Talk:Crystal healing

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aweeder13 (article contribs).

Removed Vatican ref on criticism

Pretty ironic that this article uses the vatican to debunk crystal healing. The sources were vatican published and not peer reviewed either so they're just as bad. I'm sure we can find better actual scientific sources instead of "Your magic is different from my magic and therefore invalid" Nefariousski (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Vatican was citing theology as if it were proof against crystal healing? Or is the "Your magic is different from my magic" line primarily derived from antipathy towards the Vatican? (Because given its position that evolution, among other science, is both entirely accurate and perfectly reconcilable with Biblical tradition, it is neither a settled point of logic, nor is it ever likely to be, the notion that the Catholic Church is somehow automatically incapable of reasoning scientifically, simply by virtue of it being a church.) 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

If crystal healing is pseudoscientific Then internet, tvs's, radios, mobile phones are all pseudoscientific seeing they use crystal technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.173.42 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC) That's like saying that smoking cures cancer, because smoke comes from the exhaust pipe of the car that takes the cancer surgeon to the hospital. --Westwind273 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC) By your logic it could be argued that consuming mercury is an effective healing practice because it is used in lots of electrical products, including some TVs. The argument defies logic. 120.151.30.225 (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC) I have reverted the changes to the opening line so that it includes the term "psuedoscientific". I think the opening paragraph need to accurately describe what this practice is ie. pseudoscience 120.151.30.225 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC) What is being suggested here is the very beginning of understanding crystal healing, "The rectifying property of crystals was discovered in 1874 by Karl Ferdinand Braun" used in early radios, crystals could receive radio waves without power and only a wired antenna, you would compress or decompress the crystal to receive the different frequencies, crystalline structures are formed in the earth many millions of years ago and hold different characteristics, you cannot see radio waves, does that mean they do not exist, it is in my opinion that this whole article is bypassing the very reality of the universe and our earth at whole, our understanding of crystals and waves of energy in our surrounding galaxy that science is still yet to even try and understand, the earth was flat once remember and electricity was a foolish hoax, placebo as science calls it still describes and proves to a great extent the power of the mind to heal the body, the mind and the consciousness is not able to be properly observed by science because is it not objective phenomena, is a subjective experience, something which even quantum physics continually tells us, when we believe and partner in the earth, its plants and its unique properties, we heal, we have only just proven gravitational waves in space, let alone the very unseen cosmic waves, people fear what they do not understand, one day people will view the history of this Wikipedia article and be grateful that we don't still live in the world that some of it contributors imagine we did, cold, soulless, hard hearted place with just scientific evidence and no spirit. "Imagination is more important than knowledge" Albert Einstein.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.230.222 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article not for general discussion of this pseudoscience. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What do crystals heal?

Please someone, say what do these crystals heal. Seems a good question to ask, and with a reference that contains reputable evidence the answer could be incorporated into the article. A few specifics? I don't want to guess for example that if I have a cut on my finger, is there a crystal that is proven to heal it? It not that kind of healing then what? P0mbal (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

-I think you miss the point, cystals do not heal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.139.85 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that last remark. To describe crystal healing as "pseudoscience" is generous in the extreme. "Outright quackery" and "cynical exploitation of the feeble-minded" would be nearer the mark for my money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.68.95 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Outright quackery" and "cynical exploitation of the feeble-minded", doesn't that also apply to religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.175.234 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No. No it doesn't. A person saying "I think this is a good way to live," is not exploiting anyone. A person saying "I think we should all pool our money to build a church together where we can have potlucks," is not exploiting anyone. A person saying "I think this religious text provides some good insights into human nature," is not exploiting anyone. A person doing those things together would be best characterized as expounding a religious belief system... and is not exploiting anyone. Your antipathy towards religious quacks does not make religion quackery. Rather, your illogic makes you a quack. 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I cut my finger on a crystal. --82.152.164.60 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

---

-In response, the article states that crystals are used to 'heal' a persons aura and chakras. The word 'heal', if one understands this practice, is truly a misnomer. There is no evidence to disprove that this therapy is not beneficial for humans, and plenty of evidence and situational testimony to show it may in fact contain some merit.

...just like sugar pills. 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There have in fact been double-blind, quadruple blind even, trials and tests documented by researchers at Athens state university, led by Joe H. Slate, PH.D., documented in a book entitled "Aura Energy - for Health Healing & Balance". The tests and studies first prove the existence of the Aura, the chakras, and their ability to be manipulated in such a way to show a positive result on subjects.

Furthermore, it has been suggested, "There is no evidence that anecdotal information is any less accurate then clinical information."^{1 1}http://www.townsendletter.com/Nov2009/hoffer1109.html

This article is referring to crystal therapy treatment of humans, while criticism only cites criticism towards treatment of animals. It's nearly erroneous to state without a real citation for criticism. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.180.29 (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

re charmstones

I've removed reference to charmstones since these are real artifacts of uncertain purpose. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclear

The paragraph

"When the stones are placed in the area of the chakras, the colour of the stones may correspond to the colour which is said to be associated with the corresponding chakra"

Seems to imply that the stones change color. I suspect that different colors are chosen to place on different areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content, changes that don't reflect cited sources etc

A series of edits has been made (and reverted) that removed sourced content, changed content in a manner that did not reflect the sources cited and removed tags without discussion and resolution. This is against policy. Discussion can be carried on here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, MrBill3. bobrayner (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrBill3, I think the items I tagged as buzzwords should be replaced with phrasing more easily understood by the casual reader. AadaamS (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

[buzzword]?

Why are "chakra" and "energy grid" marked as buzzwords? Wouldn't it be better to note (like an encyclopedia would) that proponents of energy healing are unclear on what specifically they mean by terms like these? Labeling these terms as buzzwords and calling them 'designed to impress or confuse' is little more than intellectual name-calling, and is ultimately just a rhetorical tactic devoid of actual logical substance; if a crystal-healing practitioner labelled the "pseudoscience" moniker with the tag "buzzword," what would be your defense?

Instead of resorting to labels that just perpetuate terminology-wars, encyclopedias are supposed to describe relationships and illuminate concepts. Accordingly, I am going to illuminate the concepts "chakra" and "energy grid" and reveal their lack of proper scientific well-definition, after which I will eliminate the rhetorical-intellectual name-calling (to avoid giving crystal healers any ideas about how they should fight rhetorically as a way to compensate for their inferior evidence). 2602:30A:C000:9590:A120:4BCB:96E4:E755 (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think these changes have improved the article and the points made above are valid. I didn't object to the tags as I felt further illumination was required. To my view that has been provided adequately and with a NPOV. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to improve the article. BTW I think your point on "pseudoscience" as a buzzword is worth serious consideration. Does it concisely convey a well understood meaning accurately applied or is it a condescending label applied with limited support or illumination? Obviously something to be considered on a case by case basis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my objection to using terms such as chakra is that first of all, it's not an English word to begin with. If I were to write an article about bœuf bourguignon I wouldn't try to use the phrase "bœuf bourguignon" throughout the article, I would refer to the dish because in Wikipedia we should use plain English, WP:UPE. IN this case, instead of writing "place crystals according to chakra" I would prefer "the practicioner places crystals on parts of the body". That's what factually happens. My defence for the word pseudoscience would involve using simpler English, like unscientific. My understanding is that we shold avoid jargon that only experts in the field understand, I think this is a good place to apply this. Thanks for raising the issue. So I don't think it helps much to give a more precise definition of what practicioners (or believers) mean by chakra and then using the word throughout the article. All instance of the word ought to be replaced by something in English, then of course a sentence or paragraph of the article can deal with a brief summary of what is meant by the term chakra. There's already a main article about chakra. AadaamS (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Magnetocardiography

Some practicioners refer to the electromagnetic fields created by the heart and brain in the context of crystal healing. I don't want to do the work of making this info encyclopedic myself, but it should be a part of this article :)

And then we could link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetocardiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.197.67 (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources first (and that might be rather a problem), but if you "don't want to do the work ..." - aw well. Vsmith (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Appologetics

This repeatedly restored edit upends the mainstream opinion presented in this article on the fringe idea discussed. "Crystal healing" is a fringe theory which departs significantly from mainstream science and has little or no scientific support. As a result, "chakras" are "so-called", the "energy grid" is "purported" and "scientific investigations have not validated claims that chakras or energy grids actually exist".

Efforts to promote and defend the practice have no place here. Wikipedia exists to present the proponents' fringe, pseudoscientific claims as fringe pseudoscience and the relevant scientific/academic consensus as science. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for page protection. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word Pseudoscience in the first line

I think the use of the word pseudoscience right off the bat here is highly emotive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Criticism_of_the_term

Your average person on the street does not know this word or its meaning, and it is a word used by those of a skeptical inclination primarily. I have found myself checking the definition of the word from different sources as it seems quite broad and I am not sure what this word is trying to communicate a lot of the time.

I cannot see how this "definitive" label is useful in the first sentence can be justified whatsoever. I believe it can be used later in the article, even in the homeopathy wikipedia entry it is the 2nd sentence AND also explains what "pseudoscience" is, as "a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific." In the acupuncture entry pseudoscience is the last line of the 1st paragraph.

I think crystal healers (I saw one 15 years ago and believe the man was completely deluded btw), have no inclination to be scientific whatsoever. It is excruciatingly clear however that crystal healers present claims which cannot be scientifically validated.

Although "crystal healing" may be a convenient scapegoat for "alternative medicine" by skeptics, a search for "crystal healers in your local community on google will likely only come up with a handful of people and they will often be utilising other modalities as well.

Probrooks (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's "emotive"? Maybe, but so what? I'm sure there are tens of thousands of articles that right off the back arouse strong emotions in anywhere from a scant few to most readers.

The average person doesn't know what the word means? Doubtful. It's generally accepted that newspapers are written for the average reader. A quick search of nytimes.com finds thousands of articles with the term. The first page of that search has the term in the headline.Case in point:[1] (and yes, crystal healing is included).

Usage of the term varies? Sure, language is like that. I literally cannot think of an exception.

It's not "definitive". This takes us back to the last point: I'm not sure what you mean. If you are saying it's arguable, I refer you to WP:FRINGE. As the relevant academic sources make clear, this is nonsense on stilts and we call a spade a spade on fringe topics. If you are saying it isn't a defining aspect of crystal healing, I invite you to consider if "alternative medicine" is. There are certainly people trying to use the non-existent energy for other than medical purposes. Heck, we have reports of people using glass for this (which doesn't change the outcome), which is neither stone nor crystals. That said, "crystal healing", variations aside, uses imaginary energy "focused"/controlled/created/regulated by crystals to treat real or imagined medical complaints. Without casting aside variations, it is pseudoscience as various forms of energy are controlled/created/regulated in various ways in science. Crystal healing makes testable (scientific) claims. None of them hold up.

Other articles put it further down? Perhaps we should argue that they should move it further up based on this article? Maybe those articles are right. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are differing questions.

There is no need for searching to find "scapegoats" in alternative medicine. The field ranges from plausible but untested claims to outright nonsense. There is no shortage of ideas anywhere along that spectrum. Each claim should stand on its own. If it's utter bullshit, we should (bot often don't) bury it on its own lack of merits. If it is verified, it is no longer "alternative". That "practitioners" combine it with other pseudoscience (and, on occasion, mainstream science (often without a license)) is immaterial. (Serving a homeopathic "treatment" for drowsiness along with coffee in the morning and sleep hygiene at night doesn't change the simple fact that homeopathy is nonsense.)

If you disagree, I'd recommend the fringe theories noticeboard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(I have reformatted the following response to undo interspersing of comments within my own, per WP:TALK.)

I don't have a major problem with the word being used in the article, as I understand the official position on fringe topics. But I think labeling crystal healing in the first sentence with a slightly esoteric and controversial term I think is also going to confuse people and is not clear communication.

I always thought the world meant, "masquarading and pretending to be science", but there seems to be this wider definition, which means not verified by modern mainstream science. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/

ok, if usage is not clear and this word is more than a bit fuzzy, why are you defending its use in the first sentence? Why should this change be such a big deal?

One academic source is cited here, please do share others if you know of others.

Perhaps you can improve this article by explaining some of the claims made by crystal healers? I am aware there are claims made for cystals you see in New Agey shops. But I haven't come across this elsewhere.

Obviously, they are all alternative medicine. However, I would say, in the real world, as I already stated, I don't think many people actually go see a crystal healer to treat medical conditions. They might go see a crystal healer to open some chakras... but even then, where are secondary sources for scientific claims made by crystal healers? The only claims I can find are made by Marcel Vogel who was a bone fide scientist with real contributions made to his field with 27 years working for IBM and many significant patents. http://www.vogelcrystals.net/legacy_of_marcel_vogel.htm

Well, many people disagree with your personal point of views, but you already know that I am sure ;-)

Disagreeing is pointless on wikipedia, what is more relevant is secondary sources and clear editing. I think wording is important, how something is communicated, it has already been talked about here that the word pseudoscience is something of a buzzword and one user here has also stated that even the word pseudoscience in regards to crystal healing is generous here, which also tells us of the confusing nature of this word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias

Ok, so the word pseudoscience can be used as an exception to words that create bias, but it is also clearly a biased one, and so should be used judiciously, one that is unnecesary to use in the first sentence. It is enough to say "there is no scientific basis for this claim." which is said in the 2nd sentence, which clearly communicates all that the reader needs to know.

Probrooks (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A "slightly esoteric and controversial term"? The term is widely used, as evidenced by its appearance in mainstream newspapers' headlines. There is no controversy in labeling fringe claims as what they are, other than to the degree that fringe sources disagree with the mainstream.

The usage/meaning is no less clear than that of the majority of terms in every article. Yes, "new agey shops" are one of several places this woo is to be found. The practice there is no less valid that that of "practitioners" with independent businesses. The problem with clarifying the variations of the nonsense is that reliable sources don't really delve into it, saying little more than that this is nonsense. While numerous self-published books by self-declared experts prattle on about imaginary meridians, imaginary energies, imaginary "chakras", etc., Wikipedia specifically and deliberately limits its coverage of fringe claims based on what mainstream sources have to say.

Yes, various words create bias: "pseudoscience", "murder", "theft", "genocide", etc. Nevertheless,

With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline, fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. WP:LABEL

A quick check of scholar.google.com shows no shortage of academic sources that have no problem calling crystal healing pseudoscience. This is not limited based on whether it is being hawked in new age-y shops or by "practitioners". This is not limited based on the use of actual crystals or polished rocks. This is not limited based no whether claims are for actual illnesses (cancer, arthritis, HIV/AIDS, etc.) or nonsensical babble (blocked "chakras"). At the moment, the article has one peer-reviewed journal that labels it and several mainstream publications. Yes, we need more academic sources. Are you disputing that such sources use the label? If so, that can be step #1.

(Incidentally, that Vogel made valuable contributions to science with patents and other work in the field of luminescence obviously has no bearing whatsoever in unrelated fields. Julia Childs was, by all accounts, one hell of a cook, but I wouldn't trust her opinions on luminescence or medicine any more than I'd trust Vogel on medicine or French cooking.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that using a label in the first sentence is effective communicating. It is more useful to communicate what something IS first of all, rather than a certain ideologies say it is. I would say "pseudoscientific" is a skeptic buzzword, used in THAT context. Newspaper headlines and newspapers will tend to use the word to truly denote that which is attempting to be scientific (but deceptively is not, for example women's cosmetics)

Basically, this word doesn't really say anything too much but present a dismissive point of view. The point is made clearly, again and again in the article that there is no scientific evidence that crystals don't do anything according to modern day science. The use of "pseudoscience" as a fourth word in this article with a citation to a skeptical web site just makes discriminating, thinking people, think that wikipedia is trying to tell them exactly what to think about something and so is likely to work against wikipedia in the long term.

Probrooks (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

In the lead, we are saying it is pseudoscience because the lead summarizes the article which, as you said, explains again and again that this is pseudoscience. That is what the lead does: it summarizes the article.

Yes, a "certain ideology" says it is pseudoscience. That ideology is mainstream science. Wikipedia discusses fringe ideas in the context of mainstream science, so Wikipedia should state clearly and without reservation that this pseudoscience is pseudoscience. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic

Yes, the Bible mentions people using crystals as amulets. We do not have reliable sources that discuss this as "crystal healing", the topic of this article.

Yes, there is a source that says people believe that jade has healing properties. Yes we can say that jade is a crystal. For this article, however, we cannot include either as we do not have a reliable source which states that this belief is part of "crystal healing".

Let me try this another way. I have a friend with dangerously low blood pressure. His doctor wants him you eat more salt. We cannot add this to the article because we do not have a reliable source calling this "crystal healing" -- even though salt is a crystal and it is being used for "healing". Heck, jade is a chemical and we wouldn't add that bit to Chemotherapy, though I'm sure people have tried to "treat" their cancer with jade. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought this was a good addition to the topic of "crystal healing". (if this topic was to be taken in anyway seriously) However, as the guy who started wikipedia said that all alternative healing is BS, and that this topic is an obvious patsy for skeptico views pertaining to flaky woo woo, you can't really go outside the realm of that patsydom. Therefore any claim of any hint of legitimacy to the "power of crystals" is clearly unacceptable on wikipedia, even though pretty much all cultures may have used crystals, and attributed power to them, they obviously didn't have science to tell them crystals are just pretty rocks. Even if you were to find some decent references, making changes to this article which in anyway communicates there is any validity or effectiveness to crystals is going to be an uphill battle at best!

Hope this helps!

Probrooks (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The addition being discussed here was adding off-topic material. That a culture believes a particular crystal is important for health is not the topic here. This article is about the practice of using stones and crystals of various sorts to in some way change some kind of "energy" in the body. We do not have sources connecting that belief system with ancient beliefs that crystals were effective talismans, jade as a cultural charm or salt as a treatment for low blood pressure because these are all unrelated.

Yes, WP:FRINGE claims will be treated as fringe. Otherwise, we are forced to deal with a landslide of conflicting beliefs. Crystals for healing? No, all illness is caused by "subluxations" in the spine? No, all illness is caused by the person's failure to believe in the healing power of a particular god or gods? No, all illness is caused by failure to eat a specified diet?

Instead, we report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say some people/practitioners believe X, Y and Z about crystal healing. Reliable sources say this is pseudoscience. Reliable sources also say that humans have walked on the Moon, the Earth goes around the Sun, smoking is bad for your health, humans need food to survive, the queen of England is not a human/alien hybrid, the Holocaust happened, etc. We report that some small groups disbelieve all of these things. We also report that reliable sources say they are likely mistaken. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

not impressed by this article

i use wikipedia as an encyclopedia, to learn about things. i wanted to learn about crystal healing, but this article basically keeps saying "no proof - doesnt work - no proof - doesnt work" over and over, totally biased thinking. what about types of crystals used, different methods, places that offer healing? 79.76.101.224 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject. As this is a WP:FRINGE topic, we present in-universe information only to the extent that independent sources report it.

Yes, there are various groups and individuals claiming to be the authority on "legitimate" crystal healing, but there really isn't a central regulatory agency.

The importance of this is that we can say what, for example, dentists do. In most jurisdictions, to call yourself a "dentist", you have to go to a recognized dental school, pass a licensing exam and (I'm guessing) meet on-going continuing educational requirements. Otherwise, you aren't a dentist. The recognized professional bodies for dentists are pretty well established.

If, OTOH, you want to be a "crystal healer", you pretty much need only hang up a sign and avoid running afoul of laws about making medical claims. If you want to join an organization, go for it. If not, don't. If you want to go completely off the rails and replace anything that could conceivably be called a "crystal" with "prayer-infused holy water" or trade in the "healing" thing for making tasty soups, no one can stop you from calling yourself a "crystal healer" anyway.

As a result, independent reliable sources frequently say (with reasonable basis) what dentists do. The American Dental Association certainly has a statement on the efficacy of water fluoridation. Similar bodies in other countries, relevant journals, dental schools, the university press, mass media, etc. may or may not agree with that position, but again, they can state with reasonable authority what most dentists believe.

There is no reasonable way to say what crystal healers think of a particular mineral. I'm sure there are some with widely supported beliefs. I'd be shocked if there aren't significant contradictions and disputes.

If you run across any coverage in independent reliable sources, please bring them here. (Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia generally won't use much from publishers whose main focus is fringe topics.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Disturbed by this article.

I find many articles on Wikipedia regarding subjects such as alternative medicine and the supernatural to be annoyingly insistent on the use of the term, "pseudoscience." This article is a particularly troubling example.

The use of the term here seems meant to dismiss the entire subject--as if there is nothing to learn or know about it. In fact, crystal healing is a practice long engaged in by human beings, and therefore has, to start with, value as an anthropological subject.

The statement, "Energy as a scientific term is a very well-defined concept that is readily measurable and bears little resemblance to the esoteric concept of energy used by proponents of crystal healing" is nothing short of preposterous in this context. First, most people would agree that phenomena exist that are non-measurable. Love would be an example.

Secondly, words have more than one meaning, and "energy" as used by New Age practitioners has a very different meaning from that of a physicist.

Dismissing as pseudoscience such concepts as the chakra and healing modalities that are widely practiced in Asia and by indigenous peoples displays a truly aggravating level of closed-mindedness and a most unscientific, unscholarly prejudice. Vapor1111 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah pseudoscience is too kind for the bullwhoppers such folk promote. Vsmith (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Vapor1111: Crystal healing makes testable claims, rests on a claimed "energy" that shows no sign of existing and produces results that do not stand up to scrutiny. As a result, independent reliable sources say crystal healing is a pseudo-science. As a result of that, Wikipedia says that independent reliable sources say it is a pseudo-science.

Anthropologists examine belief systems on a fairly regular basis. Some of the beliefs are clearly contrary to reality. It's not a problem.

We've had this discussion repeatedly in other places. User:SummerPhDv2.0/Fringe reviews common outcomes.

At present, Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources. That is unlikely to change. If you'd like to create your own encyclopedia (starting with all or some of Wikipedia's content and software), you can easily do so. I would suggest you are in for a hell of a ride when the claims of various articles create fundamental conflicts. (Is all illness the result of spirits trapped humans by a nuclear explosion, small bends in your spine, eating dead food or not flushing out your colon regularly? Maybe the spirits live in the dead food trapped in your colon by small bends in your spine?) Good luck. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2, I doubt that dismissing entire areas of human activity as pseudoscience is Wikipedia policy. It appears that someone has, instead, hacked numerous articles dealing with such topics by repeatedly labeling them as pseudoscience. As to why, I can only speculate that this kind of pseudointellectualism gives some folks the jollies. Nothing that you have said addresses the real concerns I raised--that the practice of crystal therapy is something that human beings of various cultures do and that it therefore merits a serious, objective, factual, detailed overview using independent, reliable sources. This would take serious work by objective scholars and I am afraid your silliness, as reflected in the above post, does not qualify you for the job. Finally, my criticism of this and other such subjects treated in the same manner, by, one suspects, one person or perhaps a small coterie of college freshmen with time on their hands does not constitute a dismissal of the entire Wikipedia enterprise, and that particular gambit makes me suspect that you are, in fact, Donald Trump.