP:CLS lists and cats are "complementary" and don't need to correspond exactly, if that's a concern. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the controversy. As I understand it, Simoes is arguing that the ArbComm ruling violates WP:ATT and should therefore be ignored. I am disagreeing. Fireplace 21:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did understand that argument, I'm just saying that disagreement is in this case moot, because Simoes' draft in fact is consistent with ArbCom. (See below to Milo.) Aagain, as I said, for a broader list, following List of cults, I'm fine with an additional, broader "List of topics referred to as pseudoscience" a la your draft 1. Remember, we're trying to make a better encyclopedia, not come up with better principles. It seemt to me that you're tending to end up in the same net place as Simoes, give or take semantics. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they will be the same, because Simoe's rejects the ArbComm principle (I'm not sure to how square that with his draft). But regardless, the difference is that the proposal on the table avoids the tier structure that, as we've seen, doesn't generate consensus (see my arguments, and those of others, above). Fireplace 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But the draft itself is consistent with ArbCom, do you disagree? Tier structure is just one way of expressing sources; if not that, something will have to do. You also haven't addressed my point above that sci-skept orgs's, let alone WP editorial consensus on obscure topics, aren't on the same level as Academies of Science. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See here and here. Fireplace 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My previous replies to Milo's comments are here and here (cf. esp. 3rd para), and to your comments here. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 01:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I think any further discussion will be circular. It's unlikely you'll get consensus on a tier structure differentiating intelligent design from crystal healing merely because the latter hasn't been taken up by an Academy of Science. Fireplace 01:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to equate those topics, then you have the burden of justifying doing so per NPOV and ATT. Simoes's comments above are germaine. To be clear: a topic's being pseudoscientific is a matter of opinion, not objectively verifiable fact, and NPOV and ATT are clear enough that not all opinions are created equal. The tiering idea isn't meant to connote "degree of pseudoscientificness", but rather reliability of source. And a general comment: your editorial opinion is worth just as much as mine on WP, but consensus involves more than the sum of editors' capricious assertion of preference. I still have no idea what your answers are to my two questions above (on draft/Arbcom and on sourcing). I'm doing my best to address your concerns, and would appreciate your extending the same courtesy. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're right that "a topic's being pseudoscientific is a matter of opinion, not objectively verifiable fact," then shouldn't this list follow the cult format and be a "List of topics characterized as pseudoscientific"? Fireplace 12:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd still categorize topics according to reliability of source (e.g. your idea with the boxes). cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! Fireplace 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, I'd be happy with a proposal using the table layout but restricting the citations to authoritative sources (i.e., those tending to suggest existence of a consensus view) and making room for the "obviously bogus" group. Fireplace 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Room was already made for that here. Jim Butler^(talk) 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

These seem to be good standards, Fireplace. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the criteria in the latest fireplace draft, this list just needs the criteria defined better and make sure the items fit the criteria. I don't think the version proposed by Simoes that uses "tiers" is necessary, and is just overly complicated with little benefit. --Minderbinder 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If there needs to be a reference showing there to be a consensus in the scientific community that a topic is pseudoscientific, the list is going to be slightly larger than the first tier in my draft. The rest can't be thrown in as "obvious." That was one of the purposes of the tiering system. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't they be included as "obvious" if they meet that criteria? --Minderbinder 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Milo, "obvious" stuff can be included, and is in Simoes's original draft. "Tiering" is simply another way of using section headers to note the strength of a source for indicating scientific consensus. "Tier 3" refers to the "obvious" (fringe) category from the ArbCom (cf. here). Stuff notable enough to have a following can be characterized as PS to the extent there is attributable sci consensus (i.e., "main topics"). Otherwise, per NPOV, we should just say who says it's PS ("alleged" -- if that sounds too pejorative, we can find another term). Does that make sense? Jim Butler^(talk) 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very little qualifies as "obvious" according to ruling. Even astrology, for example, doesn't: we'd need a citation for it. Things need to be as ridiculous and obscure (or nearly so) as Time Cube in order to meet the "obvious" criterion (though I find calling the incoherent ramblings of a comical lunatic "pseudoscience" to be extremely problematic, which is another reason why I advocate just ignoring that part of the ruling). Simões (<sup>talk/_contribs) 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The ruling actually said such topics could be characterized and categorized as PS. However, I agree that we should not present our editorial conclusions to readers as being on the same ATT-level as statements by mainstream sci or sci-skept groups (nor does that ruling indicate that we should). If editors want to cast a wider net and include more topics in the article, then that's what an "alleged pseudosciences" section or an entire "list of topics referred to as pseudoscientific" is for.

Again, verifiability, not truth. Sorry if I've come off abrupt about this; just frustrated at going in circles and lack of acknowledgement from some editors (not you) about very basic issues of reliability of sci sources. Happy to discuss this stuff on the merits. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Simoes is right about the need for sourcing. The trouble I'd have with the current article is not that things like parapsychology are in it, but a) the article is named as if the list items are known absolutely to be pseudoscience, and b) there is no attribution to a particular source for the items. I think it is useful list to have, but we need, with each item, to know exactly who says it is pseudoscientific. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely what the tier-structure draft accomplishes. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's what it takes, tier it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I was looking over a draft for this article, and I have two questions:

First, how is levitation considered a science, false or not? Nevermind, I see that pseudoscientific concepts (whatever that means) are included.

Second, the citation provided for establishing parapsychology as a pseudoscience hardly seems adequate. The author, (The Amazing) James Randi, is not a scientist, but an entertainer who didn't even finish high school (not to mention that he has readily discussed parapsychology as a science here). So if you are going to argue that parapsychology is pseudoscientific, do you think it would be possible to cite an actual scientist saying so? Better yet, could you find two or three? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first, a broader question would be: where is the boundary line between scientific-but-false theories, and pseudoscientific theories? If testability/adherence to the scientific method is the sole criterion for pseudoscience, then half of the current list would merely be "false." Fireplace 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you really want to get really broad, I would ask the question of whether it is the role of an encyclopedia to demarcate the boundaries between 'true' science and 'false' science. But actually, I was hoping to get specific. 'Levitation' is not a science. Rather, it is a phenomenon...specifically, the phenomenon of a person or thing rising into the air by apparently supernatural means. I'm no expert, but I do consider myself well-read on most fringe sciences, and I know of no systematic effort to study levitation scientifically or pseudoscientifically. So I do wonder why it's on this list.

And since we're on the subject. I think it might be confusing for the lay reader to see a jumbled list of both purported pseudosciences and paranormal phenomena. Just what is a 'pseudoscientific concept'?

If we, as Wikipedia editors, are going to play the role of demarcating 'true' science from 'false' science, perhaps the list should be really specific about the criteria and concepts that guided the selection of material. Perhaps list them somewhere in the introduction? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the only mention of James Randi is in the "Further readings" section. The parapsychology entry cites a statement from the Russian Academy of Sciences. And, not to be dismissive of your first question, but a pseudoscientific concept is perfectly analogous to concepts of any other area. E.g., a biological concept is a concept having to do with ... biology. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, these footnotes are a little confusing (a Harvard referencing system would probably be clearer), but I see what the proper reference is now. It's still pretty inadequate. The word 'parapsychologist' is only used once in the whole document, and in that statement 'parapsychologists' are paired with diviners rather than other fringe scientists. There could be problems with translation here.

Additionally, this is the English version of Wikipedia, and these Russian scientists are very likely to be talking about Russian parapsychology, which we know very little about because of the language barrier. Keep in mind that the largest (English speaking) professional assocation of parapsychologists (the PA) is affiliated with the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (which happens to be the biggest general scientific society in the world). If you are going to ignore that affliation and label parapsychology 'pseudoscientific' anyhow, you should at least find a statement from an English speaking Academy to overrule it. Otherwise, it looks like you're pushing POV.

Osmosis, Photoperiodism, genetic variation, and species classification are all biological concepts. A squirrel or a flower is not a biological concept. Similarly, I don't understand how things like elves or levitation, which were fabled long before anybody ever heard of science, could be called a 'pseudoscientific concept'. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The Russian Academy of Sciences is Russia's national academy and a member of the International Council for Science. Their proclamations aren't "weak." Your various suspicions that would undermine the reliability of the statement are interesting, but you have no evidence for any of them.
2. The American Alpine Club is an AAAS affiliate, too. Society affiliation isn't a top-level endorsement of a field's scientific merit.
3. Finally, old, prescientific concepts can become pseudoscientific if someone is around today to defend them pseudoscientifically. It's that easy.

Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

1. This proclamation is actually pretty strong, if you happen to live and work in Russia...but this is the English Wikipedia, and if you want to label a Western science as 'false' you should have that source come from Western scientists. And the original publication should use an English (or at least Western) language. And if you can't find a Western Academy of Science that has demarcated parapsychology as pseudoscientific, maybe its presence on this list should be reconsidered?
2. So now conservationists aren't scientific either? Somebody should alert the Alpine Club! If you look at the critera for affiliation in the AAAS, you'll see that affiliation is granted only to organizations who's "program and record of activities demonstrate interest in or substantial support of research, publications, or teaching in science or the advancement of science."
3. So I ask (again) who is purporting to defend elves or levitation scientifically? I'm really curious. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you consider scientific research done by Russians to be non-Western. You should alert the Nobel committee that these guys were actually practicing some sort of arcane, eastern voodoo. You might also advocate throwing out the periodic table of elements, which, it turns out, is just Oriental alchemy spread by Dmitri Mendeleev (whoever that is). Oh, and tell 20th century historians that we had nothing to worry about during the Cold War, because Soviet nuclear scientists were actually filling their warheads with Siberian ginseng instead of plutonium.

Or, more seriously: there is no policy obligating us to consider non-English-speaking scientists non-western. There isn't even a recommendation. Furthermore, if you look at graduate programs in the natural sciences, you'll often find that you can use Russian during your qualifying exams (given that there is a foreign language component). This is because a fair portion of Western science is written in Russian.

As for levitating elves, The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience reports on a series of fantasy creature sightings in the early 20th century. Two young Cottingley girls presented convincing photographic evidence, and an English hullabaloo ensued. With the levitation bit, I don't know for sure. You'll have to ask the Iowans. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're using non-Western like it's a dirty word! Most of Russia is part of Asia, and Asia is well, non-Western. Parts of Russia, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, are generally regarded at Eastern-European, though the influences of the West can't be diminished. This is just a statement of fact, and it's not meant to be disparaging. My point is that you shouldn't generalize the attitude of Russian scientists toward parapsychologists in Slavic countries to the scientific opinion toward parapsychology in the rest of the world. There isn't a single peer-reviewed Russian journal on parapsychology that I know of, nor do I know of any parapsychologists working in university labs in Russia (though there might very well be a couple). Yet in Europe and the Americas, the situation is very different. There are several peer-reviewed publications and a number of university labs, such as Lund, Adelaide, or Edinburough (just to name a few). The efforts of Western parapsychologists have made it to the pages of mainstream journals such as Psychological Bulletin and the British Journal of Psychology. This is not the case in Russia.

So if this list is going to diminish the work of dozens of professors at established universities in the Western world by demarcating it as 'pseudoscientific' then such allegations should come from within the same sphere where these professionals are working. If indeed these efforts are pseudoscientific, then finding good sources saying so should be a piece of cake. If parapsychologists in English-speaking universities were infiltrating the academic sphere with their 'false science' wouldn't Academies of Science be lining up to say so in no uncertain terms?

As for the elves, fairies, and levitating whatevers, I don't think that those little girls ever called themselves scientists, nor did the English folk who found it so interesting. If there is no attempt to study elves or levitation scientifically, then how can it be considered a pseudoscientific concept? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so Russian science is not western because their scientists don't have much regard for parapsychology? Does this mean that if I'm to decide whether or not a scientific culture is western, I might, among other things, count how many parapsychologists they have in their rank?

In North American and Western Europe, they're obviously not infiltrating the academic sphere, sure. This is because few major research universities are going to hire them. They normally don't even take them seriously. Self-identified parapsychologists are a liability for their institutional reputation. And I'm sure you can net a handful of parapsychology publications in two or three mainstream journals (although how many of those are ones reporting positive results?). The Discovery Institute can do the same for intelligent design.

But this is just my assessment, of course. Your and my opinions about the status of parapsychology and levitating elves really don't matter. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" (WP:ATT). Do you know that some of these items aren't pseudoscientific? If so, go get published in Nature and get the National Academy of Sciences to give you a hat tip. Until then, all the sources we already have do say they are pseudoscientific. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian science is not western because 3/4 of the country is located in the Eastern Hemisphere and the rest is delagated as Eastern European. I didn't realize that I would be hosting a geography class here.

And I don't particularly care to address the rest of your response where you start making stuff up.

Note that I am not arguing whether parapsychology is or is not a pseudoscience, instead, I am pointing out that the sources are inadequate. Why can't you just find a better source instead of arguing with me?

Nobody here has addressed my earlier question of whether or not it is the role of an encyclopedia to solve the demarcation problem of science vs. pseudoscience. If you really think that you are suited for that role, I suggest that in addition to examining your presuppositions, you seek out the best quality sources available. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the geography lesson, but "western culture" extends past the prime meridian (though, admittedly, the inclusion of Russia is often debated), and the term is something of a misnomer. "Western scientific culture" is even more widespread: It extends to nearly all longitudes. Regarding sources, Academies of Sciences and specialized societies do not often make accusations of pseudoscience (this is explained in the draft). There are published instances of individual scientists saying "most scientists think parapsychology is a pseudoscience," but the reliability of these are easier to question (aside: given your sifting through parapsychology materials for years, what attempts at polling have you come across?). And I'm sure the editorial board of some encyclopedia out there have decided to solve the demarcation problem in their publication's pages, but that's not happening here. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If Academies of Science do not often make accusations of pseudoscience, then editors might have a hard time completing this draft with the criteria that's been set out. As to your aside, I seem to remember this chapter in Harvey Irwin's book discussing such a poll. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A proclamation from an Academy or specialized society is necessary only for the top tier. The second tier has far looser requirements and, as you can see, fills out the rest of the list. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa Ventola wrote: "I'm no expert, but I do consider myself well-read on most fringe sciences, and I know of no systematic effort to study levitation scientifically or pseudoscientifically."

Levitation, to the extent it exists, is a physical phenomenon and therefore part of physics. One can study levitation in the lab or theoretically, but because this is trivial research it is not an active part of physics research. I know only a physicist who recently claimed that gravity is weakend above a rotating superconductor...

In the pseudoscientific realm, levitation seems to be a hot research topic, see here  :) Count Iblis 00:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows levitation exists. We have maglev trains. It's safe to assume that the Iowa Academy of Sciences here means levitation by some paranormal means. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yogic flying and levitation are not necessarily the same thing. Perhaps it would be more accurated to put 'yogic flying' in your list? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Accurate as in accurately representing the source? No. They said "levitation." We can interpret that in the brief description text to mean paranormal levitation, but we can't put words in their mouth. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article that Count Iblis cited doesn't use the word 'levitation' even once. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the vagueness of reference; I was referring to the statement from the Iowa Academy (the one the draft cites). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring bad, of course, and...

The recent edit warring [3][4][5][6][7][8] is of course a bad idea (and also, if I'm counting right, puts Martinphi at 4RR). However, it may be "nature's way" of illustrating the article's need for standards regarding sourcing. This would be a good time, imo, to move past semantic and cosmetic objections, and go with the draft as originally discussed, which (thanks to Simões's scholarly efforts) is quite well-written.

Additionally, if some editors remain eager to have WP mention what someone someplace has deemed a pseudoscience, perhaps a new "list of topics referred to as pseudoscience" (note redirect of List of cults) could work, following Fireplace's approach here.

Dragging this out has been one of the sillier debates on WP, imo, and far too WP:POINT-ish. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, wrong count, only 3RR- I counted really carefully. And I was totally patient about this article, since you guys were trying to source it. I'm sorry to have tried to get your attention like this. I tried the talk page, I tried deleting them before, I tried asking when it would be enough time to have waited...and it just doesn't get sourced. So anyway, I hope it can get sourced soon. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing is a major issue here. As is the general guideline about edit warring; it never hurts to leave the "wrong version" of an article alone. Just saying. (Have another look at WP:DR; useful stuff here.) thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I know, and I did leave it alone, more than once. This isn't the first time I've taken those things out. I suppose the only other option was to rfc, mediation, etc. It does hurt something every day to have things called pseudoscience with no sources. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another option is simply to disengage and not edit war, knowing that any given version of a WP article shouldn't necessarily be taken very seriously. Edit warring can come back to haunt you in mediation, RfC's and so on. See m:The Wrong Version. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This should not have been considered edit warring. It was merely editing out things which according the rules on sourcing have to go. My edits should not have been reverted. Rather, the items should have been sourced.

Begin process- do you really want to?

There is simply no excuse for keeping things in an article which are controversial and have no sources, merely because you have the numerical power to revert. I would like to ask you to, at the very least remove the items in dispute. Otherwise, the next step, which I'm sure would end with formal mediation, would be RfC. But since you have no sources -that you are willing to use-, and the threshold on "Obvious pseudoscience" is Time cube, do you really want to hold to your course? This is a waste of time. You are defending inclusion of unsourced material. You have already tacitly admitted, in this section and the rest of the talk page, that the items need sourcing. Why are you insisting that till you get your stuff together, this article must remain as it is? This has been going on far too long. Slams against ideas are harmful, and therefore should be removed by default if there is no source. Why are you doing this? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but edit warring isn't excused by insisting that you're right. If you think RfC is necessary, I'd encourage you to start one. --Minderbinder 22:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change or move comments that other editors have responded to. If you want to respond, do it after the latest comments. Thanks. --Minderbinder 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between there "being no sources" and "a lack of citations". You can't say that just because we haven't had the time to put in the refs that those refs don't exist. If you have a problem with the lack of refs then you should try to find them yourself first. If after spending some time seriously looking for them, you can't find them, then you can question whether they indeed exist at all. Count Iblis 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"This has been going on far too long". I would be glad to fix this problem to your satisfaction tomorrow if you come to my place and do my job  :) Count Iblis 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find sources for most of them. You come and help me put in an electerical system while standing in a wind at 38 degrees, and I'll find the sources (;

I already found citations on Parapsychology, which say it is science. I asked here -if I remember right- for you to trump those sources. Am I incorrect, or is it not the job of the person who wants to include something to cite it? I didn't know it was the problem of the person who put in the citation requests to cite things.

Please, could someone who knows this page please archive it? I can barely load it- it is 227 kilobytes long. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems you did the archive right, and yes it was a strain for someone with a slow connection. However, I moved the Mar. 10 - 12 discussion about the deletions back, as your recent actions make them pertinent. Vsmith 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bump draft up and see what happens?

The tiered draft has complete citations, so it is already superior to the current version (however aesthetically unpleasing some think it is). Would anyone mind if I were to replace the present mess, ending the silly dispute above? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be the time to just do it. - Vsmith 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do it- and BTW, it really wasn't such a strain to source the Parapsychology entry, was it? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. I'll go ahead and fill in the rest of the entries from the skeptic encyclopedia. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I moved some things out from under parapsychology which aren't studied in the field. Also, perhaps you could use a source representative of a national scientific body (according to my change), which actually mentions parapsychology? I actually downloaded that file with two browsers, because I couldn't believe it was all downloaded. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You and parapsychology, huh? I suppose "paranormal" has nothing to do with the field. Is this more to your tastes?

As for the items you moved out from under Parapsychology, they're back in. A quick googling gives first-page results falsifying your claim that they're not studied or associated with parapsychology. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 05:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The source you just gave is a national, not international source. So that puts in in the second tier. Cold reading is a magic trick. Channelling is not under modern parapsychology- I'll leave dowsing in. Please give an international source, or else change the lead to say "national source." I haven't done anything which conflicts with your system. EVP is specifically not covered in parapsychology- we already went through this on the EVP page. Your lead says "international source." So give an international source for parapsychology, as you do for several other things in the first tier. Or, we can go to mediation, which will merely confirm what I am saying. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And now we see the fetishizing of "tiers". Are we really going to say that a source isn't good enough because it's merely "national" and not "international"? --Minderbinder 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi apparently misunderstands the tier idea and the wording used. Surely the lead, as it stands, is clear and to the point, isn't it? Academies of Science and such groups are indeed representative samples of the international scientific community, since scientists around the world all pretty much agree on the basics of what the scientific method is. Such groups are the most reliable sources available for scientific consensus. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the scheme set up by the editors of this page. I am following it. It is pure POV to set up such a scheme and then not follow it. Fetishizing indeed. I didn't write the lead. I tried to make it say "national" sources, not international. Since that was reverted, now we have to change the tier. I tried to edit as lightly as possible- but that was not allowed. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the recent revert which claims "Russian Academy is "an organization that is representative samples of the international scientific community". What nonsense. Not only does the source given not mention parapsychology, but the source which may have been intended barely touchs on parapsychology. And there is no reason to believe that this is internationally representative. What is your source for that? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Russian Academy of Sciences is Russia's national academy and a member of the International Council for Science. It qualifies as "an organization that is a representative sample of the international scientific community" -- LuckyLouie 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there really so little consistency here that we have to go to mediation over adhering to the rules you yourselves set up??? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explicitly identify the rule we set up that we're not following. When you can't do this, please take your tags down and stop the POV-pushing. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically the rule, as I understood it, was that you would have a source for inclusion in the first tier which was from an internationally representative scientific body. The source you have may or may not be internationally representative -I reserve judgment re LL's response above. However, I think that the source ought to actually mention the subject it is sourcing. The source which has such a mention was not there when I edited (correction: it was there, but I missed it because of the unusual way the article does the refs, having the [R] thing- I thought the refs had not changed since this). So AGF, I am not POV pushing, I am trying to maintain NPOV. I know I have a reputation for POV-paranormal, but in point of fact, this is not because I actually have that disposition, but because I try to hold the articles to NPOV. If you doubt it, look at my edits. I am constantly trying to get others to prove what they say. If everyone held to the verifiable and scientific line, I would have absolutely no problems on Wikipedia. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, for the other issues. Do you seriously maintain that parapsychologists study cold reading (as such), EVP, or channelling? Be assured, few if any parapsychologists would agree with you. You should not so mis-represent things. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your friends over at the Parapsychological Association include all those in their "Glossary of Psi (Parapsychological) Terms." They're therefore "important concepts associated with the main entries," on this list, and we have articles on them, so there's no reason not to include them here. If you find all this embarrassing, take it up with them. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I have to laugh at your claim to be pushing neutrality on paranormal articles. You've insisted that the category be called "Psychics" instead of "Purported psychics". You've insisted that the term psychic be defined as someone who actually has the power, and that all the dictionaries and encyclopedias that contradict that are "demonstrably wrong". You've insisted that "scientific consensus" is only made up of the fringe researchers studying a fringe topic and that the rest of science shouldn't get a say. AGF only applies until an editor has shown that they aren't editing in good faith, which you've done many times over. --Minderbinder 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense on all counts. I didn't insist on the "psychics" Cat change. Indeed, once I understood what a Cat really was, I was for it. I agree with you on AGF, and thus is say that if you ever bothered to read what I say, you would know that. If you were to actually read up on what a scientific consensus is, you would know that the attitude of a botanist toward quantum mechanics is irrelevant. If the dictionaries and encyclopedias which gave "your" definition actually were using a definition of the qualifier word which is appropriate to an encyclopedia, they would be demonstrably wrong- for instance, they may say that a psychic is "someone who is said to have paranormal powers." This is demonstrably wrong for Wikipedia, as it takes the POV position that no psychic can exist who is not said to be one. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We have taken it up with them. EVP, for instance, is just not covered. Just because it is in a glossary, doesn't mean it is studied. But I will save this for another time. You have done the sourcing, of that particular item, which is required for it to be on the list, as concerns the present debate. Thank you so very much for sourcing this item. It was a magnificent favor, which of course you didn't have to do under the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you all so very much for being pleasant about it, and for not acting as if asking for citation meant that I am a hokey paranormal popinjay. It was a magnificent demonstration of the objective scientific attitude. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Parapsychological Association doesn't study EVP, why is it cited on the EVP article? --Minderbinder 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to include all things which are terms often used in parapsychology, why are you including so few? If parapsychology is a pseudoscience, why don't you include under that heading all things in the glossary? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This list is a work in progress. We'll have to see what items end up on it. --Minderbinder 14:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that according to this article "Parapsychology is the study of purported paranormal phenomena". The word "psychology" appearing, as it does, in the word "parapsychology" would suggest that it is the study of a sub-category of purported paranormal phenomena. It's just a hunch.

I also note that the first source for this claim doesn't include the word "parapsychology" at all so it isn't clear, to me at least, what it is a source for. And the second source; well, it's not really clear what that even is.

One further point: what of subjects, like parapsychology, where we could find other (more) reputable sources (some that even mention it by name) that say it is a science? Are they trumped by one source, however tenuous, or should there be another category for borderline/disputed cases. Davkal 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The list includes anything which there is a source for, apparently there is not balancing of sources. That is one of the reasons for the name change, see below. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideomotor effect

Does Ideomotor effect really belong under parapsychology? AFAIK, it's not defined as a paranormal ability, but rather a psychological phenomenon said to underly purported paranormal phenomena (such as dowsing, Ouija boards etc.). IOW, it's actually a scientific theory explaining pseudoscientific arguments. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 05:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure that anyone seriously doubts the basic, physical ideomotor effect. Removing that one would be more reasonable. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Materialization

I moved Materialization under Parapsychology since that is where the bulk of the cited references for its existence come from. Example: (http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/Sai%20Baba%20Indians/Gyatri.pdf) -- LuckyLouie 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ghost hunting

"The lead specifies the type of source required for this section. are there any for these?" --Do the articles by Ben Radford and Joe Nickell cited from CSI (CSICOP) qualify as "regarded as pseudoscientific by mainstream scientific skepticism bodies"? Nickell calls it pseudoscience. Unfortunately, skeptical bodies have not updated their dictionaries of pseudoscience since the ghost hunting trend became popular a few years ago. Except for CSI, most haven't commented seriously on it, perhaps feeling that it's a self-evidently bogus pursuit that requires no comment. LuckyLouie 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think it belongs in the bottom section, you can throw it in there and see if anyone complains. For the middle tier, it needs to be something endorsed by the scientific skepticism organization as a whole (official statement voted upon by the board, etc.). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to fit there, either. Ghost hunting is not an obscure 'one or two proponents' situation, as it has thousands of devotees and at least two popular reality TV shows purporting it as being scientifically-based. Oh well, no harm done. We'll just have to let it retain its claims as a science for the time being. --- LuckyLouie 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see that the topic is included in category:pseudoscience and the CSICOP criticisms are present in the article, so such claims aren't going unaddressed. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't just throw it in under Parapsychology. That seems to be the easy answer to the problem. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Name change

As some of you know, I abhore weasel words and WTAs. However, I also acknowledge that in certain very rare cases they are necessary in order to maintain NPOV. One example of this is that the categories "psychic," etc. need qualifiers. This list seems to also need a qualifier. That is because not all the items in it have scientific consensus behind them, as the tier system shows. If all items had the same status as Astrology, this would not be the case. However, I suggest moving the page to "List of claimed pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts", "List of purported pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts", "List of supposed pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" or something else which has a qualifier. I believe the "claimed" one is the least pejorative-sounding. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't weasel word if the attributer of a claim is identified. Weasel wording isn't defined merely as sentences with a noun/transitive passive structure. If the article file size gets to an unmanageable level, it would be reasonable to chop it up. Until that happens, the clearly-labeled sections should be sufficient.

And as for "claimed" vs. "purported," someone was complaining earlier than the former sounded too pejorative. The latter was the replacement. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Right- I was talking in the context of WP:WTA also. But I have no preference. I think the title needs a qualifier, and I would choose the one which qualifies, but does so in the most neutral way possible- to me, that is "claimed," but to others it might sound different. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Martinphi. Many of the NPOV problems with this list are directly related to an improper title. Wikipedia isn't in the business of actually labeling things, but it does document that things are labeled as such. There is a vital difference. I propose this title:

"List of concepts labeled as pseudoscientific" (or something like that)

Make sure the lead is clear that it is labeling by mainstream scientists, and not by fringe scientists (or believers in pseudoscience who are trying to disrupt this article). -- Fyslee/talk 06:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That title seems better, as it is less complicated. Um.... the pseudoscientists wouldn't label most of these things pseudoscientific... Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree re rename. Regarding Fyslee's last point, the lead section in its present form says as much, which is as it should be. Again, note the redirect from List of cults to List of groups referred to as cults; exact same idea applies here. --Jim Butler^(talk) 06:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, there have been a number of previous attempts by editors to sabotage this and similar lists by beginning to add things to the list which they, from a pseudoscientific POV, consider to be pseudoscience, such as antibiotics, vaccinations, etc.. Such attempts are disruptive attempts to sabotage the list, and a violation of WP:POINT, but they have still managed to lead to AFD's and such like. The current inclusion criteria are pretty good and should not be changed to allow what just anyone wants to label "pseudoscience." -- Fyslee/talk 11:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Any wording that can be thought of to remedy a WTA problem is implementable by just renaming the sections. Having a "list of practices and concepts labeled pseudoscientific" just invites anything to be added here so long as it was labeled by someone notable. That pseudoscientists wouldn't label their own field pseudoscientific isn't really relevant. I'm sure more than a few would object to being on the list of serial killers or list of Italian American mobsters, too. Also, take the list of terrorist organisations. We're doing way better here than they are there (maybe they could use a tiering system, too). Is changing the article title to, e.g., "List of organizations alleged to engage in terrorism" the right solution? Hell no. The expansion of that list would be legendary. So long as we're clear as to what exactly is being put on this list, we shouldn't have a problem. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say "hell yes" to your question above. Any "soft" categorization, i.e. one that doesn't depend on objective, widely-accepted criteria (e.g., DNA --> biological taxon, or due process --> conviction) should be presented with such "referred to as..." language. Still, I think you're right that in practice fringe-ish editors would make a ruckus, as would some "hardcore" sci-skept types who reify "pseudoscience". Probably not an argument worth pursuing too hard; the views are highly polarized and yet the stakes are relatively low. --Jim Butler^(talk) 22:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What is needed here is a different qualifier, like "designated." But surely if the mere category "Psychics" is POV, then the a title -much more prominent- which makes an absolute claim, is also POV. Your examples of serial killers and mobsters etc. aren't that perfect, because those lists are much more 1) clearly defined 2) easy to verify with, say, court records, and 3) they are very focused on one type of thing, such as murder, while a pseudoscience can be anything, and 4) they are designated to belong in their list by the elected representatives of society, not self-organized groups (government, in all the cases you cite- or they would be, if properly cited). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1) They're no more clearly defined than this list, 2), they're no more easily verified than this list, 3) there are all kinds of murder, too, and 4) you're just flat wrong about the lists of mobsters being based on government source. I won't say anything about your suggestion that government sources are always preferable to non-governmental ones.

Once again, I'm very sorry that your pet hobby found its way onto this list, but you're really going to have to give this up. The list is properly sourced, and there's no good reason to change the name. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Which, of course, is why they also need to have a name change. I don't think you are sorry that parapsychology made it into this list. What you just said could easily be construed as a personal attack. Please don't do that. You are not just attacking me, but also the others who agree with me that the title of this list is POV, and needs a qualifier. I have a right, and a duty, to see that any subject I am interested in is treated in an NPOV manner.

Why don't you take this the same way I took it when you came along and deleted most of the parapsychology article? I though at first it was vandalism (as I had just come on the Wiki), but after reading the rules, I saw that you were right. I then sourced the article. It took a lot of work, but it made the article better. Instead of personally attacking me, you could choose to look at this as an opportunity to improve and NPOV the article. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi

Don't hide among others. I'm calling you out in particular as a tendentious editor. Any or all of us might agree with you every now and then, but your position on any issue pertaining to a parapsychology article can be predicted almost every time. Take a break and edit some articles in other fields. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Simoes, this is not a personal matter, so please stop the personal attacks. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is also not true. My position is to say things precisely and clearly. The position of many others is to cast innuendo. I have very often put in the skeptical perspective on paranormal articles when it did not exist. At the same time, I edit out innuendo. I have no problems with any edits which are precise, nuanced, attributive, and balanced- in short, NPOV.

I am not tendentious. I have been called upon to act with much more patience than should be necessary. When one asks for a citation, it should either be given, or the material gracefully relinquished. This has not been done with this article, and thus my "tendentiousness" is simply an attempt to get others to follow the rules, even if they refuse to follow the gracefully. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is personally attacking anyone in the sense of hurling insults. I'm accusing you of engaging in tendentious, disruptive editing. I offer your contribution history as evidence for this. Stop now. Edit articles about trains or skyscrapers for a change. Anything that doesn't have to do with parapsychology would be just fine. And, yes, I'm well aware that you believe what you do is not disruptive. Unfortunately, WP:DE resonates almost perfectly with your editing behavior, especially the bit about "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors." Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that what I do is not disruptive. I believe it is highly disruptive to POV pushing. It is also highly disruptive to the those who do not follow the rules, especially those in WP:V, WP:ATT, and WP:NPOV. I will edit those articles in which I am interested. And only those. I would urge you to read this section of WP:DE however, especially the following lines:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
2. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Attribution; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles

You have violated these, especially when one puts them together into a whole. You have continued to edit this article in ways which do not satisfy WP:ATT, you are Owning this article, and you are now violating civility on a low enough level that you won't be banned for it. I have abided by all the rules -with the exception of an unintentional violation of 3RR-, and you have not. I will no longer continue this fruitless discussion with you, but I will continue to make this article NPOV, along with other editors. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, you need to read WP:KETTLE real bad.

You continue to consistently make POV edits (yes, I'll admit you do make the occasional neutral edit, but overall there's a huge POV slant) and your revert warring and edits made in opposition to a clear consensus certainly fit the definition of tenditious, and have been very disruptive. But this isn't the place to discuss such things. I definitely think a user RfC would be appropriate since the POV violation shows no signs of stopping. If one of you guys opens a case on Martinphi, please give me a heads up. --Minderbinder 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on which I got reverted when I took "cold reading" (a magic act) out from under parapsychology- and even one of the so-called skeptics later took it out, because it has nothing to do with parapsychology. Don't talk to me about being POV. Did you really have consensus that this was accurate? I am trying to get you to live up to WP:ATT, but you aparently have a consensus that the page does not apply to this article. But it so, tell me why you are spending so much time trying to source things. I mean, if it was OK, and (as I was told when my edits were reverted) these things come under the ArbCom decission on "obvious pseudoscience" then why are you trying to source it? There is a bit of a contradiction in your actions. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, imo some of your points are reasonable, and some aren't; but your overall approach to making them is getting unreasonable. That's because WP is fundamentally not about being "right" so much as it is about consensus. Sometimes that results in some very flawed articles staying up for awhile, and sometimes in ad hominem prevailing over substance in RfC's and such. So whether you're "right" or not, you do need to activate step #2 of WP:DR, which is just to disengage for awhile. I assume you'd rather do that than risk escalating into your getting blocked. Honestly, this is the best thing you can do right now. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

To all those involved: please be advised that a request for comment on the Martinphi's conduct has been made and is accessible at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi.

"Parapsychology" to "Paranormal"?

Per suggestion by Nealparr at the user RfC talk page, what do people think about changing "Parapsychology" mention in the article to "paranormal"? This seems like it would be less controversial and would have more sources, a potential compromise. (not that I'm saying parapsychology may not be a pseudoscience, just considering a wording that may be less controversial among WP editors) --Minderbinder 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the parapsych folk would want this change. The main item would just be "Paranormal research," which subsumes parapsychology. Parapsychology would go under the main entry's sublist. I'm perfectly alright with this, but are they? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't really Nealparr's suggestion, I don't think. But it would probably be a good change if people are going to keep putting stuff under parapsychology which a parapsychologist would disavow. It would be a step ahead in accuracy. I'm very for it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my suggestion was to actually remove it from the list (replaced by paranormal research), not put it in a sublist. This was based on there being at least some question of whether parapsychology itself is actually is a pseudoscience versus fringe science, and that it can't be both. I don't have time to debate it though. Just wanted to clear up whether that was my suggestion or not.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Shamanism

I note the article says "Shamanism is a New Age movement that often involves questionable marketing practices, cultural biases, and plain fraud". Is this a joke, Shamanism is as old as human (pre)history. Even according to the main wiki article, "Shamanism refers to a range of traditional beliefs and practices concerned with communication with the spirit world." How in God's name does (unsourced) garbage like this get to be in an article for more than two seconds.Davkal 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're giving the anthropological definition, which has nothing to do with the newfangled shamanism qua New Age movement. I got the definition from the given source. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use the word "Shamanism" then you are bound by it's meaning. And it's anthropological meaning pretty much is it's meaning. If you want to use it in a quite different way then a significant amount of explanation has to be given. Imagine a similar claim could be made with regard to "Darwinism"a dn I'm sure you'll get the picture.

Also, I think the idea of having a section in an encyclopedia devoted to the the thoughts of Michael Shermer, but disguised as something else, is a bit much. So what if the Skeptic's society say these things. Who cares. Wiki should not, in my opinion, be used to promote the views of a small inconsequential organisation. Okay in an article about that org, but not here, not like this, not as if there was any objective truth to their list other than that it is their list. In other words, it is disingenuous to put together a list like this under any other heading than, say, "The thoughts of Michael Shermer" or some such thing. And when you think about that heading, you see why the section itself cannot really be justififed here.Davkal 07:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See neoshamanism. The quick fix here is to simply change the wikilink. Also, Shermer didn't write any of the entries. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 13:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A further problem is what is says after the name - "movement that often involves questionable marketing practices, cultural biases, and plain fraud", which, as far as it actually means anything (although that is doubtful), tells us nothing whatsoever about the thing other than it seems to be very bad. If things like "neoshamanism" are going to be included, then a let more work is going to have to be done to get proper definitions, as well as, I think, a far more accurate statement at the top explaining exactly how such things come to be in a list appropriate for inlusion in Wiki.Davkal 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to elaborate on that entry, knock yourself out. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration - the definition says nothing about the subject and is nothing more than vitriol. If it is not changed it will be removed.Davkal 14:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be disruptive. - LuckyLouie 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

totaly disputed

I have added the totally disputed tag because this article is a bit of a joke. The definitions bear almost no relation to the articles they are linked to in more cases than I can list. There is no way this article can remain in anything like it's present form.Davkal 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

Go ahead and rewrite the definitions as you see fit. Defining the terms without the "purported" or "alleged" language is fine so long as you don't then use the terms in a way that implies their existence. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm alone on this view. :\ Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I slugged in some neutral defintions from the appropriate WP article leads. The Parapsychology article is currently disputed, so copying that lead does not seem appropriate, but in the interests of improving this article perhaps there can be some compromise reached which suits both Martinphi and others. LuckyLouie 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)