Jump to content

Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Climate Change Denialism: no need for RfC, except to create disruption
→Climate Change Denialism: SteveBaker's concern could still be met by creating a list which only covers items in groups 1 & 2. Go for it.
Line 188: Line 188:


We have had many RfCs on this matter, and this title has always been the best solution. Since nothing has changed, and no new arguments for change have been brought forth, such an RfC would be disruptive. If you don't like the list, no one is forcing you to play here. Of course there is a better option. Instead of creating disruption, how about abiding by the inclusion criteria and improving it? -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
We have had many RfCs on this matter, and this title has always been the best solution. Since nothing has changed, and no new arguments for change have been brought forth, such an RfC would be disruptive. If you don't like the list, no one is forcing you to play here. Of course there is a better option. Instead of creating disruption, how about abiding by the inclusion criteria and improving it? -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

: SteveBaker's concern could still be met by creating a list which only covers items in groups 1 & 2. Go for it. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 03:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:52, 27 November 2013

Archive
Archives

King Tut's Curse

To the best of my knowledge, King Tut's curse is a belief in the supernatural, and has no actual pseudoscience in it. Should supernatural topics be included in a list about pseudoscience? It seems to me that this list is being treated as a List of Things that are Wrong, regardless of whether an individual item is pseudoscience or not. Looking at the article's history, this is a problem that has plagued this article for a long time now.[1] I don't think the article should be deleted, but I do think that it should say focused on pseudoscience and not include items that aren't pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's given an entry in a book of pseudoscience, it's also used in research as a given pseudoscience [2][3][4]. Case closed. Your OR is irrelevant, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "encyclopedia of pseudoscience" never actually describes it as a pseudoscience. Reincarnation is also in that book. Would you suggest that belief in reincarnation should be listed here? How about we just add "religion" and "spirituality" to this "list of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and save everyone the trouble of pretending that these entries are being included based off a rational definition of pseudoscience?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@IRWolfie-: Your last two sources appear to be behind a paywall (or perhaps an account wall), so I can't read them. But based off your first source, I am not impressed. The source provides trivial coverage. I think we need to have higher standards here. Please remember that our purpose here as editors is to provide a high-quality, educational encyclopedia to our readers. By including non-pseudoscientific topics in this article we do our readers a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without claiming to be very up on this topic in general, the pdf indicates that there is widespread belief that his is as factual as, say, Nessie, which we do cover. Clarification is needed about this [mis]understanding and how it relates to pseudoscience, presumably this could be cited to these additional sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial coverage? Reliability does not matter about how trivial something is. Notability is not the criteria for inclusion. Featuring as an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience is non-trivial anyway ... IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it matters. Reliability is not a binary on/off switch. Rather, it's a gradual continuum. You've seized upon a source that provides only bare, trivial coverage of the topic. You have not provided any significant coverage or evidence that this is a mainstream view within the scholarly community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scant coverage? It has 2 pages in the skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia that is just a collection of articles from a magazine that were compiled together by the history of science major who runs said magazine. The article itself never likens belief in King Tut's curse to pseudoscience, but instead describes it as an urban legend.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie, re "notability is not the criteria for inclusion" (and other iterations about what the criteria for inclusion are/are not on this page): What is the criteria for inclusion exactly? I don't have much of a history with this page. Was there a consensus at some point that you're basing it on? Is it, as below, along the lines of "if it's wp:due to call something pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here?" That would be easy enough to adhere to, I suppose, and would remove the need to debate about the inclusion of this or that here (e.g. if a given source was good enough to characterize as pseudoscience on an article page there's no point in questioning it here). There are already debates on the subject on those article talk pages, which this page has produced iterations of. Do I understand correctly? If so, is there consensus here such that this might be simply written at the top of the talk page? --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No quite, because almost nothing can be called pseudoscience on wikipedia, because people assume its POV even if all the sources say it. Generally articles say it has been characterised as pseudoscience (usually by scientists). "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here". Some topics, such as Psychoanalysis have been characterised as pseudoscience, but otherwise still have some academic support (not much amongst psychologists, but amongst psychiatrists), saying "It is pseudoscience", would not be a fair reading of the totality of the sources, but saying "it has been characterised as pseudoscience for reasons X etc" is neutral. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm still unclear on the criteria for this page, then. If I'm reading your response correctly, it sounds like for the purposes of inclusion here you're saying the other article pages are effectively irrelevant. Or perhaps that pseudoscience mention in an article is sufficient but not absolutely required? For those instances that it's not required, what is the criteria for inclusion? It's clearly not simply "characterized as pseudoscience," so it must be based on the source of the pseudoscience allegation. Must be a scientist? Scientist or academic writing in a scholarly publication or peer-reviewed work of some kind? Multiple? Don't mean to be pedantic, but I think it being spelled out would avoid a lot of the effort on the talk page. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've confused two points I was making together. I'll just repeat the first point. "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here", that is what I view the criteria for this page as. See the psychoanalysis page for an example, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IRWolfie-: According to the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience's own publisher[5], the book also includes supernatural claims. BTW, it also includes conspiracy theories. This not an article about the supernatural or conspiracy theories. It's about pseudoscience. Please stop insisting that we include off-topic entries in this list, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to frame everything as being personal? Now, if you read that linked page it says: "Finally, the volumes include five classic works in the history of science and pseudoscience, including ..." and then goes on to list the paranormal as being included. What it does say is "Includes over 100 entries about pseudoscientific subjects", which includes the Tut entry as well as all the others. Framing it as "pseudoscience and paranormal" (in fact something can be both as the publisher highlights) is not what that link says. To recap, It's in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience, and I have shown sources that refer to it as being pseudoscience.
Initially you said that you think its not pseudoscience ("the best of my knowledge, King Tut's curse is a belief in the supernatural, and has no actual pseudoscience in it"), but I have shown that these further sources indicate or treat it as obvious pseudoscience, yet you think these are too "trivial". Your initial opinion is incongruent with those sources. Those sources back up the pseudoscience encyclopaedia as well, which does establish due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie - So the inclusion criteria is "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterized as pseudoscience on its main article page." But just clicking on a few of the links here shows that several of them are not characterized as pseudoscience in the articles. Tutankhamun's curse, Séance, and Holocaust_Denial (3 of the 6 I clicked on and searched the page). They have references that are clearly about pseudoscience but there's no precedent for book titles in reference lists to be used for justification of claims by association. My point is, whether or not "it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterized as pseudoscience on its main article page" is a conversation that needs to happen at that article page first. To just claim WP:DUE here without gaining consensus on that page that it's WP:DUE seems problematic. Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding, though. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page", I said if it could be. It would not be undue for something to be included does not mean it has been included. The distinction is important. The actual content of the other article does not matter. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except, of course, that nobody has yet to provide a single reliable source, let alone a general consensus of reliable sources, saying that this is a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, the curse is listed under "Volume 1: Section 1: Important pseudoscientific concepts".
Feder's survey, the introduction says that it's testing "pseudoscientific archaeological claims" and "pseudoscience in archaeology". Feder also calls it "cult archaeology", a synonymous for Pseudoarchaeology, a sub-branch of pseudoscience.
Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, also by Feder.
Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public (I can't check the contents of this book)
Mind you, the amount of actual pseudoscience on this topic seems to be minuscule. Personally, I wouldn't mind if it was moved to Pseudoarchaeology#Examples. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is that it also covers supernatural claims and conspiracy theories,[6], and there is no clear delineation between which items are pseudoscience, which items are supernatural and which items are conspiracy theories. But even ignoring that, we should not be examining any individual source in isolation. What do other reliable sources say about this item? Hypothetically speaking, if we have 10 sources, and 9 do not describe an item as pseudoscience and one does, we shouldn't cite the oddball source that describes it as a pseudoscience. That's a WP:FRINGE view point and a violation of WP:NPOV to present fringe viewpoints as mainstream. I have no problem with putting this item in some other list. I know, for example, that we have a separate List of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody was to boldly delete the King Tut stuff, and perhaps comment that if anybody has decent sources to back up re-instatement, bring them to Talk, I'd be happy. I think the source is weak. It isn't pseudoscience, it is an urban myth. --Roxy the dog (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AQFK. Naval provided information showing conclusively that it is in the book as pseudoscience, "Volume 1: Section 1: Important pseudoscientific concepts". The rest of what you said is flawed anyway since claims of the supernatural can also be pseudoscientific. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on King Tut's Curse

Perhaps it would be useful to gauge everyone's opinion if we can take a straw poll on whether King Tut's Curse belongs in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone else like to !vote or comment on this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care enough to. Your comment, "this is supernatural claim, not actual pseudoscience", is WP:OR, and the other is a vote without rationale. As you are a aware, we don't operate by vote counting. I've already shown it is listed in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience, and have shown its mention as pseudoscience in other contexts. Be honest, you don't want it to be here regardless what the sources say, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone else like to weigh in? We appear to have consensus that this item should be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's been over a month since anyone has weighed in on this discussion. Consensus is clear. We have three editors in favor of removing this item and no editor opposing. Even if we had an editor opposing, that's still consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Include

Don't Include

  1. This is supernatural claim, not actual pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. +++ Sticks hand up +++ --Roxy the dog (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Minuscule amount of science, lots of false archaeological claims. Pseudoarchaeology#Examples is a much better fit. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that archaeology was science, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular item doesn't contain much real archaeology, if any at all. There are no pseudoarchaeologists trying to pass bad research as good research (at least, I couldn't find any). I couldn't even find creative reinterpretations of real archaeology papers, there are only made up stories. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Supernatural, not archaeology. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven theories?

Are all theories to be considered "pseudoscience" until they are proven or disproven by science? For a science to be "pseudo" I'd say it has to 1.) willingly reject scientific practice, yet 2.) claim to have scientific backing. Kortoso (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read the first paragraph of the article. We're not assuming anything is pseudoscience. It must be sourced, and in a manner that fits the inclusion criteria for this article. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Topic - Audio Pseudoscience (especially High-End Audio)

High-End Audio is full of pseudoscience and bunk terms. The vagueness of terms even leak down into mid-range and lower-range audio gear. Monster (company) is a big abuser of terms used to describe their cables, including more recent things like overhyped headphones like "Beats Audio by Dre" and "SMS Audio by 50 cent", which are basically nothing more than a headphone amp with bass-boost built into the headphones and sold at high prices. Actually, there needs to be an entire article about this subject on Wikipedia! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For sure this is a rich area (see Speaker wire#Quality debate and Audiophile#Controversies) though cables are just part of it (and Monster just one company). Green felt-tip pens for CD, magic banadages for cables, Extended Resolution Compact Discs ... you name it. Perhaps the Audiophile article could be expanded a bit and then linked-to from here? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be enough in those other articles for the use in this article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change Denialism

I observe that an editor has just reverted my removal of this asinine political entry. I'm not not going to waste time arguing the subject here; I'll simply include a link to the most perspicacious scientific forum regarding the issue.--Froglich (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You'd do better with VVatts Up With That ?, the website you link to is of course at hot topic. . . dave souza, talk 06:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Froglich that "Climate Change denialism" does not belong here. This criticises the existence of skepticism on the topic of climate change; the problem with that is that (a) skepticism is not a science, therefore it cannot possibly be anything-science (proto-science, pseudo-science, anti-science, etc) and (b) skepticism is a very healthy and indeed fundamental component of the scientific method. There are indeed many lay people who hold positions on climate change that are *unscientific*, but it is by no means limited to one side or another. A survey of American meteorologists shows only a simple majority support the thesis. You cannot call this pseudoscientific and lump this with Lysenkoism or perpetual motion on which there is no shred of doubt as to their falsehood.
Therefore, I think that either this section gets expanded and more nuanced and make a clear distinction between skepticism and pseudoscientism and include some of the wackier claims of each side (and there are many to choose from), or this item should be removed from the list.Willa wonky (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If good quality reliable sources characterise climate change denialism as pseudoscience, then it belongs in the list. The survey of meteorologists does not address this, and you appear to be misreading its results which are actually quite interesting and supportive of earlier studies. . . dave souza, talk 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources actually say that this is pseudoscience? The three references in the article are all behind paywalls (or membership walls) so I can't check them. One of the problems with this article (and this has been noted before) is that the article is used as a 'List of things that are wrong' regardless of whether each item qualifies as pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the two articles support this label. The Science article does not mention the word "pseudoscience" and the Science, Technology & Human Values is a discussion of the lack of clear demarcations between "science" and "pseudoscience". (My first impression is that it is a bunch of nonsensical hand-wringing, actually, but it doesn't support the use of the term here.) The congressional report appears to support it and I've added a link to an Internet Archive copy. Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up another concern of mine. If, hypothetically speaking, we have 10 sources regarding X, and 9 out of 10 don't describe X as a pseudoscience, but 1 out of 10 does describe X as a pseudoscience, is it considered a pseudoscience? IOW, do we cite the oddball source and include X in the article, or do we go with the consensus of reliable sources and omit it from the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally we should go with the consensus of the sources. But the omission of the word from a source does not mean that we should read that source as asserting that climate change denial is not a pseudoscience, it merely means that the source does not discuss the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any consensus in this discussion that skepticism of AGWT (however "updated" in terminology to "climate change denial" -- an updating which positively screams of disingenuous alteration due to the fact that no net warming has been observed for over a decade now) constitutes pseudoscience. (There is demonstrably more pseudoscience, when not outright fraud, going on in AGWT formulation and promotion.) Furthermore, the "-denial" claim in the label, as derivative of holocaust denial, is highly insulting on multiple levels.--Froglich (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to have a POV, as are all editors, but being a climate change denialist doesn't exactly increase your credibility here. Your POV is definitely a fringe, pseudoscientific POV. As far as the "denialism" terminology, it is not exclusively related to holocaust denialism, but to many other forms, including HIV/AIDS denialism and Germ theory denialism, so no insult is intended. It's a generic term often related to conspiracy theories. See: Category:Denialism. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The deciding issue here is whether the sources used characterize climate change denialism as pseudoscience. Do they or don't they? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source to the National Center for Science Education which clearly identifies climate change denial as pseudoscience: NCSE Tackles Climate Change Denial, National Center for Science Education, January 13th, 2012 -- Brangifer (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess, most sources don't refer to this item as pseudoscience. Even when specifically looking for sources which call it pseudoscience, I only found weak sources. IOW, sources with just casual references to it being a pseudoscience with no depth or actual explanation as to how it's a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brangifer, nobody's disputing that certain groups with vested interests have quotes at-the-ready. The issue is whether or not there is consensus here to give this particular species of nonsense credence. I count four editors in this thread (the majority of those weighing in), who are either outright opposed to it or at least skeptical of its asserted scientific and/or ethical merits.--Froglich (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
dave souza and I certainly support its inclusion based on sources which do characterize it as pseudoscience. We know that you, 2.5% of published climate scientists, and the vested interests of Big Oil and the Koch brothers, think it's "nonsense. They have very deep pockets and they don't want their denialism included here, but they don't count as sources in this list because they are not RS which characterize it as pseudoscience. We have RS which do that, so it gets included. Fortunately those sources are on the same side as the 97.5% of published climate scientists, who know more than any of us editors what is really the case. Being an amateur in these matters, I place my bets on them being right, but that is neither here nor there as far as inclusion here. There are RS which characterize this type of denialism as pseudoscience, and that's enough for inclusion. "Climate Change Denialism" is indeed 100% Bollocks according to 97.5% of published climate scientists! Big money can't change the facts, and scientists tend to go with the facts. Not all of them can be bought.
The "scientific and/or ethical merits" are not decisive here, because, for purposes of inclusion here, we are not concerned with whether climate change or climate change denial is or is not actually pseudoscience. That's rather irrelevant (for purposes of inclusion). The question is whether RS have so characterized climate change denial. They have, and that is decisive here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC) (Comment revised in response to next comment.)[reply]
I disagree with the later assertion: whether items are actually pseudoscience is relevant. Otherwise, we do a disservice to our readers by presently misleading information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with you, and that's why we try to include subjects which really ARE pseudoscience (and use sources that are sympathetic to mainstream science, not fringe anti-science sources), but that's not the purpose of this list. The inclusion criteria ("characterized") must be followed. I have clarified my comment about relevance ("for purposes of inclusion"). We do not mislead readers by implying that climate change denial isn't pseudoscience. If there was doubt, we would leave it out, but 97% is a pretty large majority, and sources which sympathize with that position say it's pseudoscience.
Another matter is the PSI Arbcom decision linked at the top of this page. It notes the types of information we can include here, and we try to limit inclusion to the first three groups, and stay away from definitive statements in Wikipedia's voice that such-and-such IS pseudoscience. We just let the sources speak for themselves. Some of the subjects listed here are clearly in group one, and their articles are in Category:Pseudoscience. Others are not, but we still document what RS have said about them. The archives contain many discussions about this.
Pseudoskeptics and pseudoscientists have repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to sabotage this article in attempts to force a deletion of the whole thing. Their attempts usually are aimed at seeking to include claims by fringe sources that proven facts are pseudoscience. Such attempts are obviously frivolous and never succeed. Basically, one need not agree that content here is pseudoscience, just recognize that some RS, which are on the same side of the issues as mainstream science, have characterized a fringe idea as pseudoscience. That's all. I have now beefed up the content with a number of RS to document the fact that denials of the mainstream climate science position (97%) have been characterized as pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article containing a list of pseudosciences? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The closest we get is the Pseudoscience article itself, where a few representative examples are mentioned. Otherwise, check out Category:Pseudoscience. The following template is good. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we don't have a "List of pseudoscience topics", how about we rename this article "List of topics characterized or mischaracterized as pseudoscience" to make it more clear to the reader that the list contains items that are not pseudoscience? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this about a million times and the current title is fine. Changing it always creates problems, and your suggestion actually introduces editorial opinion directly into the title! We keep it simple and just document what the sources say. For more detail of the controversies on each one, look in their articles. This isn't the place for that. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The title is wrong, useless, horrible. It's a way for us to say "We need a list of pseudosciences someplace - and we can't be bothered to come up with a battery of reliable sources to show that they truly are pseudosciences...so instead we're going to cop out and say 'if anyone *ever* said it was a pseudoscience then it goes on the list'!". The result is a list that clearly contains things that are not pseudosciences...and it's weak on evidence for things that undoubtedly are pseudoscience. Who really cares whether someone at sometime in the past said "X is a pseudoscience"...but that's what the list is. What people really need to know is the answer to questions like: "Is this guy who's selling me magnets to cure my rheumatism talking bullshit?"...and for that kind of search, this list is useless. SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@SteveBaker: I couldn't have said it better myself. In addition to what Steve just said, @BullRangifer:, if this issue keeps coming up time and time again, that indicates that that current title is not fine, correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We did have a !vote on this some time ago - and the consensus then was for not changing the title. Maybe it's time for an RfC? SteveBaker (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're up to AQFK. Is this baiting, IDHT, sarcasm, or some other possibility? I obviously think it is fine. The only ones who consider it problematic are usually those who object to their favorite delusion's inclusion. They refuse to understand the purpose of the list. The lead makes it plain. Don't overinterpret.

We are deliberately and carefully treading a fine line between no list at all (which would leave a hole in Wikipedia's goal of documenting the sum total of human knowledge) and violating the PSI ArbCom ruling. Push it too far one way and it gives pseudoskeptics and pseudoscientists an excuse to delete the whole list. We don't want that. Wikipedia's goal must be served. Push it too far the other way and we're violating the ruling by definitively categorizing in Wikipedia's voice many subjects which are borderline pseudoscientific. We shouldn't do that. That's why we limit content to "characterizations" found in RS. The source obviously believes in is pseudoscience, and so do we, but that's our own opinion as editors. We can't write that, except in obvious cases (see groups 1 & 2 above). We don't take a position as to whether a subject absolutely IS pseudoscience here, even if is really is, but we definitely do that in some of the articles. We abide by the ArbCom decision and limit content to the first three groupings seen at the top of this page.

We have had many RfCs on this matter, and this title has always been the best solution. Since nothing has changed, and no new arguments for change have been brought forth, such an RfC would be disruptive. If you don't like the list, no one is forcing you to play here. Of course there is a better option. Instead of creating disruption, how about abiding by the inclusion criteria and improving it? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker's concern could still be met by creating a list which only covers items in groups 1 & 2. Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience&oldid=583483690"