Talk:Faith healing

Christian Science section deleted then restored

I agree with the previous post. Anyone who understands Christian Science knows that it is not a "faith cure." The Christian Science section in this article had many errors of fact, with missing and incorrect cross-references. It has been deleted. Bblandford (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the removed section and added some references. Although the section reads much like OR based on primary sources, there are multiple reliable secondary sources that identify Christian Science practices as a form of faith healing. I added a few. Here's another with some analysis that could be used to replace the OR.

• Hickey, Kenneth S.; Lyckholm, Laurie (2004). "Child welfare versus parental autonomy: medical ethics, the law, and faith-based healing" (PDF). Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 25 (4): 265–76. doi:10.1007/s11017-004-3137-7. PMID 15637946.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest Christian Science might be better classified as "Spiritual Healing." The term "Faith Healing" suggests that the patient must have both belief in the theology, and faith in its healing efficacy, and that is not always the case in my experience. q.v. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures page 139 lines 28-3. Bblandford (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As above, multiple reliable sources use "faith healing" to describe CS practices so it clearly belongs in this article. On WP we follow the sources not an editor's idea of what is "suggested" or their personal experience. Some better explanation could certainly be provided. As above much of the section on CS seems to be OR. Feel free to propose better content with appropriate sources. The sources I have lightly perused seem to refer to CS as clearly at one end of a spectrum of faith healing. A more concise better explanation of CS beliefs/practices should be provided with discussion of them as "faith healing" as represented in the sources per due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The is the most slanted article I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

Purportedly there are many other articles where commonly known facts are stricken for lack of a citation. I have seen any glimmer of wit or imagination suppressed. For those reasons I will continue to check this article to amaze myself. Also note basic grammar dictates using an adjective to modify a noun. Mea (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you for speaking out. Bblandford (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There are many facts that are stricken because of citation, and indeed, imagination and wit are not something found on Wikipedia. The reasons for that are because Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. If this was a work of literature the rules would be entirely different. However, because it is an encyclopedia, it needs to state facts. Specifically facts that can be verified by sourced material, so unsourced material is commonly removed. Wikipedia's goal is not to represent fact, but to represent sources that are stating things as fact. This allows the reader to gather their own understanding. I agree that some articles show a biased opinion based on references cited, however you have to realize that this is the nature of this type of project. Also, many adjectives are used to describe their descriptor in one view or another. Usually this is not something that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Indeed, even in literature agents are often leery of too many adjectives (especially -ly words). Wikipedia has created its own guidelines that it follows for such things which may not conform to standard literature practices. But these are the rules that it follows to operate the way that it does. Most of these points can be found in the policies pages linked from the welcome page at WP:WEL.

Also, Bblandford: Thanks for your edits moving the document to a more neutral point of view. Dromidaon (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Faith healing is purported ie: claimed, asserted not simply believed. The advocates of faith healing make claims not merely hold beliefs thus the correct term is purported. "Purported healing" is far more accurate than therapy as therapy has a clear implication of benefit. Insertion of "by it's critics" is not appropriate in an encyclopedia the reference citation provides the needed attribution and the description of the authors as "critics" of faith healing is OR. We don't describe each of the proponents, believers or advocates as such we don't describe those who assess and categorize faith healing as critics unless there are reliable independent sources which do so. "outside the boundaries of conventional medicine" is also OR and not an accurate reflection of what is in the sources. This is the reason I have reverted the recent series of edits as they have now been contested please provide policy based rationale supported by RS before restoring them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Purported is a non-neutral word. It carries with it the indication that the claim is false, which not everyone can agree with, and which Wikipedia cannot state. The definition from the Oxford Dictionary is "Appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess".[1] Perhaps the better word here is simply "claimed", which is defined as "State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof".[2] This is a word that both sides agree with, both those who claim it and those who claim it does not exist.

In addition, the classification of Faith Healing cannot be agreed with by all parties. I recommend changing the sentence "Faith healing is classified as an example of paranormal magical thinking" to "To many, faith healing is classified as an example of paranormal magical thinking." We have references at the end of the sentence to indicate the "who". This is a statement that both sides agree with. Dromidaon (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Dromidaon. Faith healing - if you include spiritual healing, Reiki, 'healing' (qv NFSH in the UK), and traditional (ie tribal) medecine - is practised by millions of people all round the world, many of whom have no access to conventional medicine. So it is not just a belief of an insignificant minority. Bblandford (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a better opening would be "Faith healing is the generic term used for prayer, meditation, incantations or rituals for therapeutic purposes, either as a substitute for, or in conjunction with, conventional medical treatment." I think that is pretty neutral. What do you think? Bblandford (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think your statement reads better than the existing lead, and that it is neutral in tone, however not everyone believes that it is used for therapeutic purposes. Many people believe in literal, miraculous healing, and the current lead describes this better. If we could include this in your sentence without making one massive run on sentence, then I would be all for it.

In the mean time, I have updated the article with the suggestions I recommended earlier, given that we have waited a sufficient amount of time for those with thoughts on the matter to chime in. It appears we have reached a consensus. Dromidaon (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well done. I would also suggest we collect together all the critical paragraphs of this article together, and put them under the section labelled "Criticism". This will leave the differing approaches desribed in the main body of the article without bias, and acceptable to the respective adherents and their healers. Bblandford (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal in direct contradiction of the core policy WP:NPOV which states, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents." and "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." It is also in contradiction of the policy What Wikipedia is not. WP does not base article content or structure to be "acceptable to the respective adherents and their healers". WP is an encyclopedia that presents the facts about the subjects it covers as due based on reliable sources. Again I would insist that purported is the appropriate term for claimed healing that is not substantiated in reliable sources. It is not merely claimed the claims have been evaluated and analyzed by reputable sources and found wanting to say the least. What many people believe is not the basis for factual content or factual descriptions, the published reliable sources are what WP uses. WP does not whitewash the published facts or evaluations of the mainstream scientific and academic community to avoid offending it presents these prominently and proportionately as represented in published reliable sources. This is core policy and it is what WP is, an encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources do not say "to many"

The insertion of the qualifier "to many" to the sentence "Faith healing is classified as an example of paranormal magical thinking." is an addition of an editorial comment that is not present in the sources. This is original research/editorial commentary not supported by published sources. The onus for including such a comment is on the editor who wishes to include it and the requirement is to provide a source which supports the comment. Challenged content should not be restored until policy based consensus has been reached. The interpretation of NPOV given to support this insertion is flawed. WP does not say "to many" unless the sources do, adding editorial qualifiers that do not reflect the sources is original research. Before restoring such content again, provide a source which supports the statement that is of proportionate prominence and quality as the textbook cited. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

MrBill3, I reverted your change which removed the "To many" before your comment was posted. I think we need to come to a consensus on what needs to be stated before changing it. The fact is that there are many who do not classify faith healing as "paranormal magical thinking", even thought the source cited does. I assume this would be a common understanding, however I can certainly find sources that disagree with that statement if needed. Since the sentence is not a direct quote, adding the "To many" seems appropriate to make the article more neutral in tone. This seems like the best compromise to both me and Bblanford, however not to you. Therefore I would like to get some additional authors input. In the mean time I will find the sources you have requested. Dromidaon (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do bring sources when presenting facts. Also note the policy No original research particularly regarding quality of sources and synthesis. It states, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Adding "to many" is analysis not stated by the sources. My re-removal was before my post here and was based on a failure to adhere to core policy. I appreciate your collegial work on this talk page. Please read the WP:NPOV policy carefully. I understand your argument is based on "Impartial tone" but I think it is an over reach. The emphasis of the policy is clearly that viewpoints in published reliable sources be represented fairly and proportionately. Note the extensive discussion of due weight and the explanation of bias in sources. See also the Verifiability policy which states, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". The verifiability policy also provides guidance on evaluating the quality of sources and an explanation that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Where biomedical information the WP:MEDRS guideline is also applicable. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read the paper by Michael Martin of Boston University, he mentions dowsing, Bermuda triangle and several other pseudosciences before he covers faith healing in two brief paragraphs. He addresses the methodology of verification of its claims, rather than criticising its practice. I have not read his views anywhere else. Perhaps it would be more accurate to state: " to "To Michael Martin of BU ..." ;) Bblandford (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a follow up, I have not had much time to spend on researching this subject. In the time that I have had, here is what I have found:

• Paranormal literally means "beyond normal", generally meaning "not scientifically explainable".([3]) It is usually used to describe things like ghosts, UFOs, and psychics. For the most part, faith healing would match this description.
• Michael Martin's paper mentions faith healing in one place, in which he does classify it as Paranormal.
• Magical thinking is classified as "a conviction that thinking is equivalent to doing"([4]) and "a belief that merely thinking about an event in the external world can cause it to occur".([5]). This seems to be in contradiction to some of the cited sources in this article. For example, both the Catholic and Latter-day saints sections both have references that indicate that faith healing should include action in addition to faith([6],[7])
• Magical thinking is a definition to diagnose mental disorders, but excludes grounded religious beliefs. According to psychologist Lisa Fritscher "it is important to note that magical thinking must be considered in context. For example, a belief in the paranormal could be seen as magical thinking. However, many religious and cultural traditions believe in the existence of spirits, demons and other entities. A person from such a background should not be diagnosed with magical thinking based solely on a belief in such entities. ... It is not magical thinking to put forth a theory, provided that the person expresses understanding that the theory is not necessarily 'rational' by today's scientific logic."([8])
• Several other journals seem to reflect the same rational definition, that magical thinking is defined on context. ([9], [10]).
• Other journals lump it all into the same category, assuming that any religious belief is considered irrational. It appears there are some who consider it one way, and some who consider it another.
• The cited article on Magical Thinking doesn't appear to address faith healing. I can only see the abstract. I have to assume that it does, but from the abstract it appears to address "the atypical group expressing beliefs in more personal responsibility, a stronger belief in a fully-determined universe, a greater belief in reincarnation, and a lower differentiation score." Does anyone have access to this article to confirm that it addresses faith healing?

Therefore I purpose that we reword the sentence to something along these lines: "Faith healing can be classified as a paranormal event, and, in some cases, as magical thinking." Thoughts? Dromidaon (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I like your suggestion, Dromidaon, but let's keep in mind that whilst scepticism about faith healing may be widespread, it is not the majority view - at least in the US: "According to a [2005] Newsweek Poll, 72 percent of Americans ... say they believe that praying to God can cure someone, even if science says the person doesn’t stand a chance". Perhaps we should include that reference?

On the speciics, is faith healing paranormal? Yes - as "normal" means "in accordance with generally accepted laws of material science." Is it pseudo-scientific? - probably not, as most faith healers do not claim to be using scientific principles. Is it magic? Not quite sure what that means - maybe "superstitious" is better? How about: "Faith healing is regarded by most people as a paranormal phenomenon (insert refs), or, in some cases, as sheer superstition. Nevertheless ..." (insert quote above).

Incidentally I think the Michael Martin paper MrBill3 quotes, previously available in full, free of charge, has become so popular that the publisher of the journal in which it appears has now put it on a pay-to-view basis, all but the first two pages. The power of Wiki, eh?Bblandford (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Here's a good question: Do we even need the sentence in the article? We have already categorized faith healing in the first sentence as "supernatural or spiritual". Yes, it's sourced, but does it really benefit the article at all? It seems to me that it may just be one way someone can throw in another classification to suit someone's stance on the subject. Dromidaon (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think yes the sentence is required as an explicit explanation of the mainstream academic/scientific consensus on the subject as required per NPOV/FRINGE etc. Lacking the kind of strong sources required for a WP:REDFLAG claim the assertion that the phenomenon actually occurs or that events occurring in reality are attributable to the belief is not appropriate. Your proposed sentence includes/implies such by describing it as an event. It also contains vagueness in "can be" rather than "is". Again there is an implication/assertion that this actually occurs by saying "in some cases". The suggestion that some adherents suggest action in addition does not delete the substance of the belief that thinking causes effect, this is the fundamental aspect of faith healing, adjuvants do not remove the assertion of effect of primary treatments. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Being the fact that it is classified as paranormal is an assertion that the event occurs. The paranormal article literal starts with "Paranormal events are". I don't think that we need to avoid the assertion that the event occurs as long as it is clear that it also may not occur. We point out in the article that there are plenty of views for both sides. I also disagree that this is the academic/scientific consensus, at least on the magical thinking classification. In the references I provided it appears that some of the academic/scientific field omits religious belief in faith healing based on the context. Also, in the description I provided the "in some cases" was meant as "in some cases of classification" or "in some cases of belief", not "in some cases of occurrences". We could add the additional text to clarify it, but I thought it was unnecessary. Either way, it appears to me that we are unable to reach a compromise that everyone can agree with on our own. I am going to go ahead and request an RFC on this. Perhaps with additional editors looking at it we can find an acceptable compromise. Dromidaon (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we are fairly close to something acceptable. Your reply is cogent and supports your proposed edit (an you have provided references). I think the RfC is a good idea getting some other editors to weigh in my help support your proposal, find another or provide another perspective to consider. I appreciate your collegial engagement here on talk and look forward to see what others have to say. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Classification of Faith Healing

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Dromidaon has proposed what seems likely to be an acceptable form of words, with no dissent in a bit over a week. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the classification of Faith Healing remain as "paranormal magical thinking" or should it be expanded to clarify other views of classification? Dromidaon (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We are having trouble coming to a compromise to describe the classification of Faith Healing. We have one editor who believes it is fine the way that it is, and two who believe that it needs to be changed. However we seem to be unable to reach an acceptable consensus on our own. We are hoping to get some additional editors input on the matter to see if we can find an acceptable compromise.

The discussion is mostly found in the above section, with some of it originating in the section above that. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks! Dromidaon (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Text proposed "Faith healing can be classified as a paranormal event, and, in some cases, as magical thinking." I have copied the text proposed from the above section. After some discussion I find it close to acceptable. My objection remains it appears we are saying in WP's voice that faith healing is an event, whereas it is a belief or practice. I don't think the mainstream academic position reflects that the event or phenomenon of healing through the practice occurs. How can it be clarified that we are talking about a belief/practice not an outcome? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MrBill3 for explaining your thoughts. That actually helps me understand where you are coming from. What if we change the statement to something like this: "Faith healing can be classified as a belief in a paranormal event, and, in some cases, that belief can be classified as magical thinking." That seems long to me, but really helps to clarify that we are discussing the belief and not an event. Dromidaon (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I almost want to make the sentence longer to prevent changes by editors who would take issue with categorizing it as paranormal. Something like this: "Faith healing can be classified as a belief in a spiritual or paranormal event, and, in some cases, that belief can be classified as magical thinking." Then we could remove the last sentence in the first paragraph as it would be redundant. This might prevent editors from changing the sentence in the future. Just a thought. Dromidaon (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. Faith itself is a form of belief; you could define faith healing as a process initiated on the basis of this belief. Bblandford (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Came here via an an automated discussion notification on my talk page. Here's my immediate thought: why not use "supernatural" as opposed to "paranormal", as faith healing is usually ascribed to a divine higher power, as opposed to "ghosts" or other types of spirit concepts suggested by the use of the word paranormal... Roberticus talk 13:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Technically, successful Faith Healing should be classified as the Placebo effect and mistakenly successful would be the post hoc fallacy. This source, Great Expectations: The Evolutionary Psychology of Faith-Healing and the Placebo Effect should probably be part of this article (edit: added). Supernatural, paranormal, spiritual, and magical thinking all seem to be synonyms for how delusional people view faith healing. Of course I could just be unaware of the unique details of each term. Perhaps a clear definition of terms will help. Sources ought to help with the definitions of terms and, by extension, the classification of faith healing. Hope this helped. OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 06:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I all right to change the line as purposed? I could find a reference for the supernatural as Roberticus proposed, however I can update the line leaving paranormal with the existing reference for the time being. OnlyInYourMind already added their suggestion. MrBill3, do you have anything else you would like to see changed with the line? Dromidaon (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Support my previous implied definition of paranormal was pretty poor ("very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world" not ghosts) while my concept of supernatural was better ("unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc."). It seems that the belief itself is supernatural by definition (faith healing) but the actual effect is a paranormal one (could potentially be explained as placebo effect or similar phenomenon), as stated by adjacent reference. So I think the change is a good one in context, as the supernatural belief aspect is already mentioned earlier in the lead --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberticus (talk • contribs)

Support (with "supernatural" or "spiritual" phrasing) The phrasing explains what people who believe in Faith Healing believe it to be, that is, a supernatural event. I think including "supernatural" and "paranormal" leads to the least disputable version, and I also think it's a very good WP:NPOV summary of the belief. All that said, I think the lead, as is, bends over backward way too far to encompass every possible variation of faith healing. The proposed phrasing (including supernatural) captures the majority of that information much more concisely. Arathald (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I take this back. Per Adamfinmo, below, we need to be looking at what the sources say, not on what we think is the most accurate description of faith healing. Arathald (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't see much discussion about what the reliable sources say. While I personally have an ideological opinion on the subject I would like to see those involve in the discussion throw around some more citations instead of gut feeling about what "editors who would take issue with categorizing it as paranormal" might say. The only views that matter are those in the sources. --Adam in MO Talk 03:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Very good point. It seems a lot of editors are making an ideological or gut decision on what they view faith healing as. How do the (neutral) sources describe it? We've gone way too far down the rabbit hole of WP:OR or possibly WP:SYNTH, and we should probably stop that. Arathald (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The opening paragraph uses "supernatural," which seems appropriate and uncontroversial. The sentence about magical thinking seems misplaced. Rather than the lead, I suggest that it be placed under "Scientific investigation" insofar as it reflect a technical term by scholars of religion (and culture). The rest of that paragraph also seems too detailed and almost tendentious for the lead, why isn't it under Criticism? It does not read as a summary of the Criticism section, which would be suitable for the lede IMO. In addition, "paranormal" may be a suitable term, assuming it's found in reliable sources. But paranormal refers to the reported / purported events, I gather, and not to the magical thinking. So the phrase "paranormal magical thinking" doesn't work. "Magical thinking" does not need a qualifier like paranormal or supernatural, afaik. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that is correct When it comes to classifying the belief in "faith healing," you may accurately describe the belief as "paranormal magical thinking" yes. What you are describing is a belief, not a real phenomena which actually works, so yes, the proposed text is acceptable, legitimate, and accurate. If "faith healing" actually worked, then the text would not be appropriate. Obviously it's a delusional occult belief, ergo the proposed text is suitable for Wikpedia, yes. BiologistBabe (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BiologistBabe, will you clarify for me, are you agreeing with the proposed change, or are you agreeing with the existing wording?

So currently, the proposed text with sources would be "Faith healing can be classified as a belief in a spiritual or paranormal event, and, in some cases, that belief can be classified as magical thinking.

I will try and dedicate some time this weekend to research sources that categorize faith healing. I have been pressed for time recently, so this has not taken priority. If we are going to include the wording with "spiritual" or "supernatural", then I would like to find reliable resources that categorize it as such. Dromidaon (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks for everyones input on this. Here is what I have found that may help clarify the definition of faith healing. The book "Out of the Ordinary: Folklore and the supernatural" published by the Utah State University Press classifies faith healing as both supernatural and spiritual and could be used to match both conditions. It’s probably the most straight forward reference that I have found other than the ones referenced.

So I would propose the text as such: "Faith healing can be classified as a belief in a spiritual, supernatural, or paranormal event, and, in some cases, that belief can be classified as magical thinking."

References

Let me know what your thoughts are so that we can clear this thing off the list. Dromidaon (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dromidaon, I think your proposal looks pretty good, and it seems to cover all of the concepts that were discussed.

Also, I want to add that I thought the distinction above between "event" and "practice" (which I took to mean something like "My leg was broken and suddenly it's not" vs "I prayed about healing, and my prayer really happened even though my leg is still broken") was an interesting one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Testament healings

What would other editors think of restoring the New Testament healings, deleted en bloc a few weeks ago?

A previous editor called this "The most slanted article I have ever seen on Wikipedia," with some justification, and some corrections have since been made. But many would agree there is a lot more that needs to be done before we can claim that the article truly has a WP:NPOV.

In any commercial encyclopaedia, any article is written by an expert in that field. In Wikipedia, however, there is nothing to prevent an editor from composing or editing an article on a subject to which he is vehemently opposed, and using it as a kind of coathook on which to hang all sorts of references to opposing views. This is surely contrary to the spirit and ethics of Wikipedia. This, sadly, is what has happened in this case. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a source of information, not a soap-box! WP:SOAP.

Of course faith healing has, throughout history, been controversial; we needn't expect it to be any less controversial now. Faith healing cannot be explained within the confines of conventional materially scientific wisdom. But that doesn't mean it didn't and doesn't happen! We editors have much work to do improving this article, to be fair to the readers, and to allow faith healing to be presented in a light which leaves them to make up their own minds as to whether to go down this path or not.

In the case of the section on Christian faith healing, the discussion on Jesus' work was insightful and helpful, well written and well referenced. Any Christian would accept the validity of those healings, not only as historical fact, and as an explanation of the phenomenal spread of Christianity, but also as a model for his or her own healing practice today.

The section should be restored. Bblandford (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience inclusion

Why User:Bblandford continues to remove any mention of pseudoscience? It is has been backed by the reliable sources, and since it is alternative medicine of such category, it is pseudoscience. None of the above discussion was about pseudoscience. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)