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

Remove Hypnosis from the Pseudoscience List Please

Hypnosis is based on science. Research into hypnosis is carried out in recognized laboratories and published in peer reviewed journals. That fact that it can be misused does not detract from its core basis in observable fact.

List of research which is irrelevant for this list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is a brief review of some of the peer reviewed research evidence on the effectiveness of hypnosis: 90.6% Success Rate for Smoking Cessation Using Hypnosis Of 43 consecutive patients undergoing this treatment protocol, 39 reported remaining abstinent from tobacco use at follow-up (6 months to 3 years post-treatment). This represents a 90.6% success rate using hypnosis. University of Washington School of Medicine, Depts. of Anesthesiology and Rehabilitation Medicine, Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2001 Jul;49(3):257-66. Barber J. 87% Reported Abstinence From Tobacco Use With Hypnosis A field study of 93 male and 93 female CMHC outpatients examined the facilitation of smoking cessation by using hypnosis. At 3-month follow-up, 86% of the men and 87% of the women reported continued abstinence from the use of tobacco using hypnosis. Performance by gender in a stop-smoking program combining hypnosis and aversion. Johnson DL, Karkut RT. Adkar Associates, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana. Psychol Rep. 1994 Oct;75(2):851-7. PMID: 7862796 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 81% Reported They Had Stopped Smoking After Hypnosis Thirty smokers enrolled in an HMO were referred by their primary physician for treatment. Twenty-one patients returned after an initial consultation and received hypnosis for smoking cessation. At the end of treatment, 81% of those patients reported that they had stopped smoking, and 48% reported abstinence at 12 months post-treatment. Texas A&M University, System Health Science Center, College of Medicine, College Station, TX USA. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2004 Jan;52(1):73-81. Clinical hypnosis for smoking cessation: preliminary results of a three-session intervention. Elkins GR, Rajab MH. Hypnosis Patients Twice As Likely To Remain Smoke-Free After Two Years Study of 71 smokers showed that after a two-year follow up, patients that quit with hypnosis were twice as likely to remain smoke-free than those who quit on their own. Guided health imagery for smoking cessation and long-term abstinence. Wynd, CA. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2005; 37:3, pages 245-250. Hypnosis More Effective Than Drug Interventions For Smoking Cessation Group hypnosis sessions, evaluated at a less effective success rate (22% success) than individualized hypnosis sessions. However, group hypnosis sessions were still demonstrated here as being more effective than drug interventions. Ohio State University, College of Nursing, Columbus, OH 43210, USA Descriptive outcomes of the American Lung Association of Ohio hypnotherapy smoking cessation program. Ahijevych K, Yerardi R, Nedilsky N. Hypnosis Most Effective Says Largest Study Ever: 3 Times as Effective as Patch and 15 Times as Effective as Willpower. Hypnosis is the most effective way of giving up smoking, according to the largest ever scientific comparison of ways of breaking the habit. A meta-analysis, statistically combining results of more than 600 studies of 72,000 people from America and Europe to compare various methods of quitting. On average, hypnosis was over three times as effective as nicotine replacement methods and 15 times as effective as trying to quit alone. University of Iowa, Journal of Applied Psychology, How One in Five Give Up Smoking. October 1992. (Also New Scientist, October 10, 1992.) Hypnosis Over 30 Times as Effective for Weight Loss Investigated the effects of hypnosis in weight loss for 60 females, at least 20% overweight. Treatment included group hypnosis with metaphors for ego-strengthening, decision making and motivation, ideomotor exploration in individual hypnosis, and group hypnosis with maintenance suggestions. Hypnosis was more effective than a control group: an average of 17 lbs lost by the hypnosis group vs. an average of 0.5 lbs lost by the control group, on follow-up. Cochrane, Gordon; Friesen, J. (1986). Hypnotherapy in weight loss treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 489-492. Two Years Later: Hypnosis Subjects Continued To Lose Significant Weight 109 people completed a behavioral treatment for weight management either with or without the addition of hypnosis. At the end of the 9-week program, both interventions resulted in significant weight reduction. At 8-month and 2-year follow-ups, the hypnosis subjects were found to have continued to lose significant weight, while those in the behavioral-treatment-only group showed little further change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1985) Hypnosis Subjects Lost More Weight Than 90% of Others and Kept it Off Researchers analyzed 18 studies comparing a cognitive behavioral therapy such as relaxation training, guided imagery, self monitoring, or goal setting with the same therapy supplemented by hypnosis. Those who received the hypnosis lost more weight than 90 percent of those not receiving hypnosis and maintained the weight loss two years after treatment ended. University of Connecticut, Storrs Allison DB, Faith MS. Hypnosis as an adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy for obesity: a meta-analytic reappraisal. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64(3):513-516. Hypnosis More Than Doubled Average Weight Loss Study of the effect of adding hypnosis to cognitive-behavioral treatments for weight reduction, additional data were obtained from authors of two studies. Analyses indicated that the benefits of hypnosis increased substantially over time. Kirsch, Irving (1996). Hypnotic enhancement of cognitive-behavioral weight loss treatments–Another meta-reanalysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64 (3), 517-519. Hypnosis Showed Significantly Lower Post-Treatment Weights Two studies compared overweight smoking and non-smoking adult women in an hypnosis-based, weight-loss program. Both achieved significant weight losses and decreases in Body Mass Index. Follow-up study replicated significant weight losses and declines in Body Mass Index. The overt aversion and hypnosis program yielded significantly lower post-treatment weights and a greater average number of pounds lost. Weight loss for women: studies of smokers and nonsmokers using hypnosis and multi-component treatments with and without overt aversion. Johnson DL, Psychology Reprints. 1997 Jun;80(3 Pt 1):931-3. Hypnotherapy group with stress reduction achieved significantly more weight loss than the other two treatments. Randomised, controlled, parallel study of two forms of hypnotherapy (directed at stress reduction or energy intake reduction), vsdietary advice alone in 60 obese patients with obstructive sleep apnoea on nasal continuous positive airway pressure treatment. J Stradling, D Roberts, A Wilson and F Lovelock, Chest Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK Hypnosis can more than double the effects of traditional weight loss approaches An analysis of five weight loss studies reported in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 1996 showed that the “… weight loss reported in the five studies indicates that hypnosis can more than double the effects” of traditional weight loss approaches. University of Connecticut, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 1996 (Vol. 64, No. 3, pgs 517-519). Weight loss is greater where hypnosis is utilized Research into cognitive-behavioral weight loss treatments established that weight loss is greater where hypnosis is utilized. It was also established that the benefits of hypnosis increase over time. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1996) Showed Hypnosis As “An Effective Way To Lose Weight” A study of 60 females who were at least 20% overweight and not involved in other treatment showed hypnosis is an effective way to lose weight. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1986) Reference Hypnosis Reduces Frequency and Intensity of Migraines Compared the treatment of migraine by hypnosis and autohypnosis with the treatment of migraine by the drug prochlorperazine (Stemetil). Results show that the number of attacks and the number of people who suffered blinding attacks were significantly lower for the group receiving hypnotherapy than for the group receiving prochlorperazine. For the group on hypnotherapy, these two measures were significantly lower when on hypnotherapy than when on the previous treatment. It is concluded that further trials of hypnotherapy are justified against some other treatment not solely associated with the ingestion of tablets. Anderson JA, Basker MA, Dalton R, Migraine and hypnotherapy, International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis 1975; 23(1): 48-58. Hypnosis Reduces Pain and Speeds up Recovery from Surgery Since 1992, we have used hypnosis routinely in more than 1400 patients undergoing surgery. We found that hypnosis used with patients as an adjunct to conscious sedation and local anesthesia was associated with improved intraoperative patient comfort, and with reduced anxiety, pain, intraoperative requirements for anxiolytic and analgesic drugs, optimal surgical conditions and a faster recovery of the patient. We reported our clinical experience and our fundamental research. [Hypnosis and its application in surgery] Faymonville ME, Defechereux T, Joris J, Adant JP, Hamoir E, Meurisse M, Service d’Anesthesie-Reanimation, Universite de Liege, Rev Med Liege. 1998 Jul;53(7):414-8. Hypnosis Reduces Pain Intensity Analysis of the simple-simple main effects, holding both group and condition constant, revealed that application of hypnotic analgesia reduced report of pain intensity significantly more than report of pain unpleasantness. Dahlgren LA, Kurtz RM, Strube MJ, Malone MD, Differential effects of hypnotic suggestion on multiple dimensions of pain.Journal of Pain & Symptom Management. 1995; 10(6): 464-70. Hypnosis Reduces Pain of Headaches and Anxiety The improvement was confirmed by the subjective evaluation data gathered with the use of a questionnaire and by a significant reduction in anxiety scores. Melis PM, Rooimans W, Spierings EL, Hoogduin CA, Treatment of chronic tension-type headache with hypnotherapy: a single-blind time controlled study. Headache 1991; 31(10): 686-9. Hypnosis Lowered Post-treatment Pain in Burn Injuries Patients in the hypnosis group reported less post treatment pain than did patients in the control group. The findings are used to replicate earlier studies of burn pain hypnoanalgesia, explain discrepancies in the literature, and highlight the potential importance of motivation with this population. Patterson DR, Ptacek JT, Baseline pain as a moderator of hypnotic analgesia for burn injury treatment. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 1997; 65(1): 60-7. Hypnosis Lowered Phantom Limb Pain Hypnotic procedures appear to be a useful adjunct to established strategies for the treatment of phantom limb pain and would repay further, more systematic, investigation. Suggestions are provided as to the factors which should be considered for a more systematic research program. Treatment of phantom limb pain using hypnotic imagery. Oakley DA, Whitman LG, Halligan PW, Department of Psychology, University College, London, UK. Hypnosis Has a Reliable and Significant Impact on Acute and Chronic Pain Hypnosis has been demonstrated to reduce analogue pain, and studies on the mechanisms of laboratory pain reduction have provided useful applications to clinical populations. Studies showing central nervous system activity during hypnotic procedures offer preliminary information concerning possible physiological mechanisms of hypnotic analgesia. Randomized controlled studies with clinical populations indicate that hypnosis has a reliable and significant impact on acute procedural pain and chronic pain conditions. Methodological issues of this body of research are discussed, as are methods to better integrate hypnosis into comprehensive pain treatment. Hypnosis and clinical pain. Patterson DR, Jensen MP, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA USA 98104 Psychol Bull. 2003 Jul;129(4):495-521. Hypnosis is a Powerful Tool in Pain Therapy and is Biological in Addiction to Psychological Attempting to elucidate cerebral mechanisms behind hypnotic analgesia, we measured regional cerebral blood flow with positron emission tomography in patients with fibromyalgia, during hypnotically-induced analgesia and resting wakefulness. The patients experienced less pain during hypnosis than at rest. The cerebral blood-flow was bilaterally increased in the orbitofrontal and subcallosial cingulate cortices, the right thalamus, and the left inferior parietal cortex, and was decreased bilaterally in the cingulate cortex. The observed blood-flow pattern supports notions of a multifactorial nature of hypnotic analgesia, with an interplay between cortical and subcortical brain dynamics. Copyright 1999 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Functional anatomy of hypnotic analgesia: a PET study of patients with fibromyalgia. Wik G, Fischer H, Bragee B, Finer B, Fredrikson M, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Karolinska Institute and Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Eur J Pain. 1999 Mar;3(1):7-12. Hypnosis Useful in Hospital Emergency Rooms Hypnosis can be a useful adjunct in the emergency department setting. Its efficacy in various clinical applications has been replicated in controlled studies. Application to burns, pain, pediatric procedures, surgery, psychiatric presentations (e.g., coma, somatoform disorder, anxiety, and post traumatic stress), and obstetric situations (e.g., hyperemesis, labor, and delivery) are described. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2000 May;18(2):327-38, x. The use of hypnosis in emergency medicine. Peebles-Kleiger MJ, Menninger School of Psychiatry and Mental Health Sciences, Menninger Clinic, Topeka, KS, USA. peeblemj@menninger.edu Significantly More Methadone Addicts Quit with Hypnosis. 94% Remained Narcotic Free Significant differences were found on all measures. The experimental group had significantly less discomfort and illicit drug use, and a significantly greater amount of cessation. At six month follow up, 94% of the subjects in the experimental group who had achieved cessation remained narcotic free. A comparative study of hypnotherapy and psychotherapy in the treatment of methadone addicts. Manganiello AJ, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1984; 26(4): 273-9. Hypnosis Shows 77 Percent Success Rate for Drug Addiction Treatment has been used with 18 clients over the last 7 years and has shown a 77 percent success rate for at least a 1-year follow-up. 15 were being seen for alcoholism or alcohol abuse, 2 clients were being seen for cocaine addiction, and 1 client had a marijuana addiction Intensive Therapy: Utilizing Hypnosis in the Treatment of Substance Abuse Disorders. Potter, Greg, American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Jul 2004. Raised Self-esteem & Serenity. Lowered Impulsivity and Anger In a research study on self-hypnosis for relapse prevention training with chronic drug/alcohol users. Participants were 261 veterans admitted to Substance Abuse Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (SARRTPs). individuals who used repeated self-hypnosis “at least 3 to 5 times a week,” at 7-week follow-up, reported the highest levels of self-esteem and serenity, and the least anger/impulsivity, in comparison to the minimal-practice and control groups. American Journal of Clinical Hypnotherapy (a publication of the American Psychological Association) 2004 Apr;46(4):281-97) Hypnosis For Cocaine Addiction Documented Case Study Hypnosis was successfully used to overcome a $500 (five grams) per day cocaine addiction. The subject was a female in her twenties. After approximately 8 months of addiction, she decided to use hypnosis in an attempt to overcome the addiction itself. Over the next 4 months, she used hypnosis three times a day and at the end of this period, her addiction was broken, and she has been drug free for the past 9 years. Hypnosis was the only intervention, and no support network of any kind was available. The use of hypnosis in cocaine addiction. Page RA, Handley GW, Ohio State University, Lima, OH USA 45804. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 1993 Oct;36(2):120-3. Healed 41% faster from fracture Healed significantly faster from surgery Two studies from Harvard Medical School show hypnosis significantly reduces the time it takes to heal. Study One: Six weeks after an ankle fracture, those in the hypnosis group showed the equivalent of eight and a half weeks of healing. Study Two: Three groups of people studied after breast reduction surgery. Hypnosis group healed “significantly faster” than supportive attention group and control group. Harvard Medical School, Carol Ginandes and Union Institute in Cincinnati, Patricia Brooks, Harvard University Gazette

NRGized (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

NRGized, how about you propose a rewrite here in the talk page to differentiate between what is considered pseudoscientific about it and what is accepted by the psychological scientific community? Lukekfreeman (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

NRGized, I fear you have misunderstood the purpose of this list. Whether something on the list IS or IS NOT a pseudoscience is totally irrelevant. If reliable sources have "characterized" the subject as pseudoscience, it gets listed. Since there have been many such accusations against hypnosis throughout the years, we can find such sources and hence it is listed. So, my point is that you're wasting your time because you've misunderstood the nature of this list. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lukekfreeman, per my comment above, even if NRGized were to follow your suggestion, it would have no influence on the inclusion status of the topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please remove hypnosis from the list of "Pseudoscience" as quickly as you can!

The NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine cleary shows hypnosis is evidence based for a wide range of conditions and behaviors http://nccam.nih.gov/health/hypnosis

Please remove hypnosis from the list of "Pseudoscience" as quickly as you can!

Thank You Michael Ellner Diplomat - International Medical and Dental Hypnotherapy Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ellner (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, as mentioned in the section above, this list doesn't not say if a topic is or is not pseudo science, it only lists what has been " characterized" as such. Hypnosis fits that definition and this is why it will stay on that list. The fact that it may actually work for some conditions is not relevant for inclusion or exclusion from this list.--McSly (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that these two requests come from false allegations made here:

• http://www.hypnothoughts.com/forum/topics/hypnosis-nlp-listed-as-pseudoscience

Rather than saying that these are lies, it is more likely that they are based on a misunderstanding and are thus relatively innocent misrepresentations of fact. Both comments use the similar phrases "pseudoscience list" and "list of pseudoscience". They mean the same thing, but that's not what this list is about, as explained above. If anyone wants to comment on that forum to prevent others from being confused/deceived, please do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Pyramid power

Please add Pyramid power. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Lacking a specific ref that it is a pseudoscience, I added Pyramidology to the see also section. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make the change, but the delta on the diff button looked too much like a pyramid... a13ean (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

POV-March 2013

I'm horrified. This article is pure sceptics-organisation-POV an not approximately a enzycolpedic article. The sources are sceptic websites and typical publications. --WSC ^® 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, what you say may or may not be true for some of the items on the list. This is certainly not true for the list as a whole. If you have specific issues with the sourcing of some of the disciplines listed in the article, please bring them here. In the meantime, I'm removing the tag since it clearly doesn't apply.--McSly (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The list itself is pseudoscience. Because it pretend to be science but it is just the wild conglomerate of therorys. Someone thougth: "it could be pseudoscience". Thats not an encyclopedical article. It should be delated. --WSC ^® 16:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted, just follow the procedure at Articles for deletion.--McSly (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone? If you think any of the sources don't meet our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, let us know. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know the wikipedia well. Well engough to say that a lot of wikipedians overstate their own role. That is in german wp so and here not a lot differnt. You just have to take a look at this "list". To establish a list of pseudoscience you need more than a wrong understanding of wikipedia. You need a wrong understandig of philosophy of science and a wrong understanding of what a encyclopedia is. A example: Tell me where I can find a list of pseudosciences in scientiffic literature how include all philosophical meanings and no disagree and estimates of this term you can take as fundation of this "list"? You couldn't find one! It's a POV-list who destrois the meaning of this encyclopedia. A bias of privat scepitc organisations in the science hers tout as "generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations." What is this? Are scepitcal organisations a indicator for a pseudoscience? These organisations are not scientific at all. Or isn't the "scientific community" be at loggerheads? No, this list is POV as POV can. It's out of question to throw all this together by refering on "sceptical organisations" or a vague "scientiffic community." It might be a paradigmatic contest to estimate the other theory as pseudoscience, like the string theory. You can't establish such a list here, because theres no foundation in science. --WSC ^® 18:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You may know the German Wikipedia well, but the English Wikipedia its own policies and guidelines and in some aspects they are quite different - probably this article is an example. And as you've been told, you can take this article for deletion through the AfD process but I don't think you will get it deleted. Here, if reliable sources by our criteria say something is pseudoscience we can use that. There's no point in your debating here whether or not the article should exist. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know that en:wp uses unreliable sources an OR-Lists! Thats news to me. --WSC ^® 19:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are just being rude. Our policy on acceptable sources is not the same as the German policy, have you compared them? Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

They are similar but nearly identical in scholarship. I don't want to be rude but distinct. The list is a violation of our rules in de and en wikipedia. --WSC ^® 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First, read the title and lede VERY carefully. THEN come back here and name specifically which WP policies are violated, and mention specific examples of inclusions, content, or wordings that violate which policies. Please be VERY specific and maybe we can help you. Without such help we can't help you. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read the title and I'm very carfull when I say it's WP:Weasel words. What means "characterized" as pseudoscience? By whom? What are the including criterias? The only including criteria is that anybody sayed it's pseudoscience. No consideration if there are opposit opinions or who is the one who wrote that. Are there any criterias in philosophy of science in generally? For example: Why don't we start a article: List of topics characterized as wrong or List of people characterized as evel or List of theories characterized as untenable? This list is naiv and got nothing to do with encyclopedia or science. It showes a wrong understanding of science and philosopy. --WSC ^® 08:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Try to find some other policies, since WEASEL is a rather subjective one. Wikipedia is not like any other encyclopedia. It is an unusual encyclopedia, not science. It is pioneering new territory. Its goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge. That's a huge area and no one has ever attempted to do that before. As far as the word "characterized" goes, your problem is likely because English is not your mother tongue. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not wise to criticize other languages when they are not your own. If English was your mother tongue, you would understand this use of the word. The lede happens to describe the inclusion criteria, and RS are a fundamental part of the criteria. Unless you can do as I asked above - to name specifically which WP policies are violated, and mention specific examples of inclusions, content, or wordings that violate which policies - we can't really help you. Yes, you don't like this list. That's your opinion. You have expressed it. Fine. Now drop the stick and walk away. You are Flogging a dead horse. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen is generally correct. List articles like this often rest solidly on the foundations of WP:OR. Unless there are reliably sourced lists which support item inclusion, adding it to the list is pure sysnthesis. Unfortunately, lists (and categories) are one of the edge cases that wikipedia does not handle well, so there is little hope in reigning in this general style of article. Other good examples of this include List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ and List of scandals with "-gate" suffix‎ aprock (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as the content does not misuse or misrepresent what the RS say, there is no OR or synthesis. The common theme is "pseudoscience", and we have collected evidence of how various RS describe notable topics in this connection. There are actually many lists out there in RS books and websites which contain many of the items listed here. Otherwise you are somewhat right about lists being in a sort of grey area. No other encyclopedia has a list like this, although they do have lists of various kinds. What this list does is to fulfill the main goal of Wikipedia, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and there are lots of RS which characterize notable subjects as pseudoscience. (Note that we are not calling them pseudoscience. Whether they really are or not is irrelevant.) Without this list, Wikipedia would have a hole on this topic. It would fail to live up to its goal.

Wikipedia is not like any other encyclopedia, which is a good thing. Until our policies change, we will just follow the ones we have, and thus this list stays. Other attempts to sabotage and delete it have failed. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

One relevant policy is WP:LISTN. I rarely see it applied properly, this article being no exception. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I have better things to work on, on and off of wikipedia. aprock (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sry you have to wait for an aswer, but I'm busy right now. From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is not (...) an indiscriminate collection of information (...)." So this list violates one of the five pillars, at least. I think, this point ist cleare but you can also go back to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Futher it violates the pillar "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." Here you should have a look at balance. It also violates WP:RS. The lemma is described as: "Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations, involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question." (This paragraph is sourced from a website of a govermantel organisation [1]. I couldn't find the term "skeptical organisation".) So called skeptical organizations are no RS. They are no scientiffic sources but private societys. The most publications are club magazines or websites. That violates RS. Futher it's dubious if a single or few reliable source represents the meaning of "scientific community".

I hope I can help you understand that issue. --WSC ^® 07:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

WSC, I'm trying to figure out what you're saying, in spite of all the spelling and grammatical errors and insertions of foreign words. One thing seems clear, and that is that your understanding of RS differs radically from Wikipedia's, and I doubt that the German Wikipedia differs so much that it only allows scientific sources, and forbids the use of websites, magazines, newspapers, etc.. We allow their use, but they must still be reliable for the use intended here. Context means a lot.

As far as the reference in the lede (the NSF is a VERY RS), technically a lede doesn't need any references because it is summarizing reliably sourced content in the body of the article. Each part of what you quoted shows where the information is found, and you'll find references from those sources throughout the article.

There is another guideline which applies here, and which you don't seem to know about. It's this one: WP:FRINGE. Fringe subjects (and that includes pseudoscience) have slightly different sourcing guidelines, and that's because fringe subjects are rarely discussed in scientific or scholarly sources. Since the subjects are still part of "the sum total of human knowledge," we are obliged to still seek to cover them at Wikipedia. Therefore we must find other types of RS which discuss them, and these are usually skeptical sources. Since scientific skeptics have the same POV as mainstream science, and Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, we do use those sources in some cases. Again, context is important, and some of them would be RS for some purposes, and not for others. Here they are exactly on target and useful.

Since you are not bringing up anything new, but just repeating your opinions and dissatisfactions, you really do need to move on before you get blocked. This article is covered by an Arbitration Committee decision, and there are "discretionary sanctions" which can be applied to editors who are obstructive or disruptive. Your continued objections without constructive comments are just that. You're wasting our time. At the top of this page, you'll see these sanctions described. Here they are:

• "In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

I suggest you do more editing at the German Wikipedia where you likely have more edits and experience. Here you're considered a newbie, and your comments indicate you don't understand how we work. So far there is no indication that you are learning from the comments of far more experienced editors. When you are a guest in someone else's home, it is sensible and polite to learn the rules that govern their home and be a good guest. It's unfortunate that you don't seem to be learning, but instead are offending people here and trying to teach them. You're not in a position to be teaching at this point.

For the record, consider this a formal warning. If an admin determines that your behavior is disruptive, they can see that you have been warned. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please be more careful with guidelines. WP:LEADCITE does not say that references are technically not required. That's only true for non-controversial topics, and even then citations are not precluded. aprock (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. While not always necessary, in practice we still include a few references in the lede for the sake of editors who don't read the rest of the article. If there are any truly controversial places in the lede which really need references, they can be copied from the body to the lede. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, many of the topics listed step outside the guidelines discussed in WP:LISTN. aprock (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I don't recall this issue coming up before, but I could be mistaken. We have always limited content to subjects discussed in RS, and that's usually what's necessary for articles and lists.

While notability is not required for every item in a list, we have still limited content to subjects that are notable enough to have their own articles here, and those articles contain even more information. Doing this has limited edit warring and attempts to sabotage the list or fill it with trivia.

Note that "Appropriate topics for lists" states: "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, excuse my lousy english. But your answer indicates that you understand me right. See, the WP:RS is unambiguous. Some citations WP:RS

• "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."
• "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible."
• "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."

These sentence are unmistakable. It may be, that some english autors in wikipedia neglect the five pillars and guidelines like RS. I won't!

There are many excelent publications in philosophy of science about that issue. But non of them indicates such a naiv perception as this list serve. Theres no need to use single secondary passages of textbooks or sceptical websites. The problem for your list is, the scientific publications don't support such a list. --WSC ^® 19:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with your citations from the RS policy. Very correct. That's not all though. If you dispute specific sources or subjects, please name them and what problems you see with them, and mention which policies they violate. If someone has slipped in some content and/or sources that violate relevant policies, we can certainly discuss them. We don't want that happening, and we know it does happen at times.

You write that "the scientific publications don't support such a list." I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. You'll have to mention which parts of the list aren't mentioned in scientific sources. If they are not mentioned, then they are covered by the FRINGE guideline. That guideline covers such content because scientific sources often fail to deal with fringe subjects. That's the "nature of the beast." Non-scientific/nonsense fringe subjects are not subjects for scientific endeavor, yet they are part of "the sum total of human knowledge," and therefore Wikipedia's main goal requires we document this knowledge. Since those subjects are dealt with in many other reliable sources than specifically scientific ones, we still have articles about them using those sources, and they are also mentioned very briefly here, with links to those articles.

Note that there have been three previous attempts to delete this list (you can read about them at the top), nearly always by believers in certain items which are listed, and they have always failed in their attempts. It would take some totally new arguments to justify such a renewed attempt.

Just for your information, here is some information about those who have commented in this thread:

• User:Widescreen, 896 edits since: 2008-01-17
• User:McSly, rollbacker, 19659 edits since: 2006-10-25
• User:Dougweller, sysop, 97979 edits since: 2006-04-23
• User:BullRangifer, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 37225 edits since: 2005-12-18
• User:Aprock, 8456 edits since: 2007-11-26

Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have to excuse my english again. Seems like you don't understand my point. I don't criticize single sources. I criticize the list as a whole. It violates fundamental policys of wikipedia. The first policy is "Wikipedia is not (...) an indiscriminate collection of information (...)." There is no arrangement in science which theory or method is pseudocience or not. Futher theres no arrangement if the term pseudoscience is a valid term to describe science or dicriminate science from pseudoscience. In philosophy of science there are more theories than this one. And the term pseudoscience is vage formulated. There are different oppinions what pseudoscience means. E.g. Imre Lakatos has a different meaning of pseudoscience than Popper. Futher it violates "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." Because among the problems of the term, it's a very unilateral construct. Other philosophers have other theoriey of how science works. E.g. Samuel Kuhn and his pattern of paradigma. And of course it violates RS. --WSC ^® 07:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is applied very narrowly on en.wiki. There are not a lot of policies or guidelines that give guidance on dealing with the issue. Most guidelines and policies of en.wiki have generally been written to give guidance on how to include content, not on how to exclude content. Policy and guidelines are broadly interpreted to support the existence of this sort of article. Raising the editorial standards of the community would be a massive undertaking and one that would probably take several years to propagate to the community as a whole. aprock (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you would, preferably in one sentence, state what you think should be done about this article. And do you understand that we can use opinions in en.wiki? Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@Aprock: I think this point is absolute clear: "Wikipedia is not (...) an indiscriminate collection of information (...)." You can't arbitrarily put together informations. E.g. The definition of this list, which contains what topics are included is self made. The heading contains only one source (as if the term pseudoscience and such a list don't need any scientific sources) of an website (which violates RS). So I assume that this definition of the list is fictional. The autor or the autors thougth, that this term and such a list needs no explanations? That skeptical organisations are able to assass a method as pseudoscience is quite daring. The term itself isn't defined. What kind of "pseudocience" do we have here? Popper-pseudoscience or Lakatos-pseudoscience? Or rather pseudoscience some wikipedians thought: "that is one!" Thats why the list goes to weasel when it says topics "characterized as..." Characterizede by whom? My neighbour or so called skeptics? Scientific sources or philiosopy of science-sources? Or maybe Karl Popper or Imre Lakatos? Thats what this fundamental policy means: indiscriminate collection of information. Theres no source you can find such a definition or such a list in. Thats why this list violates NPOV also.

@Dougwller: You accused me of being inexperienced in en:wp. [2] [3] So you should tell me, what to do with an article, who violates two pillars of wikipedia and additional other policys like RS. --WSC ^® 04:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't tell me what you want done with this article. Two choices seem obvious, discuss it at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard or take it to WP:AFD. I don't think you understand our policy on reliable sources - that's probably a difference between the two wikipedias, as is the way we allow the use of opinion. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the amount of encyclopaedias of pseudoscience and lists out there etc, I would enjoy that AfD. I see Enric Naval has already done the heavy lifting in previous AfDs. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I cited some relevant passages from WP:RS. Wat is mistakable on this citatatiations of our policys? What makes you belief, I can't understand what is dubious in "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." In this article also sources from so called skeptical organisations are figured as reliable. That is a violation of this policy.

@IRWolfie: You would enjoy that AfD? I think this article is a sadly reality in this so called encyclopedia. It showes you can't take wikipedia seriously. The fact, there are "encyclopaedias of pseudoscience" published by some skeptics doesn't make such a list an encyclopedic article. Because this skeptical thinking is only one kind of thinking about that issue. We figure it as the only relevant manner. Thats disinformation of our readers. I think thats not funny. --WSC ^® 17:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"When available" is a key phrase. There are many subjects which Wikipedia is required to cover (nearly all subjects in existence) which are not mentioned in "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks," and yet they are covered in many other reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, websites, skeptical publications, etc.. Each type of source is reliable for certain purposes and not for other purposes. Some are RS for scientific fact, and others are RS for opinions. You seem to fail to realize the difference and want to exclude skeptical sources for any purpose at all. Why? They document the opinions of skeptics. Those opinions are notable and part of the "sum total of human knowledge."

Does the German Wikipedia exclude the documentation of any opinions at all? I have a hard time imagining that would be the case, for that would make it a very boring encyclopedia, with huge gaps in the information it is supposed to provide. For example, the lives of celebrities get NO mention in "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks," and yet the German Wikipedia probably covers them. Isn't that true? One could even imagine an article about a celebrity in which the RS policy is applied very differently to different parts of the article, depending on the subject: For their birth information, some sources are allowed and others are not; for their filming schedule, scientific sources are irrelevant and not RS for that purpose; and for some medical/scientific information in the same article, only WP:MEDRS will do the job.

This is why a good understanding of the wide variety of applications for the RS policy is important. My watchlist right now says this at the top: "You have 7,616 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I have edited more articles, but that's the current status of my watchlist, and those articles cover every conceivable subject. I have to know the RS policy pretty well to deal with such a variety of subjects.

You can't just cite "RS" as if it's a single-word policy that can only be applied in one manner. It has a huge variety of applications. If you ever expect to be a good editor and taken seriously, you will have to learn to try to imagine EVERY type of human knowledge, whether it be proven fact, history, event, belief, imagination, hallucination, rumor, lie, conspiracy theory, ..... literally imagine EVERY possible type. THEN, no matter how ridiculous you feel it is, you will defend its inclusion here, provided that inclusion and documentation is done properly. That's why we have articles on chiropractic, homeopathy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God, and the Higgs boson. (We have more evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson, the "God particle," than we do for the existence of God, yet we have an article about God! Imagine that!) We are supposed to document ALL of those bits of knowledge IF they are notable enough to be mentioned in RS, and then we use those sources.

Sometimes that means using sources from deluded true believers that are ONLY reliable for documenting the existence of false ideas, and are good for NOTHING else. They are actually lies, yet we use them. Those are fringe ideas and fringe sources, and no scientific source will ever touch them, but scientific skeptics will deal with them because they are debunking nonsense and defending the public from deception.

The WP:FRINGE guideline covers such uses of fringe sources, and the skeptical sources which cover fringe subjects. We are REQUIRED to use them, not ignore the subject. Ignoring the subject would violate the main goal of Wikipedia, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge." We don't want knowledge gaps here. We don't want anyone coming here to find information about something they have heard or read elsewhere, and leaving empty handed. Wikipedia is often the only place they will discover "the other side of the story" because they never read skeptical sources. That's a good thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutly right! "When available" is the key phrase. In this case outstanding scientific sources are available. Soures of very famous and accept philosophers. In this scientific field, about the term "pseudoscience", theres no need to go back to secondary sources. To the contrary! It's a sin to collate those sources with sources like privat skeptic organisations, or websites with poor quality. And it's a violation of our policys.

It's courious that in this field of pseudoscience, user belief that they don't have to use scientific sources? Especially in this field. Ain't it a contradiction of the poupose to esthablish scientific working and "tutor" the reader what science is by using "unscientific" sources and make no scientific work?

Futher you ask if it's not right to include opinions in our articles. Of course, you can include relavant opinions in articles. Every philosopher of science has an opinion. And there are a lot of opinions on the term pseudoscience. Some say it's demarcation to distinguish sciencen form non-science or from pseudoscience. Others criticize the term or the demarcation. I gave some examples of the debate above. What skeptical organisations can conduce in this philosophical debate, is really doubious. They follow there own opinion what science is. Mostly a naiv positivism or somthing like a mix of Popper and Vienna Circle or a Mix of Popper and there own scientific discipline. Or somthing like that. And claim for themself a educational mandate. Be a so called skeptic, is a hobby.

Now lets talk about the pragmatical dimension. If you see a article like e.g. Moon landing conspiracy theories you want to write a paragraph, that this theory is a pseudoscience. This theories are called conspiracy theories? Why they are additional an pseudoscience? The quality of sources are really poor. It's a website of an disused webpage. I couldn't find better sources whithin 5 Min. Who would do such a wast of time and estimate such a nonsense like 'moon landing cospiracy' as a science? And is such a estimate really a scientific one? Or is it just the opinion of some skeptics who haven't really understand how complicate the issue about pseudoscience is? It's doubius if such a oppinion of skeptic organisations is relevant enough to have an own list. Well, I don't know. It's not as easy as it seems. Futher theres still the problem, skeptical organisation have an other understandig of what pseudoscience is than most philosophers of science. Is it tantamount when Karl Poppers estimate a theory is pseudoscience or a skepic autor in a club magazin? You can't treat those opinions equally.

But the main argument against such a list is, that's a SCIENTIFIC issue! A list about pseudoscience is a scientific issue. It's a question of philosophy of science. That's why we have to use scientific sources. Above all because the philosophy of science sources have an other opinion than so called sceptical organisations have. You try to compare high quality philosophy of science-sources with skeptical ones. Thats undifferentiated an non-encyclopediacal.--WSC ^® 06:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.". In the the latest deletion discussion I posted a list of sources that fit this criteria.

I vaguely remember from other discussions that the sourcing requirements for lists are way stricter in the German wikipedia. Every wikipedia has its own rules, and they apply only on that wikipedia. We don't apply, for example, the rules of the Spanish wikipedia. Why should we? They reflect a different cultural background and circumstances. If you think that a certain rule on the German wikipedia is better than the local equivalent, then you should ask for local adoption in the talk page of the relevant guideline. There is no point in arguing that we are not following the rules of the German wikipedia, we were never supposed to follow them in the first place. We are already following the relevant guidelines: the local guidelines in the English wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Enric makes some good points, so please stop complaining about the rules we have here. This is not the place to seek to change our rules.

Widescreen, you make some rather odd accusations above. We DO want to also include scientific opinions and sources. Why would you think we don't? If you have some good sources on any particular entry here, please propose them. If they are good, they can be used in the relevant article (so discuss it there, not here) and possibly also here (then discuss it here). Please show us what you have. Article improvement, not destruction, is what we do here.

I do find it very disturbing that you would consider nasa.gov a poor source. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a very reliable source on the subject of moon landings and their associated conspiracy theories. It makes no difference that it's an archived version, unless they had changed their opinion, which they haven't. It's still a good source for the subject.

Your objections to some good sources really make me wonder about your real concerns. They are obviously more than just about the sources. You apparently don't like them (which makes no difference to Wikipedia), but you also seem to not like the existence of the term "pseudoscience" at all. Whether you like it or not, it's here to stay, and we must document its uses, good and bad. Since it's a controversial subject, that means we document it from all angles, using all types of sources, including notable opinions.

Finally, much of what you say is not relevant here, but is more relevant at the Pseudoscience article and the Moon landing conspiracy theories article. Please go there and seek to improve them. This is not the place. BTW, NASA does have some current content about the hoax conspiracy theories: [4], [5]. It appears NASA has a newer article located here. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't everybody speak up at once! Please respect that I have limited time to teach you fundamentals in philosophy of science and scientific work, you call that "odd accusations". I will answer all of you but it takes time. Why don't you read my last contribs. --WSC ^® 20:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not interested and it would be a violation of WP:TALK for you to do so here. Go teach somewhere else, although, with the length of your enormous block log at the German Wikipedia, you may not have any other place to go than here. Your assumption that you can or should teach us anything....maybe, maybe not....is neither appreciated nor relevant. We all know something the other one doesn't know. Big deal. We all have experience to varying degrees in medicine and science, and may even have taught(!). Big deal. What is relevant here is following the policies of the "English" Wikipedia and improving its content. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note my requests for community ban ([6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) also. --WSC ^® 22:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I am impressed. Most users with so much bad baggage would have been indefinitely banned long ago. Have you been exiled and are here now? Please don't repeat those behaviors here. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No! Its because my personal fight with some german admins. I wasn't been banned because I've wrote 3 featured articles. And reveal some scandals I think. --WSC ^® 06:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: You say this list is reliable because of WP Policy Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. You cited that Lists are "considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" There are independent reliable sources. But this sources doesn't prove such a list. Seems like we have different opinons of what a "independent and reliable" source is. For example: The source at the topic "moon conspiracy" [13] is a govermental source. Not a scientific source. That's far away of being independent. At the hole source you couldn't find the term "pseudoscience". The NASA-page calles the conspiracy theory a hoax. A hoax! Not a pseudoscience. That's no source! It's not indipendent, it's not scientific and it doesn't prove the entry as pseudoscience at all. Even the NASA calles that theory a hoax. They call it nonsense! And skepical souces like skeptical inquirer are the opposite of a "independent and reliable" source. Skeptical organisations are ideological associations just as some topics in this list. Just because you are more familiar whith the skeptical ideology you can't decide which ideology is more relevant for such a list. Futher you say that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." As I said before, there are too much oppinions in philosophy of science to esthablish such a list. Or you have to call the list List of topics who would characterized as pseudoscience in the philosophy of Karl Popper or List of topics who would characterized as pseudoscience in the philosophy of Imre Lakatos (I hope that is right english). As I said before: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PSEUDOSCIENCE! There are many different oppionons of what pseudoscience is! Such a list is misleading and a overgeneralization. You claim there's one definition of pseudoscience which means the same thing. But that's a great mistake. --WSC ^® 07:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears this section is Flogging a dead horse. http://i.imgur.com/XxFzM.jpg • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm? Is that a argument or just a unassuming personel view? --WSC ^® 11:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right in that the theory itself is not pseudoscience. But it relies on bad science, on pseudoscience and on pseudoscientific explanations. Try page 154 of Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy[14] (too long to quote here, search for the word "pseudoscience" if you can't find it).

There are more entries that are not pseudoscience per se. But they are included because people pull all sorts of pseudoscience to justify them. Those entries should be written carefully to explain what parts are pseudoscience and what parts aren't. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, now we're finally getting to the crux of Widescreen's motivations:

• "As I said before: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PSEUDOSCIENCE! There are many different oppionons of what pseudoscience is! Such a list is misleading a overgeneralization. You claim there's one definition of pseudoscience which means the same thing. But that's a great mistake."

1. There definitely IS "such a thing as pseudoscience." You may doubt that, but try taking up the issue at the pseudoscience article, not here. You're wasting our time and indeed are kicking a dead horse.

2. No one has claimed there is only "one definition of pseudoscience." There are several variations, so we follow what RS say and use their definitions. Again, that's an issue for the pseudoscience article, not here.

3. You still fail to understand Wikipedia. Articles cover the subject from EVERY angle. Even scientific subjects are covered from all angles. That includes popular controversies, media coverage, erroneous views and misunderstandings, etc.. The basic scientific facts of the matter are still presented using scientific sources, but the other angles often use other sources, some of them far from scientific. As long as they are RS "for the purpose" we use them.

4. Since pseudoscience is in the borderland between science and nonsense, and scientific skeptics are active in that area because of their interest in defending the public from deception and "unscientific ideas masquerading as science" (a simple definition of pseudoscience), the skeptics are the de facto experts in the area of pseudoscience, so you're not gong to have any success in excluding their views from these articles. Their views are RS for this subject.

5. Your continual IDHT attitude is really tiresome. You have been told many times that you're wasting our time, and you are still doing it. Please find something else to do, or at least take up the issues at the appropriate places. This is not the place. Until the policies of the English Wikipedia are changed to be in line with the German Wikipedia, you're not going to make any progress here, and you're causing disruption here, just like you've done at the German Wikipedia. There you have one of the longest block logs I've seen in a long time. There you've been banned/blocked for wasting time and disruption, and you're about to have that happen here if you don't stop.

6. You seem to have an issue with the Moon landing conspiracy theories matter. Take it up at that article, not here. If they use sources we don't use, or we use sources they don't use, then the matter can be harmonized. There are sources regarding the pseudoscientific arguments used to keep the hoaxes and theories alive. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

@Brangifer: Seems to me, the phase of personal attacks has begun. I'm kicking a dead horse and all this talk about famous philosophers is just a waste of time. And the term pseudoscience is so clear defined we can bring him to our readers that way. --WSC ^® 07:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: Let me put it to you this way: I think, we are agree the term pseudoscience is a term of philosophy of science. But PC Plait ain't a philosopher. He's a skeptic. The term is used in a popular science-context. He don't even try to define the term in a philosophical context: [15] [16] Do you think it is our job to mix up philosophy and some ideology in this encyklopedia? Skeptics instrumental the term pseudoscience as way to fight against esoteric, conspiracy theory and alternativ medicine. In philosophy of science the term and the demarcation between science and non-science is a embettled field. You can't claim theres a definition of pseudocience justifying such a list. We are no skeptics we write a encyclopedia. It's not our job to teach people what skeptic thinking means.

You said somthing absolute accurate: "There are more entries that are not pseudoscience per se. But they are included because people pull all sorts of pseudoscience to justify them." This means that we, as a neutral encyclopedia, claim ther's a coherent term named pseudoscience and all the following topics are pseudocience. The coherence rises only by using weasle words like "characterized as". That's not correct. The (so called) skeptica movement is a popular offshoot of the philosopy of Paul Kurtz. It's a popular and ideologic movement. The most popular Hero is a stage magician. That's a rape of the pillars and independence of wikipeida. We are not a branch of CSI.

The only benefit is that you can claim esoteric, conspiracy theory and alternativ medicine lemmas are pseudocience. You can call nonsense as a pseudoscience. But we adopt the ideology of private skeptic societies. Thats POV as POV can. --WSC ^® 07:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. In the English wikipedia, skeptical organizations are considered reliable sources for pseudoscience, fringe science, paranormal, ufology, etc.

"Boundary work" is not an exclusive prerogative of scientists. All of society helps to define the cultural maps of science. I would recommend "Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line", by Thomas F. Gieryn (I suggest that you read his article before replying to this comment) It's more complicated than this, of course. You can't just go and exclude every "skeptic" organization. If you want to exclude James Randi and CSICOP as reliable sources, then I'll tell you that it's been tried before and that it's just not going to work.

Basically, your arguments are not getting any traction and they are unlikely to get any traction. It's not that "the phase of personal attacks has begun", it's that most editors genuinely think you are actually kicking an actual dead horse. Thus, they are getting irritated, because in their eyes they are seeing how you are kicking a dead horse.

This is not likely to result in changes to the article, and I might stop responding to this thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: I'm bound to say the explanation for violating the five pillars and RS is adventurous.

1. "'Boundary work' is not an exclusive prerogative of scientists." Seems to be the exclusiv opinion of Thomas F. Gieryn. Futher, what you call "all of society" doesn't mean "all of skeptics". I hope you doesn't expect from me, to read the hole book. But I find a interesting passage in it: "One might challenge such efforts on empirical grounds, mustering evidence to show that scientists are neither falsifiers, skeptics, nor puzzle sovers. My tack is different, in effect, a shift of the dependent variable: those who seek essentianlist demarcation criteria should not assume that these explain the epistiemic authority of science." You are right is not as easy as you try to make belief. Maybe you can't exclude any sceptic organisation, but that doesen't mean you have to take them as primary source here in wikipedia. Skeptics are relevant when their meaning is reflected by scientific sources, such as TF Gieryn.
2. You said it's been tried before to exclude CSICOP, but it doesn't work. But that doesn't answers the question: Is it right to exclude them?
3. You said my arguments are not getting any traction. That may accounted for by a missunderstanding of some users who belief they have to fight against pseudoscience (or what they personally belief what pseudoscience is) in this encyclopedia. That doesn't clears up the question if it's right that my arguments be turned down (sometimes by dreadful reply).
4. Most authors may belief I'm kicking an actual dead horse. But thats what Hans Albert calles "immunity against criticism".
5. The topic of this thread is 'POV-March 2013'. It about a POV-box in the article. If you haven't any arguments anymore, I assume that you are consent. --WSC ^® 06:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand how en.Wiki works. Silence from an editor who clearly disagrees with you and who has said they might stop responding is clearly not consent. If you think there are sourcing issues, go to WP:RSN. If you see a specific POV problem, got to WP:NPOVN. So far you still seem to be arguing that this article has no place here but you won't take it to AfD. So, all I can conclude is that you are using this talk page as a WP:FORUM if you don't take your concerns elsewhere. That's not an appropriate use of a talk page and could lead to your being banned from it. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you don't understand how wikipedia works. Belief it or not, in de.wiki some users try to abort an debatte, they can't win, while they say: "I'm against it, but I'm not willing to discuss anymore" too. I think in en.wiki you haven't any atmosphere of constructive debate. You can't wipe away philosophical arguments with arguments like 'that it's just not going to work' or 'you are kicking a dead horse' or 'en.wiki ignores modern philosophy, they rather follow popular and ideologic "movements" like popular skepticism'. Do you really think this kinds of arguments are able to argue excellent philosophical sources away? I mean, of course, you and 30 other skeptics can assert such nonsense, but that ain't serious arguments against philosophy of science. --WSC ^® 08:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion based upon generalities is pretty obviously getting nowhere. Instead of claiming the entire article has pov problems, I suggest identifying the very worst case within the article and working from there. If others agree there is one problem, then we can look if similar problems exist across the entire article. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a weekly markt and no democracy! If some users didn't agree with a POV-box they have to refute my doubts. But thats not possible because my reasoning based upon that philosophy of science doesn't have one definition of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience ain't a term you can use as topic of a list of anything. If you ask me which is the worst case, you doesn't understand the problem of the list. The article is nonsense. It don't matter if some users of en.wikipedia doesen't realize that. The only arguments are a ambiguous secondary policy and the assertion, en.wikipedia doesn't work like that. "Like that" means they don't care about basic sources about the demarcation of pseudoscience. You also doesn't have arguments but WARring a POV-Box out of the article. Do you think this kind of behavior destroys coherent arguments? --WSC ^® 20:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If no one can come up with a single example that we can agree upon, then I don't think this discussion is going to change consensus in any way. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I've written? What kind of example do you mean? A example of what? A example what Hilary Putnam writes about religion and pseudoscience? Or Rudolf Carnap? --WSC ^® 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have bothered you. I see no way for you to change consensus if you just continue as you have. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I'm not right, I'm not wrong, I just can't get a consensus. But a POV-box is especially made for such situations. Isn't it? A POV-box was made for articles the neutrality is disputed. I can't get a consensus (because some users are not interested in such things like "reliable sources" or "philosophical debats" or "the five pillars" they just want to assess some articles as pseudoscience). But that doesen't mean the issue is not disputed. Right? --WSC ^® 06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It isn't. Unless you give a concrete proposal for changing the text backed up by WP policies and reliable sources, you are simply wasting your time, and ours. Tags are not for editors who don't get their way to demonstrate their disatisfaction. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, others have told you to read out policies, especially WP:FRINGE. Please do so again and pay close attention to the section called WP:PARITY, which is what you most have trouble with. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis debate

There is currently a dispute over whether psychoanalysis can be considered a pseudoscience or not. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In a rather important sense, whether it is "considered" a pseudoscience is irrelevant to this article. It's a matter of whether it has been "characterized" as PS (IOW described as, using any of various terms that serve that purpose) that matters. If several notable and non-fringe RS have described it as a pseudoscience, it might well qualify for inclusion. I suggest you check the archives for this, since it's come up many times. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I should have checked before I wrote. It IS a part of the list. See at the end of this section: Psychology. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)