Template talk:Pseudoscience

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

Arbitration ruling on "pseudoscience"

The Arbitration Committee has issued several rulings on guidelines for the presentation of material that might be labeled "pseudoscience":

  • Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
  • 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.
  • 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
  • 2. 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.
  • 3. 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.
  • 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Template-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Psychoanalysis[edit]

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)

Shakespeare authorship question[edit]

This subject includes some examples of pseudohistory or pseudoscholarship, but it's not a scientific topic. Therefore, removed. --Amble (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Quantum healing[edit]

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[edit]

I removed these items as they are unsourced and unmentioned in their respective article:

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"

Should these be left in the terminology section? Or, should the section title be changed or split? Jim1138 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)