From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience[edit]

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, such as Time Cube, 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.
Of relevance to "Generally considered pseudoscience"


In popular culture[edit]

I removed this section because it is unsourced original research and taking far too much of the article. If anyone objects please discuss it here and we can talk about if. Goblin Face (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Fairly typical for so-called 'popular culture' sections of articles. Full of unsourced examples (often trivial), and completely lacking any sourced material actually analysing telepathy in popular culture as a subject. At minimum, inclusion in such sections needs to meet the same standard as other material - by citing third-party sources that discuss particular instances of telepathy as elements of popular culture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Telepathy and pseudoscience[edit]

This edit in my opinion does not reflect the cited sources [1], because none of those sources in the lead mention telepathy being pseudoscience, they say there is no evidence for telepathy and it is non-existent. We already cover parapsychology being a pseudoscience on the article in another section, so there is no need to cover it twice. I have no problem with telepathy being described as pseudoscience but we cannot attribute statements that are not in the cited sources.

The statement "There is no scientific evidence that telepathy is a real phenomenon. Many studies seeking to detect, understand, and utilize telepathy have been carried out, but no replicable results from well-controlled experiments exist." Is more accurate to what the sources say that are in the lead. TreeTrailer (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

It doesn't need a cite in the lede unless you think it is controversial. Kindly change it back. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)