|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pseudoscience template.
|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.|
|WikiProject Skepticism||(Rated Template-class, Mid-importance)|
Regarding this edit, I would simply note that the ArbCom case quoted at the top of this page explicitly noted, "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." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The template currently lists Quantum healing, which is a redirect to Deepak Chopra. This sort of non-obvious redirect is problematic in a navigation template, especially when the target is a BLP. Changing therefore to quantum mysticism, which has wider scope but includes quantum healing along with mention of Chopra in suitable context. --Amble (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Removed unsourced examples. Terminology
I removed these items as they are unsourced and unmentioned in their respective article:
- Bogdanov affair
- Focal infection theory
- Genocide denial
- Historical revisionism (negationism) - This was negationism which redirects.
- Holocaust denial
I think most of these should be removed unless "pseudoscience" is RS'ed in the article. There may be others as well.
Should a comment be added to the top of the template: "DO NOT ADD UNLESS THE ARTICLE HAS "PSEUDOSCIENCE" RELIABLY SOURCED"?
The following have a statement "The boundary between fringe science and pseudoscience is disputed"
- Fringe science - overlap, but not all-inclusive of pseudoscience
- Fringe theory - overlap, but not all-inclusive of pseudoscience