Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

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

Proposed major editing.

The file size of this page is HUGE! I suggest cutting it way down by doing the following. Since all the topics have WP pages that already explain why they are pseudoscience I recommend that all of the topics on this page be reduced to just one line with no references. They are already linked to where the topic is discussed in full. It is duplication to have the same references here and on the topic pages. A note can be made at the top of the page explaining where to go to find the details for the different topics. And a comment can be added at the top warn editors not to add details to this page but to go to the topic pages. SmittysmithIII (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it is a hassle to try to edit around the tons of references here, although it is nice to have them together here in case they get lost in the parent article. Dunno. a13ean (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It used to be that way until someone started adding citation tags. See [1]. As AL3ean says, sources in the parent article can get lost. We need source explicitly calling these pseudoscience, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that instead of just having sources which "call" these pseudoscience, the main articles need to be written in such a way that 'show' that they are pseudoscience. Anybody can "call" something pseudoscience. That doesn't really mean a whole lot. And displaying credentials don't mean much either, that just seems like bragging. Showing it and making it obvious takes more time and effort, but is more likely to be effective than just "name calling" as some might see this page. This page should be like a disambiguation page pointing to where to find the evidence presented in the articles. As it is, it is too unwieldy and few are likely to read or search through it to find what they are looking for. The search engine is not going to bring up this page when looking for, say, acupuncture. Instead, it will go directly to the acupuncture page, and unless that page says that it is pseudoscience, no one will know. They certainly are unlikely to try to find this list to see acupuncture called pseudoscience. It is the responsibility of those who edit the main articles listed here to make sure that claims of pseudoscience are clearly made on them. If not, someone's not doing their job. If it is important to the editors of this page that an article be on this list, then it ought to be important to them too that the main articles clearly state pseudoscience. If not, does the article need to be listed here? I'm still all for heavily reduction of this page. With a note to editors who call for citation tags that if they want to see proof they need to go to the main articles. Unless an article clearly states it is pseudoscience, it does not belong on this list. SmittysmithIII (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Smittysmith, there is a problem with showing that something "is" a pseudoscience. Wikipedia can't do this. It can only document that there are people (and groups) who have stated that something is a pseudoscience. That's what this list does. The length is no problem because much of the seeming length is the references, and each item can be read independently of the rest. It's a valuable reference page, as are many lists at Wikipedia. I see no need for changing it, and definitely not for abbreviating it. That would reduce its usefulness. We've seen such attempts before, and they were a slippery slope designed to eventually delete the list entirely. If you don't see its value, you don't need to read it, edit it, or concern yourself with it. Leave it for those who do find it of value. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If something is pseudoscience it should be easy to document with reliable sources why it is pseudoscience, without violating OR. That would be far more valuable and useful that just someone saying, "Yep its pseudoscience, trust me." I have no trouble with things being pseudoscience, but I like being treated like I have brains. No need to get defensive. I've been cleaning up citations and references to make everything easier to read and edit. I have no problem with lists, but it seems like there is a lot of duplication, much the same information can be found on the topic pages. I'm not trying to removing any topic from the list, just trying to find a better way for the list to exist. SmittysmithIII (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue of having "characterized as" in the title is one that I've complained about frequently in the past. The problem with the present formulation is that the name of the article is there just to make it easier for us to maintain it...not for general usefulness to the readership - which is a terrible reason to stick with the current name. My big concern is that people come to this list, pick an entry and go "Wow! XYZ is a pseudoscience!"...which would be an interesting and useful piece of information...were it not for the fact that this is not at all what this article claims! The correct response is "Huh! Someone out there (possibly with no qualifications, possibly with humorous or ironic intent, possibly mistakenly) once claimed that XYZ is a pseudoscience!"...which is a really useless and unsurprising piece of information! So read strictly, this list is at best utterly useless - and at worst, horribly misleading.

For this list to be useful to people, it really does need to be "List of pseudosciences" - even if that's harder for us to maintain/source.

To be perfectly clear: I am not a follower of some pseudo-science who would simply prefer to gloss over the fact that my belief system is a pseudo-science by taking this article down. I'm concerned that we're misleading the public for our own editorial convenience. If these topics have been characterized as pseudoscience in reliable sources per WP:RS - then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, they are pseudosciences. If the characterization is not in a 100% reliable source (like a peer-reviewed scientific journal) then perhaps we shouldn't list them here anyway...right now, we can because we may have something like (say) a self-published book, which cannot serve as a reference to say that XYZ is a pseudoscience - but can serve as a reference to say that the author of that book definitely did characterize XYZ as a pseudoscience. Fixing that (and changing the title of the list) may result in an incomplete list - but at least it won't be a misleading one, and the resulting message will be much stronger.

That said, we have never had consensus for my point of view - so unless a good number of editors have changed their minds recently - it's fairly pointless to try to change that.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations can come and go on articles, which is one reason we don't use other articles as sources. This article needs its own sources. That's the way Wikipedia works. If there are articles listed here which don't have sources saying they are pseudoscience, that's a problem with that article but not a reason to keep the subject off the list. This is not a list of articles but of subjects. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The medical section is over half of the artical by volume (number of characters). Could it be possible to put it on a sub page with a link to it? Like: List of ...../Medical SmittysmithIII (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP has an existing policy (actually a "content guideline") about this... it's worth consulting in the context of this discussion. --Seduisant (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with this, and I haven't a clue why you bring it up now.  ?? SmittysmithIII (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The actual volume of the article text itself is quite small though; it's not that long to read. Splitting the article would mean taking a small article and making some even smaller ones. The citations may seem overly long but then it is one of the most controversial and contentious subjects on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppets

SmittysmithIII (talk · contribs), who has made 357 edits to this article, and Sacramentosam (talk · contribs) are blocked as sockpuppets. As they were evading a block, their edits may be reverted. I'd be in favor of reverting all the way back[2] and then making any useful fixes. This is a prolific puppetmaster and success only encourages him. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This messing with the citations and making other changes inbetween was very subtle -- I saw all the edits happening and didn't think anything of it until Machine Elf brought it up [here]. That sounds like a reasonable start. a13ean (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Masaru Emoto

The ideas of Masaru Emoto need mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

BDORT

The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT) needs mentioning. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC) This list have Applied Kinesiology as its own category under Health and Medicine rather than a subset of Chiropractics. BDORT would be a good example of a topic which could be a subset of Applied Kinesiology. Another example would be NAET which uses Applied Kinesiology for allergy diagnoses. 68.120.89.89 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)