Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Archives

Archive 1: 2003 — August 2006 Archive 2: August 2006 — December 2006 Archive 3: December 2006 — March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 — April 2007 Archive 5: April 2007 — July 2007 Archive 6: July 2007 — October 2007 Archive 7: October 2007 — January 2008 Archive 8: January 2008 — April 2008 Archive 9: February 2008 — November 2008 Archive 10: December 2008 — January 2009 Archive 11: January 2009 — March 2009 Archive 12: March 2009 Archive 13: 2009 Archive 14: 2010 Archive 15: 2010-2013 Archive 16: July - September, 2013

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)

• The 10 biggest lies of Audio which came from The Audio Critic Issue 26 fromThe Audio Critic PDF archive
• Testing audiophile claims and myths
• Monster Cables, Monster Ripoff: 80% Markups
• Audiophiles can't tell the difference between Monster Cable and coat hangers
• The Truth About Monster Cable

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)

There appears to be enough in those other articles for the use in this article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

"The only ones who consider it problematic are usually those who object to their favorite delusion's inclusion." - not so, I have no such agenda. If you check you'll discover that I have no specific topic or topics that I' pushing for. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"...usually..." is the key word here. There are exceptions, and I'm glad you are one. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 28 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My objection is that this list should NOT exist because it gives a false impression that it's an authoritative list of pseudosciences when it is not - and a better list SHOULD exist because we do need a list of such topics. Hence creating a new list in addition to this one is not a complete answer to the problems I see. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, but the title and inclusion criteria described in the lead are pretty clear. It makes no pretense to be "an authoritative list of pseudosciences." Is there some wording in the lead which is ambiguous or not clear enough? Please copy it here so we can improve it. Is there some wording which could make it even more clear? Please propose it.

We aim to fill a hole in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. Such holes must not exist. Documenting the "sum total of human knowledge" aims at "total" coverage. Your proposal would miss a lot which this one covers, but it could work as a supplement. It wouldn't create anything really new that is not in the articles, but it would collect the pseudosciences we are allowed to categorize as such (groups 1 & 2) into one nice list. Unfortunately it would likely be the target of constant edit wars by pushers of fringe POV, but if it were created properly I'd likely help you build it and defend it, so go for it. It might be a great list and I'm not against the idea. Once you create such a list, and it proves its usefulness, you might be able to make a better argument for deletion of this list, although I still think this one serves an important purpose for the reasons mentioned. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Should we change the focus & title of this article?

Should this article be "List of pseudosciences"? (Note that this is not just a title change proposal - the content would need to change also). SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support (Nominator). SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(Nominator:) I believe that the present title is a cop-out. Many people seem to think that the article is a list of pseudosciences - which elicits complaints that certain topics that are clearly NOT pseudosciences are listed here. However, the way this page is named (and the way we currently provide content for it) is such that non-pseudosciences may perfectly legitimately belong in this list. The present title essentially says: "If you can find a reliable source that says that someone characterized a topic as a pseudoscience, then it belongs in this list.". What I think we should have is "If there are reliable sources that say that some topic is a pseudoscience, then it belongs in this list.". The difference seems subtle - but it's really not.

I understand that changing the article to be a true list of actual pseudosciences will result in a much shorter list - and possibly we'll find ourselves unable to find WP:RS that say that some obviously pseudoscientific topics are indeed pseudosciences. However, I think that's a legitimate cost of making ourselves more honest.

It will certainly be more work to maintain this article should this change be approved - but it would be a vastly more useful article as a result.

From an encyclopedic standpoint, nobody really cares if Senator Joe Blow who knows nothing about (say) Climate Change or "The Scientific Method" happens to say to a reputable journalist that Climate Change science is really a pseudoscience. The Senator's opinion would not pass as a reliable scientific source within Wikipedia - but the fact of his comment, being reported in a reputable newspaper does constitutes a reliable source that someone characterized the subject thusly. Which is what makes many of the entries in this list be acceptable to Wikipedia even though they are not what we seem to be saying they are.

What readers really need to know is whether a particular topic is indeed a pseudoscience - and for that we really should be demanding reputable scientific sources that say "X is a pseudoscience" rather than "unqualified idiot Y says that X is a pseudoscience" (or worse still "Here is concrete proof that X is not a pseudoscience even though unqualified idiot Y says it is!" - which would still land a perfectly serious, respectable science on this list!).

So I strongly believe that we should retitle the article and ruthlessly prune entries that rely on "heresay" evidence or lack of scientific rigor.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree. The current article under its more inclusive title is satisfying in that it allows WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to bring some significant criticism down on certain topics that are borderline. The reader will want to know what is borderline and what is not. As well, the discussions here will get much more partisan and ugly if the label "pseudoscience" is given in Wikipedia's voice rather than in the voice of some observers. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  It allows people who are sufficiently notable to be reported in the press - yet who are completely inexpert in both the subject and the scientific method to label things as pseudosciences and thereby place them on this list. That is a perversion of the WP:RS rules which would normally require reliable scientific sources to state as a fact that some topic is not following the scientific method.

• Keep current title. I see that SteveBaker is playing WP:IDHT by ignoring my warning in the previous section that an RfC on this subject would be disruptive:

1. I obviously think the current title 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.
2. We are deliberately and carefully treading a fine line between no list at all (which would leave a big 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 it 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 it really is, but we definitely do that in some of the articles. Here we abide by the ArbCom decision and limit content to the first three groupings seen at the top of this page.
3. 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?
4. His desire to have a different list does not require any change to this one. What he's proposing here would totally gut this one, to the great pleasure of myriad pushers of woo who have tried.
5. SteveBaker's concern could still be met by creating a different list besides this one which only covers items in groups 1 & 2. Go for it., and withdraw this RfC. It's a disruptive waste of time already. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Your accusation of IDHT is unfounded - I launched this RfC before you responded (or possibly at the same time as you were responding - it took a while for me to rally my thoughts and type all of this stuff in). But in any case, I disagree with your assessment. SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I then retract the IDHT. I can see how that might have happened. I'll take your word for it. That doesn't make this RfC any less disruptive and a waste of time. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Your accusation that "The only ones who consider it problematic are usually those who object to their favorite delusion's inclusion." is personally insulting to me - and I challenge you to tell me which topic is the one that I'm POV pushing or withdraw this personal attack (per WP:NPA). I assure you that there is none. My main concern here is to avoid having a rambling list that includes both legitimate pseudosciences and non-pseudosciences in order that editors can get away with reliable reports of unreliable people to (in effect) mislabel a topic. SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I made no accusation or personal attack against you. I was referring to the many attacks we have had. "...usually..." is the key word here. There are exceptions, and I'm glad you are one. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• You keep mentioning non-pseudosciences which are included. Which ones are there? Oops! That's not for this thread. We need to stay on topic, but you're welcome to mention them on my talk page. I am curious and would like to fix that if necessary and proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• There has not been a recent RfC and the fact that people are still very unhappy with the list should be evident. No consensus is ever permanent and, IMHO, it's time to re-assess this one. I do not choose to close this RfC without adequate discussion. SteveBaker (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• The list has been quite stable, but it does get attacked, and that quite aside from the title. The attackers really want to do what you want to do....get rid of it. You'll find that your proposed list will also get attacked. That's the nature of anything using the words "pseudoscience" and "quackery". They will always get attacked. We can't change that, and your proposal won't change that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree. In a list article the inclusion criteria need to be set very carefully (as here) to avoid disputes about neutrailty and verifiability; the thought that we could change this article into being some kind of true judge about what "is indeed a pseudoscience" misses a central point about what Wiipedia does for non-trivial statements - it reports what others have said, and does not say things itself. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  Your assessment falls short of what Wikipedia demands. It doesn't just "report what others have said". It repeats what experts in the field say. That's the core principle - and your misapprehension of how Wikipedia works is precisely the problem with this list. The way the list is named means that all that is required is to find a reliable source that says that someone, anyone, expert or non-expert, neutral enquirer or rabid rabble rouser - said that they consider the topic to be pseudoscience. If the person making the characterization is indeed an expert, making a fact-based appraisal, then their original statement is a reliable source for the list that I propose we should have in place of this one and nothing is lost. In effect, what I'm saying is that "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience by just about anyone" (which is what we have) is useless compared to "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience by experts in the field" (which is what Wikipedia demands of us). SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  Wow, that strawman was soundly beaten there!! Obviously what we include needs to be reliable, but WP:PARITY is an important guideline for us here in choosing sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I spent a long time trying to get a very well-referenced entry added to this article; a topic which was historically characterized as pseudoscience. It was positively undeniable that the entry belonged on this list (even though it is no longer considered a pseudoscience). Yet, a few vocal hardliners here just didn't want the entry here because, in the end, it just offended their sensibilities. In my limited experience here, what I've found this article to truly be is a list of items which the vocal hardliners here want to characterize as pseudoscience. This article is not necessarily inclusive of all verifiable characterizations. Instead, we have a very bespoke inclusion criteria, carefully tailored by the hardliner editors here, which attempts to weed out entries which offend them. Despite the craftiness of the inclusion criteria, the entry which I eventually navigated into this article revealed many holes and double-standards in the language, and the overall agenda dictated by the vocal hardliners here. As it stands, I don't know what encyclopedic purpose this article serves. The non-encyclopedic purpose is the hardliners' effort to corral all the things which they characterize as pseudoscience. If this is to be a list of topics which have been characterized as pseudoscience, then open up the gates and allow verifiable characterizations. If this is to be a list of things which are deemed pseudoscience by the scientific community at large, then rename it and make the inclusion criteria be just that. As it is now, however, the most appropriate title of the article would be: "List of topics characterized by some hardliner Wikipedians as pseudoscience so don't try to get your well-sourced, verifiable, notable entry included here or else you will be scrutinized, antagonized, ridiculed, and/or ignored... so good luck with that". That's probably too long of a title though. 172.250.119.155 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose changes I'm not seeing any clear policy-based rationale for any changes, and the proposed changes need to be much clearer so we can indeed determine if they resolve any problems. The article has withstood close examination by a large number of editors over a long period of time, including a great deal of review in light of WP:ARB/PS. --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support One of the problems with this article is that it paradoxically includes items which are not pseudoscience. Instead, this article is being (mis)used as a dumping ground for anything that is wrong, regardless of whether or not each specific item is actually pseudoscience. I'm not sure how anyone can possibly defend a list which knowingly misleads our readers. It seems that we've forgot that our purpose as Wikipedia editors is to provide educational content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• You too keep mentioning non-pseudosciences which are included. I suspect that you, considering your track record, would seek to exempt certain subjects which all scientific skeptics would consider pseudoscience, but which you consider to be true. Which ones are there? Don't answer that here, but in a separate thread. I am curious and would like to fix that if necessary and proper. We seek to be careful not to include anything in group 4, only groups 1-3, per the ArbCom decision.
  Your argument is NOT a reason for deletion, but for improvement. Seek to help with that goal. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: Your last post is so bizarre, I'm not sure where to even begin as it has nothing to do with the current discussion or anything that I've ever said. First, you begin by talking about my "track record". What track record is that? Second, you bizarrely claim that I would seek to "exempt certain subjects which all scientific skeptics would consider pseudoscience, but which you consider to be true." Where the heck did you even get that from?!? I am a scientific skeptic. I don't think that any of these items are true. Where in the world did you get such an impression? I've said nothing of the sort. Third, why are going on about deleting this article? This is an RfC, not an AfD, and the RfC is about whether an article about pseudoscience should also include items which are not pseudoscience. Seriously dude, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I too have a problem with Brangifer immediately assuming (against all evidence from edit histories, etc) that people who oppose his position are fringe theorists trying to push their pet theories off of this article. The true fact is quite the reverse. I want to give this article more teeth against the fringe theorists by making it clearly say "X is a pseudoscience" in a list where all of the entries are indeed pseudosciences. SteveBaker (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Mildly disagree It's worth noting that this was in fact this page's previous title. I think it more correctly describes the essential characteristic it takess to be on the list - i.e., rather than having editors verge on OR to demonstrate something's pesudoscientific nature, one needs to point to sufficient RSes to show it being described as such. I think it serves the reader fine. OTOH, I wouldn't object strenuously to it being moved back, it is a bit clunky - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Tentative Oppose - If the article is renamed, it's not so simple to just say "ok, well now we'll just include things that are pseudoscience" because Wikipedia remains truth neutral. The difference is effectively "topics characterized as pseudoscience" vs. "topics characterized as pseudoscience per the majority of reliable sources" (which can be implied in the titles of many WP articles). A new kind of criteria have to be developed first, or we're right back at the ArbCom issue. A central issue, I think, is that even the most outspoken skeptics don't always use the word "pseudoscience," but that seems to be what's required here. If someone like Dawkins, for example, picks apart someone's claims to extrasensory perception, he's not entirely likely to use the word, but in order for our article to be functional his criticism of the science would have to be taken to imply such a judgment. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of articles on "water fueled cars" don't contain the word pseudoscience even if they overwhelmingly agree that it is. ...So how can this be made clear for the purposes of inclusion? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• So you'd advocate that "List of sports rivalries" become "List of sports discussions characterized as rivalries" and "List of natural disasters" become "List of natural events characterized as disasters"? I doubt it. We do label things as "truth" here in Wikipedia - but we define it to be "true" that a subject is a pseudoscience if an unbiassed, science-based, professional source says it is. It is "true" that a subject is characterized as a pseudoscience if a reliable source says that someone characterized it so. Introducing "characterized as" doesn't alter the truth or otherwise behind what we say - it only opens the gates to unqualified (but properly reported) people causing topics to be added to our list that don't belong here...and results in us making distasteful POV-based decisions to include "Climate change denialism" and yet exclude "Climate change" - when both of them have clearly been "characterized" as pseudosciences (the former correctly and the latter incorrectly). SteveBaker (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• weak oppose - "A pseudoscience is"? --- many reliable sources define pseudoscience - do the listed topics here meet those definitions? Can we imply the conclusion? Drawing conclusions that is evident in the reference would be the opposite of Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources. Thanks to POVPUSHing an article may not match the conclusion reached on this list, always worth checking but the articles themselves are not sources. Also an article may not not use the word "pseudoscience" because there is room to give readers detailed information about relevant controversies (WP:LABEL) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Current name of this article is ridiculous and was implemented as a compromise with pseudoscience promoters. We should not negotiate with terrorists. jps (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• jps, that's not true. It was the only way we could save this article from their deletion attempts, and by doing so it has survived three AfDs. This attempt by someone who claims to be an enemy of pseudoscience plays into their hands. He wants to get rid of the article. The replacement would be a shadow of this one. I don't think he realizes the consequences of what he's proposing. The ArbCom ruling comes into play and will need to be heeded. See my comments below (look in the edit history for my comments immediately before this one). -- Brangifer (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with your position completely. Arbcom rulings are not meant to dictate content. We could keep this article as is with a new title. No problem. The title is not an inoculation, it's just a euphemism. jps (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• They don't rule on content, but they did rule on format and use of Category:Pseudoscience in their decision. Thus the title and content must match, and this proposal raises the bar so high that it would mean a number of items listed would have to be removed for lack of RS. SteveBaker's demand for sources from "a science journal or some qualified/reputable scientist saying it in print" would mean that the WP:Fringe and parity guidelines can't be used to allow sourcing from what are often the only ones dealing with such woo....scientific skeptics. Science journals don't mention woo, and in fact we'd have a hard time finding any sources to use. They ignore pseudoscience and rarely comment on it. Steve doesn't understand the consequences of what he's proposing, and his new list, although small, will constantly be a bloody battlefield.
  I know you're not a fan of ArbCom, after your bans, but you need to think a bit pragmatically. Your support for this proposition places you squarely in the side of pseudoscience lovers. Take a look at who's supporting this. You now are on the same side as A1candidate! You really need to watch the company you keep. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• When arbcom tried to rule on the use of Category:Pseudoscience, they were inappropriately making content decisions and there have been some clarifications by arbitrators since then that the opinion of Fred Bauder does not need to be taken as gospel. I simply and plainly disagree with your contention that this proposal raises any bar at all. As far as I can tell, we have a lot of "qualified/reputable scientists" who are identifying those items currently listed, though I agree the "journals" are red herrings completely. If the proposer has an ulterior motive to remove items on this list simply by changing its name, that's his own problem. The name "list of pseudosciences" does not immediately mean we have to change the inclusion criteria. jps (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The current title is too long and needlessly introduces unencyclopedic vagueness with "topics characterized as" (Does the list deal with "topics" or does it deal with disciplines that have been presented as science and thus been labeled pseudoscience? Characterized by whom?). The lead section already makes clear the fairly obvious criteria that the list members have been so labeled. Astynax 17:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Titles dictate content and must be accurate, and it must harmonize with the lead. The title is long, but there are many more that are just as long and work just fine. The references state who is characterizing what. Your reasons aren't good enough to justify destabilizing this article, or, as Steve Baker wishes to do, is to delete it entirely. See my comment below where I provide the diff where he said it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (changed my vote) Support - Support as long as people aren't planning to swing a big axe on the existing content. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Steve Baker wants to get rid of this list entirely. He wants to replace it with a list where editors will be forced to settle the demarcation problem in a final manner for each entry, and the edit warring will be even worse than now. It would only, because of our ArbCom decision, be allowed to contain items from groups 1 & 2. We now include items from group 3. Those would all be axed. All content using scientific skeptical sources would also be removed because many of these sources are allowed by WP:FRINGE and parity. Those sources could no longer be used.
  We're looking at a major deletion of content and sources. This will leave a big hole in our coverage of the subject, and we will fail to fulfill our obligation as Wikipedians, to document the "sum total of human knowledge." That happens to also include characterizations as pseudoscience made in many RS which won't be allowed anymore.
  Lovers of the fringe, pseudoscience, quackery, and health fraud will vote for Steve Baker to be their patron saint, because he has done what they have tried but failed to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree hugely with changes. I can point woolly thinkers at this list and the proposed changes will water it down. Bad idea. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This article is a massive WP:COATRACK for promoters of pseudoskepticism. There is a lot of selective fact picking based on a deliberate misrepresentation of sources. What concerns me is how easily anyone can categorize an entire medical field as a form of pseudoscience even though is no consensus in the scientific community for this. The most recent research shwos that acupuncture, for example, is is not pseudoscience and is based on valid scientific evidence. Why not wait for someone to publish an article claiming that Wikipedia is pseudoscience so that we can add it to this nonsensical list of indiscriminate information? -A1candidate (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And here we have a prime reason this article is a good one. Acupuncturists don't like it when their pet woo is declared to be woo. This is a great list as it stands. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the supposedly 'valid scientific evidence' supplied by A1candidate is nothing of the sort. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A1candidate, I was wondering when you'd arrive to support the cause of pseudoscience promotion. I suspect you'll vote for Steve Baker to be the patron saint of woo lovers. He won't like that dubious honor, but he's your biggest ally right now. Your arguments really ring hollow, when there are abundant sources which do "characterize" various aspects of TCM and acupuncture as pseudoscience. Not having looked at the sources, I'm not sure whether they are in group 2 or 3. If in group three, then acupuncture will not be included in SteveBaker's new list and you'll be happy. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for multiple reasons. First, the proposed change elevates each of the topics to the level of being individual pseudosciences, and I am far from certain that RS's will necessarily discuss whether these topics are each individual or not. Second, the proposed change seems to indicate that they all fall within one main topic, "pseudoscience," despite their often pronounced variation from each other, so the proposed title might be misleading in indicating that they all fall within a clearly defined area, which probably isn't really frequently defined that clearly. Lastly, honestly, the proposed change raises the bar for inclusion, demanding that anyone prove through RS's that the subject is pseudoscience, and most pseudoscientific topics will have at least some individuals calling it science, which would presumably possibly lead to interminable edit wars. And the current title, with the word "characterized", pretty much avoids all those problems, so I favor keeping it as is. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's nice to see an admin who isn't a fuzzy thinker. Fortunately we do have many. You have hit the nail on the head. This raising of the bar excludes the use of policies and guidelines which allow for sources which we suddenly won't be able to use here. That's not allowed. All policies and guidelines govern this list, and we should be able to use all sources which are allowable under those guidelines. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose My apologies for being late to the party, but I wanted to add my vote. I believe that John Carter above stated my own views better than I did. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the title were changed the article would be deleting without an AFD discussion. The name change would essentially undermine the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience because only pseudosciences would be allowed in the list. Everything that is characterized as pseudoscience would be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep title but be clear about which topics have a mainstream following -- Demarcation is always contentious. Perhaps we could somehow flag topics that are "questionable science", like psychoanalysis, polygraphy, and a handful of alt-med topics, aspects of which have a substantial mainstream following. That would accord with the ArbCom principles listed at the top of the page and at WP:FRINGE/PS. But there's no "best" way to do this. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What's going wrong here:

1. We say that (for example) Crystal healing is characterized as a pseudoscience. It certainly has been characterized as such - and there is little doubt that it truly is a pseudoscience. It belongs on this list - and it would belong on the list I propose here. So far, so good!
2. We don't say that "Climate Change" has been "characterized as a pseudoscience". Clearly, climate change is a carefully researched scientific subject (even if you happen to disagree with the conclusions it comes to). So even if you think the conclusions are incorrect, you should certainly agree that it's not a "pseudoscience". However, if as Wikipedia editors, we're being honest, and unbiassed and if this article truly is a list of topics that have merely been characterized as pseudoscience - then Climate Change belongs on the list. Because, to pick just one of dozens of examples, US Senator David Vitter (clearly a notable person) characterizes it as such when he calls it, quote: "ridiculous pseudo-science garbage". There are tons of WP:RS reporting him saying that (for example in "The Guardian" newspaper - which is a reputable, reliable source which doesn't make a habit of misquoting people: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/29/climate-committee-republicans). So, if we're being honest about this article, we must include Climate Change as one of the entries. Clearly we're not doing that because we all know in our hearts that it shouldn't be characterized as a pseudoscience and regardless of how Sen Vitter feels about the truth of it, he should not deny that armies of scientists are avidly studying the subject. But that's only because we're quietly ignoring the title of this article and behaving as if it's really "List of Pseudosciences".
3. Interestingly, we do say that the reverse ("Climate change denialism") is characterized as a pseudoscience. Isn't this just total bias on our behalf? Why do we arbitrarily decide to ignore one characterization and accept the other?
4. We do include "Water fuelled cars" on our list. The idea that you can fuel a car with water is clearly pseudoscientific. It's in complete violation of the laws of thermodynamics, the proponents of the idea most certainly do not follow the scientific method - and no reputable scientist agrees that the idea is true. It would clearly belong on "List of Pseudosciences" - and yes, it's on our current list. However, I don't see a reference to anyone "characterizing" it as a pseudoscience. I see an article that says that opponents of pseudoscience hate the idea of water fuelled cars - but they probably hate the idea of having raw broccoli for breakfast too. The truth is that the hypothesis that you can extract energy from water is indeed a pseudoscience, but nobody that we've managed to find has actually said so (the writer of our link has a degree in chemistry - but he's a journalist, not a practicing scientist with expertise in the field of thermodynamics). Water fuelled cars would definitely belong on "List of pseudosciences" - because we can show plenty of sources saying that thermodynamics says it's impossible. But you could certainly argue doesn't belong on this list because we can't find anyone who actually says that it's a pseudoscience.

Replacing this article with "List of pseudosciences" would force us to be more honest about sources. It would allow us to retain Water fuelled cars and exclude Climate change whilst keeping Climate change denialism. It would be a clean, factual list of what things truly are pseudosciences and which are not.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the examples you give don't demonstrated anything wrong here. Water-fuelled car and Climate change denialism are currently in, while Climate change is not. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

His point, I think, is that because of the current inclusion criteria climate change should be included -- and the only reason it isn't is because of POV -- whereas if the article name were changed it would be clearer that climate change should be excluded. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Under our present rules, "Climate change" should be included and "Water fuelled car" should not. Under my proposed change, "Climate change" could be legitimately excluded and "Water fuelled car" legitimately included - no change to the current content of the article - but without POV bias. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Howso? We still need references. What specifically is being proposed that changes what references we use and need? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Right now you need a reference that says that someone (could be anyone) said "X is a pseudoscience". The reference has to be from a reliable source (a newspaper, for example) - but the person making the statement can be an unqualified, biassed, unreliable kind of a person.

Under my proposed change, you'd need a reference that says directly that "X is a pseudoscience"...which (because of WP rules) would have to be a science journal or some qualified/reputable scientist saying it in print.

The difference isn't whether you do or do not need a reliable source - it's what the source has to demonstrate about the person making the claim. Right now, the reliable source only has to demonstrate that some random, unqualified person said "X is a pseudoscience" for it to get onto the list. In the approach I'm seeking to institute, the person saying "X is a pseudoscience" has to be a reliable source.

Doing this would change this list from the present rather useless list of topics that someone wants to bitch about - into an actual list of topics that are making scientific claims without following the scientific method. SteveBaker (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"A list of topics that are making scientific claims without following the scientific method." Gosh, haven't we got that already? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what we have here, and that's its purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

SteveBaker, that's not true. This isn't the first hyperbolic, denigrating, statement of this kind you've made about our sources. Haven't you looked at the inclusion criteria for where we should get our sources? We do try to vet them to some degree. We don't use just any type of source, as you claim. If you do find a source that's poor, then please replace it with a better one. The main article will usually have several to choose from. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"Under my proposed change, you'd need a reference that says directly that "X is a pseudoscience"...which (because of WP rules) would have to be a science journal or some qualified/reputable scientist saying it in print."

Thank you for the detailed explanation. So why propose that the reference be limited to "a science journal or some qualified/reputable scientist saying it in print"? Science journals and scientists focus their efforts on promising science, so it seems an extremely poor restriction. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The bar is raised so high that FRINGE and PARITY won't apply and scientific skeptic sources won't be allowed. Those guidelines were designed to allow use of good sources which this proposal will disallow. That's a policy violation. All policies and guidelines govern content here, and Steve will be excluding the use of some of them. Unfortunately, since science journals and bodies don't discuss or even mention pseudoscience very often, that will mean we will have a hard time finding sources for many of the obvious pseudosciences. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As Brangifer notes, there is WP:PARITY, which justified the exclusion of climate change. The sources saying it's real -- scientific academies, meeting our standards for academic consensus -- outweigh the opinions of any individual (let alone politicians, who aren't reliable for science) or self-selected group. And remember IAR: even if the letter of our self-imposed laws allowed climate change on the list, we wouldn't put it on, because we're writing an encyclopedia, not a tract about demarcation.

That said, PARITY also suggests the handful "questionable sciences" (per WP's criteria; cf. ArbCom above) should perhaps be flagged somehow. (Psychoanalysis; polygraphy; a couple more mainstream-ish alt-meds, e.g. some aspects of acupuncture.) That's because it's not just fringey proponents, but mainstream sources, that take them seriously: and those sources are of more-or-less equal parity with the sources that do demarcate them as pseudoscience. The expository text we have for these topics might be sufficient qualification, but we could be more explicit. But that wouldn't be worth it if it's going to lead to every topic's proponent clamoring to have their pet area so labelled. There's no ideal way. Demarcation is never straightforward for every single topic, though most topics on the list are clearly pseudo. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Water-fuelled car

Resolved

This seems to be an item which was included contrary to the inclusion criteria. I just took a look at the article Water-fuelled car and there isn't a single mention of pseudoscience. That needs to be fixed. RS must exist which do characterize it as such. Until that is done, it needs to be removed from this list. We can't allow OR to dictate what gets included here, without even a source. We not only follow the sources, we follow the existing articles. Article content and sources used there dictate whether we can include something here. When that is fixed it can be returned here, with proper sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because the EXACT word "pseudoscience" isn't used in the Water-fuelled car article doesn't mean that water-fueled cars isn't B.S. It takes some form of electricity or chemical reaction to split water into its components of hydrogen and oxygen. These are just a few links that I found via google in a few minutes, and I'm sure there are lots more out there. The bottom line is that it needs to be restored! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-06/local/me-13510_1_trial-date

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4271579

http://jalopnik.com/5944443/the-never+ending-dream-of-the-water+powered-car

http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam_faq.shtml

"there isn't a single mention of pseudoscience" in the article because the "fans" keep removing it[1][2]. Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, not the opinion of its editors. So put it back in, meets list criteria. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that it’s BS and pseudoscience. We are in agreement, but regardless of our feelings, we must do this properly. We always follow the sources, so this should be relatively easy to fix. The sequence to getting this restored is described at the link below.

I have mentioned the problem and created a thread there:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water-fuelled_car#Pseudoscience_isn.27t_even_mentioned_here

Brangifer (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, not the opinion of its editors." My point exactly! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, please remove your OR from the article and fix the problem first. It should be easy. Start at the main article and then restore the item here using a source that actually does clearly characterize it as pseudoscience. We really do need to ensure that RS have primacy over OR editorial opinion. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Added a second ref. Fixing the main article is a good idea (it desperately needs a "Criticism" section) but it is NOT a requirement to be listed here simply because "Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for any purpose". If a topic meets this list's definition then it gets listed here. We can't de-list an article simply because the article has gone through one (or many) edit changes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Just some extra reading through this: the statement "We not only follow the sources, we follow the existing articles" is actually contrary to WP:WPNOTRS. Wikipedia is an unreliable source and can not be used for any other articles content. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that I need to clarify my statement. Obviously our articles are not themselves RS. I've been around here for nearly ten years and we both know about WP:WPNOTRS, so I obviously must have meant something else. You should AGF and know that. My meaning of fixing the main article (which you grant is a good idea) first is based on the requirement for each item in a list to be notable and relevant (which can be established in two ways...see later).

Articles and lists are slightly different in that regard. Article "creation" is based on notability, while article content is based on RS, not notability. Lists are different, in that they require that each item is notable and also relevant for the list. In all cases, "RS always take primacy over editorial opinion" (one of my edit summaries directed at your OR in the article).

The two ways to establish notability and relevance for an item in a list are: (1) the item is notable enough to have its own article; (2) the item is accompanied with strong RS establishing relevance. Number two is because there are some types of things which cannot have their own articles, but are good enough for a list because of strong RS. In that case RS are enough. Otherwise we usually remove redlinks and require an item to first pass the gauntlet of article creation. In that process, RS are discovered and used, and if the article is strong enough to exist for any length of time, then we can also list the item in a relevant list, and accompany it with a couple of the best references which are "relevant". Why "relevant"? Because an article will have many types of references, but the list is on one topic, and the references must establish the relevance of the item for the list's topic. For this list, the item must have references which document "characterization as pseudoscience".

Right now neither ref mentions pseudoscience. The second ref, a book, uses the word ONCE in relation to cold fusion, but as a rebuttal against calling cold fusion pseudoscience! So we have patent OR based on editorial opinion in the article because those sources do not fulfill the inclusion criteria. Both sources should be removed (and the whole item removed until good sources can be found). The sources should likely be used in the main article. So the main article needs fixing. The article itself is not a RS, but the sources it uses can be, WHEN they are found.

I hope you now understand what I meant. If an item is too weak to be included here, that will be evident by the fact that its main article will not document that it has been characterized as pseudoscience. The very word won't even be in the article, and therefore the article should not be included in Category:Pseudoscience.

This makes evident the problem right here. We are agreed (our editorial opinion, which cannot substitute for RS) that Water-fuelled cars are BS and pseudoscience. I think that's abundantly clear. So why isn't that in the main article? We should fix that. If that cannot be fixed, it should not be included here. If it can be fixed, then it can be included here, together with a couple of the best refs which are relevant. Isn't that a good idea? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I see the word "pseudoscience" specifically in the lead in the first ref. I think WP:LABEL about covers it. We do not use the word "pseudoscience" in the main article because we have the room to give readers detailed information about relevant controversies, no need for a one word name. This list is the opposite, its a short-hand description/listdef and short entry and we are not "in doubt" (the article in question is in the category "Water-fuelled cars", a sub-category of "Pseudophysics" and calls the topic un-scientific in every section, but in a weaselly soft pedaled wording style). Category:Pseudophysics has a to the point set of reasons for inclusion in a list like this. The word being present is not a requirement enumerated anywhere in the guidelines and there will never be consensus so it will never be clear-cut. Should this list have a value-laden label in the title, combine a preponderance of the evidence to match to a short-hand description, or even exist? Not the question here (RCF above). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, you've won me over! As you are aware by now, my main concern is to avoid OR and editorial opinion being used instead of RS. In a case like this, I think we can be a bit lax with the exact wording in the RS because this subject falls in group 1, IOW "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more."

The combined weight of the sources screams every word we'd use to help us define pseudoscience, and this subject is "obviously bogus." The last words "without more" seem to indicate that RS aren't absolutely necessary. Why? Because the obviousness of the case justifies invoking IAR and just using common sense. We are all agreed that this is pseudoscience and we "may....label and categorize [it] as such..." Actually I'm rather happy that you win this one and have convinced me. Thanks for your persistence and good spirit. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This means that Water-fuelled car stays and can be categorized as pseudoscience here and elsewhere without violating the ArbCom decision, OR, or RS. I think we can mark this as resolved. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in the RfC, above - it doesn't matter a damned whether the subject is, or is not a pseudoscience. The present list demands only that a topic has been "characterized" as pseudoscience. That said, our one reference here does not say that it's a pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct on both points. RS are needed. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether someone actually uses the EXACT word "pseudoscience" isn't the point. Fraudulent Science = "Pseudo Science". Numerous articles and lawsuits have called it FRAUD / SCAM / BUNK, which means it is fake science, thus "water-fuelled vehicles" are pseudoscience! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Per my other comment in this edit, I agree with both of you. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Please summarize the outcome. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Water-fuelled car stays and can be categorized as pseudoscience here and elsewhere without violating the ArbCom decision, OR, or RS. I think we can mark this as resolved. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Though I've done a mountain of edits over the last few years, I'm still not aware of every Wikipedia acronym that is thrown around in some discussions. What is OR and RS? Is it "Original Research" and "Real Science"??? Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Half right! RS = reliable source. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved