From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Four groups
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on Feb 13 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Considered pseudoscience"[edit] has been making this change, modifying the description of parapsychology as a pseudoscience to "considered by the scientific community to be a pseudoscience". The problem is, our reliable sources clearly indicate that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, and we have no reliable sources indicating otherwise. WP:YESPOV indicates that we should not state facts as opinions (in other words, we should not attribute things which are not simply held by the one group we're attributing). We also need to abide by WP:WEIGHT, and not indicate that the scientific community holds one opinion on parapsychology, but other groups equally hold the contrary position. I'm happy to discuss further, but I'd appreciate if the edit warring stopped in the meantime. What we'd need to make any progress are reliable sources contesting the pseudoscience label. 99.229, do you know of any you could produce? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The edits have recently changed to removing the pseudoscience label, such as here. Ip, you really need to participate on the talk page. It's been more than a week now, and you're still edit warring.   — Jess· Δ 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I see no point in keeping this article, it is a constant source of edit warring and there's hardly any reliable sources. Random IPs just keep adding original research, I think it should be merged with the parapsychology main article. Goblin Face (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, if IPs keep making controversial changes and edit warring, we should consider semi protection. I'll take a look at the history and make a request if there's enough history.   — Jess· Δ 23:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't really seem to be a lot of problems in the last few weeks. Just the changes from the same editor I've reverted. If he continues, I'll ask for a block, and if things pick up after that, then semi protection. It's really not too hard to manage right now.   — Jess· Δ 23:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

"Psionics is an umbrella term used by parapsychologists to describe psychic abilities such as telepathy, psychokinesis, pyrokinesis and others." This is technically true, but it could easily be misinterpreted. Other articles of unevidenced phenomena used qualifications in the lead sentence like "suggested", "claim", "purported", and "alleged": Pyrokinesis, Telepathy, Telekinesis, Psychic. Here, we don't make this clear until the last sentence in the lead: "There is no evidence that psionic abilities exist." That is good, but a bit late. Can we add "alleged", similar to those other artices?

Psionics is an umbrella term used by parapsychologists to describe alleged psychic abilities ..."

That would be accurate, less potentially misleading, and consistent with the other articles it references. The last sentence is still good, and it clarifies things nicely. Other articles do that as well: qualify the lead sentence, and follow up with a more unambiguous explanation of the current scientific consensus. Whikie (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Did John W. Campbell originate the term?[edit]

He certainly did more than most to promote it -- there were probably literally hundreds of stories (and editorials) in his magazine over the years pushing it. I think that a LOT of space should be given here to Campbell. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)