Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 7 January 2009

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Paranormal 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 31, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

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

Melanin Theory

I came across this article today and found a strong reference for labelling it a "pseudoscientific theory" per WP:PSCI. The citation comes from the New York Academy of Science; as such, I added Melanin Theory to uppermost portion of our list article: Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus. Open to discussion if anyone disagrees with the addition. -- Levine2112 02:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Good find (though unfortunate this stuff even exists). This is the sort of thing I'd call a "poster child" for pseudoscience. regards, Jim Butler (t) 08:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. On a related note, what does this mean for the Scientific racism entry? It is currently under List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts/Topics which notable skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific/Health and Medicine. Most of the actual article treats the history of the topic as a superseded scientific theory, so I am actually not sure. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub-topics of creationism

I have deleted historical errors (a scriptural authority is said to have presciently included later scientific discoveries), which are not in themselves pseudosciences. I have also fact-tagged a few sub-topics, but these may be included in the references for the general topic, in which case these fact tags should be deleted. Can someone check this out? hgilbert (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been addressed; thanks! hgilbert (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on organization

Template:RFCsci

Outside editors who wish to render reasoned opinions but avoid slogging through the bickering from the usual suspects (my own calm and impeccable rhetoric notwithstanding), here is a shiny new section for the express purpose. Regular editors here (broadly construed), please minimize your comments to #Outside opinions.

I intend to revert to this version above the objections of editors associated with alternative medicine. I understand their desire to try to distinguish between "scientific societies" and "skpetical societies", but the fact is that there isn't a reliable source which does this. Until such a source is found, any attempt to categorize a particular group as one or the other is essentially original research and is not allowed.

I expect the following editors of this page to object to this declaration:

• User:Jim Butler
• User:Levine2112
• User:Hgilbert
• User:Hans Adler

Aside from having offered no response to the above argument, these users are all heavily involved in the promotion of particular varieties of pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages and therefore we must not take their agreement to be a form of "consensus blocking" that was issued on the talk page last month.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

Not only was there no consensus for that version in the first place, I remind you that the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide an RS showing that lay skeptical societies are as reliable indicators of sci consensus as sci academies. So, where's that source?

(crickets)

And by the way, please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with your false assertion I and others offering "no response" to your proposal; there is lots of discussion in the section above; see diff of my comments.

Additionally, your comment regarding users "heavily involved in the promotion" of pseudoscience above massively violates WP:NPA. Show me some edits where I "promote pseudoscience": I mean, if I really am doing so, then by definition I'm massively violating NPOV, and I should have all kinds of skeptical editors reprimanding me. I've collaborated with many besides yourself, and they've had every opportunity to tell me where I'm at. So, let's find some other editors (besides the ban-decorated Mccready) objecting to my pseudoscience POV-pushing, shall we? Go ahead, I'll wait.

(crickets)

Gee, SA, isn't that odd that you can't produce the above evidence? It just might be that your interpretation is less mainstream than you assume. Frankly, your novel formulation that CSICOP is in the same league with the National Academies of Science strikes me as downright fringe. And certainly, your approach on WP has been so far from the collegial norm that you desperately need some sort of course correction. --Jim Butler (t) 09:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Jim Butler about his conflict of interest and have started a discussion about whether he should be advocating as he is in this article here. Please comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Got you mad, didn't I? Sorry. Your bullshit COI accusation won't fly, though. --Jim Butler (t) 11:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There you have it. No merit in your accusation at all. Thanks for playing. Oh, and BTW, since your accusation is wrong, you're once again in violation of WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." --Jim Butler (t) 23:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer his repetitive arguments: there is no reliable source which says the "scientific societies" "speak" for "scientific consensus" any more than there is a reliable source which says that the "skeptical societies" do. The issue is with separating the two categories of sources. Jim thinks we should separate them but it (apparently) is his own judgment as to what a "scientific consensus determining" group is and what isn't. This is why the argument stands unanswered. This article is engaging in original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Crickets are still chirping, SA. You can't produce the source I asked for, so you vainly try to shift the WP:BURDEN. Additionally, WP:PSCI says we shouldn't "categorize" or "characterize" topics as pseudoscience unless there is general agreement from the sci community. Perhaps the thing to do is ask on RSN whether lay "skeptical" groups are RS's for sci consensus (the kind we use here and here, and Eldereft will note the segregation of sources by reliability there). But I still think my original idea (I've been busy) of just asking ArbCom is better. Also, you can't produce any evidence that I'm editing tendentiously, either, as I predicted. But why let lack of evidence stop you from making unfounded COI accusations? All this silliness doesn't make you look too good in light of the pending ArbCom case regarding your chronically poor conduct. --Jim Butler (t) 11:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that those represent more a segregation by prominence of the source to those specific topics: a reader interested in Scientific opinion on climate change will probably find the IPCC and APS more relevant than various surveys; likewise a reader interested in scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. These articles deal with topics that have attracted enough outside notice that our most reliable sources are numerous enough to "crowd out" anything else. As I say below, I am open to considering stating in the text that entries are placed according to various reliable sources, but the comparison of a list of topics to a list of sources is imperfect. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

But the listing of sources reflects their reliability. Where we differ is that I don't accept these skeptical societies as reliable sources for sci consensus at all. We're talking about the demarcation problem. If a topic is "obviously" pseudoscientific, we don't need a source at all; if it's not obvious, we need a source meeting WP:PSCI, and we can't assume that the commentary of a non-RS skeptic group is a reliable harbinger of what an RS sci academy will say. (I don't think that skeptic groups belong on this list, as titled, at all, and have only accepted them in their own section as a compromise.) Does that seem like a fair description of our disagreement? regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft has it. The issue is that there are absolutely no sources which say that "skeptical organizations" are different from "scientific organizations". Nevertheless, our article makes that distinction. The onus is on the person wanting to keep that distinction to provide a source that distinguishes between the two. So far, this request has gone unanswered. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're still shifting the burden of proof. What advocates of your position have consistently failed to provide is evidence, or compelling arguments, that skeptical advocacy groups are reliable sources for indicating the consensus of the scientific community. Good essay on that issue here by noted skeptic Stephen Novella, with little to support your position. Rigorousness is critical in evaluating such sources. --Jim Butler (t) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only do you not substantively deal with the issue, you are continuing to grasp at flimsier and flimsier straws. The issue has been and always has been what makes the National Academies description of a subject as pseudoscience "scientific consensus" while when CSICOP describes a subject as pseudoscience it suddenly isn't scientific consensus. The only people making the determination are editors here who have obvious agendas. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think that Jim Butler has the right of it in his summation of the dispute - I think that a self-selected group of logically-minded persons may, after due consideration, reliably assert that a topic is pseudoscience. Obviously there are significant caveats here, but there is no fundamental difference between qualified individuals banding together on their own initiative as opposed to forming a committee under the auspices of a professional body. If our only source is 'some jokers with a website say X is pseudoscience', then that would probably not meet the RS bar. If, on the other hand, we have a source of the nature 'individuals with such-and-such qualifications have investigated Y and present these reasons for their assessment' then I would feel a lot more comfortable including Y on this list. We also, of course, need to fairly represent the source-weighted aggregate view - if newer and higher quality sources disagree with older and lower quality sources, the latter should be qualified by the former if the topic is not excluded from this list entirely. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the idea. We can describe who the various people who make up the societies are at the pages devoted to them. We can say what the societies are. But saying that the Astronomical Society of the Pacific is somehow better able to measure scientific consensus than the CSICOP is bald original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support This reorganization is long overdue, as dividing the list in this way needlessly inconveniences our readers by enforcing an artificial distinction. Regardless of the stated intent, the effect is to separate the topics according to whether or not they are infamous enough for a science body to notice and comment on them, or whether only adherents and people interested in pseudoscience have bothered. We still have WP:PARITY and all the usual reliable sources requirements, leaving no particular need for this organizational scheme. If people want more prominent attribution than references (at least most of which have quotes), we can discuss that separately or on a case-by-case basis. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple of good edits this month, and I am presuming that they would be integrated after the proposed reversion. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe they already are (in particular, the addition of Melanin theory). ScienceApologist (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right - I was looking at the wrong version when I wrote that. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reject The Misplaced Pages article on Scientific opinion on climate change, a similarly brisant topic, uses the clear formulation "scientific organizations of national or international standing" to refer exclusively to truly scientific groups; no advocacy groups on either side of the climate debate are included. Skeptical societies are clearly advocacy groups (single-issue, pre-determined point of view) rather than scientific organizations; their point is not open-mindedly to explore a topic (as a Metereological Society, e.g., would) but to advocate a fixed point of view. The distinction between scientific organizations and advocacy groups is not artificial; it is natural. hgilbert (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The article you cite doesn't indicate how to segregate sources on this page. There is no way to getermine which scientific organizations are "open minded" and which aren't except to listen to people who think this way on this page.ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry: an organization with a mission to promote a certain idea is not, by definition, an open-minded (perhaps not, by definition, a scientific) organization. Scientific organizations aim to investigate areas, not to promote (or demote) ideas. The worth of ideas becomes apparent through objective research, not through advocacy. hgilbert (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

We have just been asked by an administrator to "try to take things slowly, listen to what other editors are saying, and work hard to treat everyone with respect and good faith". The above-suggested edit begins by suggesting we not listen to four editors (I am amongst these) and implying that they are not acting in good faith. This is not a good start. hgilbert (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you think that my pointing out your particular connections to anthroposophy may cloud your judgment here is "not a good start". But my prediction was accurate, wasn't it? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My interests no more need "cloud my judgment" than your interests (as an acknowledged skeptic) need cloud yours. The point is to deal civilly with those editors whose point of view differs from your own, accepting that someone representing a different point of view may nevertheless be representing a valid point of view. This is the proof that one's judgment remains unclouded. This is the opposite of saying: "look, this person is obviously misguided, as s/he represents the contrary view to my own." hgilbert (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom: Skeptical groups not same as mainstream science

Well, this is a little bit interesting. From WP:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal: Arbcom distinguishes between mainstream science and skeptical groups. They're not the same thing. Link:

"In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking." -- passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it's apparent to Arbcom that the distinction is real. And that's in the context of paranormal phenomena, which are "generally considered pseudo". What of the demarcation problem? What of greyer areas, areas where the pseudoscience appellation is debatable: where Michael Shermer might bang out an article and later put a book of essays together, vetted by a board composed of a handful of friends? Can such sources be taken as indicating scientific consensus in the rigorous, methodical way that skeptic Stephen Novella lays it out? I would say: of course not! We can have the skeptic groups cited in WP, but not masquerading as scientific consensus. Gonna have to change the list title, it appears. Massive WEIGHT and RS problem otherwise. --Jim Butler (t) 13:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can't find anything in peer-reviewed science magazines supporting your claim, then it's pseudoscience for the simple reason no one in science needs to be convinced that the pseudoscience is pseudoscience. You don't find the "2008 Review of Polywater" in Journal of Applied Chemistry for a reason: no one reading JAC would needs to be convinced that Polywater is pseudoscience and they leave it to skeptics group to do the debunking as the various ridiculous claims come up. Devoting efforts to this in peer-reviewed magazine would be a waste of time because as soon as you debunk something, and the pseudoscience advocate will spin it in a different way and say "Haha debunk this now suckers". The same applies to Cold fusion, and similar topics. In a nut-shell, what science magazine are doing is applying WP:Deny recognition to crackpot theories. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, even if you can find support for an area in peer-reviewed science magazines, the topic may still end up listed in this article so long as any skeptic organization has made negative commentary about the topic. At the moment, any negative claim by any organization trumps any list of positive studies. Why? The sole criterion for this list is that somebody has made a negative claim. It thus violates WP:Undue weight in an extreme way. Relying on mainstream scientific organizations, which are by their nature unbiased, would solve this problem.

BTW, The inverse of the above statement - "If you can find something in peer-reviewed science magazines supporting your claim, then it's not pseudoscience"? - is clearly more plausible than the original. hgilbert (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "any" negative claim. It's claims made by groups that are reliable sources for making the claim. If Joe Shmo writes a blogpost describing celestial mechanics as pseudoscience, that does not make it on our list. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical organisations

I have been following this discussion for a while, and I am mighty puzzled by it. As a member of the Australian Skeptics and of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute I am clear that I have belonged to organisations of a very different character. We seem to be quite clear about this on wikipedia with the first being in Category:Skeptic organisations while the second is in Category:Chemistry societies which is a sub-category of Category:Scientific societies. Do we need a source to categorise organisations in this way? It seems to be quite clear to me. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether one source or another is better for describing the scientific consensus that a certain subject is pseudoscientific. If you can find a reliable source which explains why an organization in the skeptical organizations category is not able to describe scientific consensus while an organization that is in category Chemistry societies, then at least we can make an argument that the attempt to demarcate based on "scientific consensus" is legitimate. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could produce a source stating that skeptical-advocacy groups are just as reliable as scientific socities for our purposes. Why should the burden be on other editors to prove your preferred sources aren't good? Pretty clearly you have it backwards. --Jim Butler (t) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I might have missed some verbiage, but I believe that the only statements asserting equivalence between the two types of society are in the way of being negative arguments; viz. because one group exists to promote science and another to counter pseudoscience, the latter are not reliable in the sense of WP:Reliable sources. Genuine scientific disagreements do not belong on this list, as such belong solidly under the purview of RACI, not AS. Examination of claims for glaring disagreement with commonly accepted reality (how odd it seems that none of my condensed matter physics textbooks mention how phonons and plasmons can cure gout, depression, and chronic Lyme disease), on the other hand, requires much less in the way of specialized training. Scientific societies are generally regarded as reliable for pretty much whatever they say, whereas skeptical societies are somewhat more limited. The disagreement is over whether this is a meaningful distinction for the purposes of this list. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true, Eldereft; that's exactly the disagreement. My view is we don't want to think the skeptic groups are right; we want to know. Scientific academies are meritocracies that focus on research and occasionally advocacy; skeptical groups are open to anyone, self-selected, and are primarily about advocacy. The latter groups try to report and defend what the former are doing. It's like the difference between grad school college, or even high school. Advocacy groups can be used as sources, but they don't meet WP:RS#Consensus as sources for scientific consensus (see discussion at present "Fringe Science" RFAR). They probably do often get the demarcation right, which makes for a nice, complete list. But with grey areas ("questionable science" and so on) I don't see how they're qualified to speak for the scientific community at large. They're simply not equipped, by virtue of membership and mission, to do so. That's why I argue that it's not kosher for us to report what they say, hoping they got it right. Wishful, synful thinking, as Jim Morrison might have said.

Anyway... I will get off my ass and request ArbCom to clarify this. If they won't do it as an extension of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, they may do it as part of the current case. regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph looks to me like original research. I know plenty of skeptical societies (including some that are currently denigrated in this article) where the standards for making a public statement are higher than those of the National Academies. In fact, I would say that Jim's statement isn't really original "research" but more an original "hunch". It's fairly clear that Jim hasn't carefully researched what goes into the production of statements by the different organizations, their various levels of "qualification", their "equipment", their "membership", and their "missions" despite waxing eloquently about each in this paragraph. It is a shame when people don't carefully research the points upon which they opine, but until Misplaced Pages learns to manage the content-violators, we'll just have to put up with shoddy (or zero, in this case) research. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, a paragraph asserting that the Boy Scout Handbook is different than an IOM report would be original research. By your standards, an editor could demand that we cite the Boy Scout Handbook unless another editor found an RS stating that the Boy Scout Handbook is not as reliable as the IOM. Quite clearly your fallacy is shifting the burden of proof. --Jim Butler (t) 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you wrote the statement "The Boy Scout Handbook is not as reliable as the IOM" somewhere in a Misplaced Pages article, then you absolutely must have a source for the statement. Them's the rules. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's obvious (and you'd need an even better source to assert that the two are equally reliable, per WP:REDFLAG). However, it doesn't refute the gist of my comments. We're debating reliable sources, and I'm showing via reductio ad absurdum why your logic is wrong. My preceding comments were pretty clear on that.

Explanation, if needed: I and others are arguing that X class of sources (skeptic advocacy groups) is not as reliable as Y class (sci academies). You're taking the position that I have the burden of showing, via an RS, that X is not as reliable as Y. I'm taking the position that the burden falls on you to show, via an RS or other convincing means, that X is as reliable as Y. In order to show where the burden really lies, I used an absurd example wherein I substituted the Boy Scout Handbook for X source. If we follow my logic, the burden is on you to show that the Boy Scout Handbook is an RS, and you won't be able to do so; the outcome is reasonable and the article remains sound. If we use your logic, we get an absurd outcome: we are allowed to cite the Boy Scout Handbook until someone can find a source specifically saying "The Boy Scout Handbook is not as reliable as the IOM in matters of scientific consensus."

This example shows where the burden lies in this matter, i.e., with those who assume that X and Y sources are functionally equivalent, and want to write the article accordingly. --Jim Butler (t) 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not clear what you call research. The Skeptical organisations I know and broadly support do not fit "where the standards for making a public statement are higher than those of the National Academies". I do not see evidence that you have researched this that well either. There is too much grandstanding on both sides her. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When the Massachusetts Medical Society (which apparently qualifies as a "Skeptical society" on this page) makes a statement, they have a committee of literally nearly a dozen review the statement. When NAS makes a statement, they normally have two people review the statement. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The MMS would qualify as a first-tier, sci-consensus source last I checked. Could you please share sources for what you say regarding the review policies of these groups? --Jim Butler (t) 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So why is it in the second tier? You just are making it up as you go along, it seems. If you read the NAS review on Parapsychology you can see exactly how they wrote the report. The MMS report on naturopathic medicine is linked in our article! ScienceApologist (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the MMS source, but I'm not the one who put it in the second tier, so don't ask me why it ended up there; I just work here and don't own the friggin' place. I don't remember mention in the MMS report of the number of reviewers, and can't find it in the PDF; nor can I find any NAS review in the archives, unless it's there under the name of a specific academy. (Or maybe you're thinking of the NSF review?) Indulge my momentary lapse into denseness, please, and post an excerpt from MMS and a link to NAS (and an excerpt containing the info on reviewers, if it's not readily apparent). Thanks. --Jim Butler (t) 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be my fault - I left Applied Kinesiology under the Health and medicine subsection when adding the MMS source. It seemed a natural place. I guess it can go in the other section, though if this RfC resolves the way I would prefer, the entry will already be in the correct place according to the remaining one organizational scheme. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this proves my point well. Trying to keep track of which organizations are which is essentially original research. Jim thinks that MMS is not a skeptical organization but rather a scientific organization. Okay, I guess he has a reliable source demarcating this? No? Okay. So let's get rid of the tiering: it's making tearing. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We're allowed to use common sense. I don't have a reliable source demarcating sci academies from football clubs either, but that doesn't mean that we, as editors, ought to be teh stupid and equate them. Echoing User:Bduke, it's not too difficult to tell which is which. The question isn't whether we can tell such groups apart (we can, when we're not gaming and pretending to be dense), it's whether they are equally reliable on demarcation sci from pseudo. --Jim Butler (t) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I have an idea that might work. We can try a compromise. We can merge the sections together and distinguish each source by using a number after each entry. Ref number one() could be for consensus among the scientific community. The number 2() could be for skeptic organizations, and number 3() could be for researchers.

Example: *Crop circles

This is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts regarded as pseudoscientific by organizations within the international scientific community, by notable skeptical organizations, or researchers.

We can add citations to the first sentence of the article and describe each one in the reference and then add the citations to each entry and merge the sections together while each entry will still be distinguishable. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinions

Please note that I have not read any of the discussion above, nor am I interested in the issue. I simply saw this quote when reviewing a revert: Quote: ...to try to distinguish between "scientific societies" and "skpetical societies", but the fact is that there isn't a reliable source which does this". I don't know if this will help any, but I found the following news article that documents the existence of "Skeptical societies", described as "a quickly-growing group of people to investigate various claims and debate their merits." Ariel♥Gold 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

Scienceapologist removed referenced material sourced in scientific publications without justification; I am replacing this. What possible justification can there be for eliminating well-referenced and appropriate text? The above discussion points out the danger of giving undue weight to skeptics over scientific publications. Scienceapologist now is attempting to eliminate the science from this article! hgilbert (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't sink to SA's level by protesting that small but real differences are "outrageous". The stuff you're putting in may be well-sourced, but it also is spun a little too favorably to the subject mattter, IMHO. I would suggest self-reverting and bringing the material here for a collective re-write. regards, Jim Butler (t) 18:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Small but real differences are fine. Reverting well-sourced material is not.

The wording I have added is as follows: "a larger review concludes that anthroposophic therapies are associated with long-term reduction of chronic disease symptoms and improvement of health-related quality of life. Anthroposophical treatment of cancer has been demonstrated to improve survival rates of cancer patients. Anthroposophical medicine has also been demonstrated to be effective in treating respiratory and ear infections as well as mental illnesses." How is this spun? This is what the sources say, in some cases word-for-word. What changes would you suggest to bring it into closer alignment with the sources? hgilbert (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is about the fact that anthroposophic medicine has pseudoscientific aspects. It's effectiveness is irrelevant here. Just because something has a source doesn't mean it's relevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This list isn't for long descriptions of the subjects. That should be done on the subject's own article. Here it is relevant to very briefly (1) give a description of what the subject is, and (2) why it is relevant to list it here at all. Nothing more and nothing less. Just describe its relation to the subject of pseudoscience (PS). THAT (PS) is the subject of this article. Just keep it short and to the point. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that something is not pseudoscience is as relevant as evidence that it is; otherwise the article violates WP:NPOV and is effectively a WP:POVFORK.

• "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article" hgilbert (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... so your claim is that this entire article is a POV-fork of anthroposophic medicine? I think that claim is dubious at best. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors have argued that only material that support any subject's classification as a pseudoscience, not material that disputes this classification, will be included here. This is a clear POV-fork. I do not know if anthroposophical medicine is the only topic for which relevant evidence is being excluded in this article; I only know that editors are clearly - by their own statements - excluding all but one POV for all subjects here. This is a POV-fork, plain and simple. hgilbert (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Except the citations you give do not dispute the classification of anthroposophic medicine as pseudoscience. They merely claim to provide "evidentiary" support for anthroposophic medicine, and, though we may argue about the shoddiness of said sources, our concern here is not whether you can dig around to synthesize an article that will pander to your cherished beliefs about anthroposophy. See WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have added sources to balance the statements that "the system is not based in science" and "no thorough scientific analysis of the efficacy of anthroposophical medicine as a system independent of its philosophical underpinnings has been undertaken; no evidence-based conclusion of the overall efficacy of the system can be made at this time". --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Pursuant to the above comment, I restored Eldereft's version of the discussion of anthroposophical medicine. We are here to write about its status as a pseudoscience, not to make apologies for it. .

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me (clearly). That entry was 287 words long - far more verbiage than is needed to say medical treatments inspired by Anthroposophy diverge from medicine in a couple of ways. Properly weighted depth of treatment is entirely appropriate at Anthroposophical medicine, but not here. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That there is a reasonable claim for a scientific basis for anthroposophic medicine (clearly shown by the numerous studies cited) is ignored in the current version. This gives a false impression through giving undue weight. A summary must be NPOV as well as a main article. hgilbert (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened the article; what needs to go is material about the approach not related to judgments about its scientific validity. Any material related to this is clearly relevant. This section is titled "POV-pushing"; I would call suppressing scientific evidence and including only one POV's viewpoint POV-pushing. I am in favor of both POVs being represented. This is called neutrality. hgilbert (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about the scientific basis for anthroposophic medicine (there is none, just like the rest of the attempts by anthroposophists to claim scientific support for their spirituality). This is an article solely about those subjects which have been described as being pseudoscientific. To put it another way, it is an article for explaining what aspects of certain ideas have been labeled as pseudoscientific. We aren't here to pander to the anthoposophic masses who yearn for scientific recognition of their amazing new ideas. This is naked POV-pushing at this point from an avowed anthroposophist. Are we ready to escalate this to pseudoscience law-enforcement officers? ScienceApologist (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just passing... It seems to me that the Hgilbert version is far too much of an advertisment for anthroposophic medicine, an attempt to persuade the reader that it is a valid system. It needs to be pruned back to something more like the ScienceApologist version, which is a much better and more balanced summary of the topic from the perspective of this article. This is not the right place for extended treatment of the topic, pulling in as much as possible to "prove" its value - if anywhere, that sort of stuff belongs at Anthroposophic medicine. Here we need just a brief review of how it is considered a pseudoscience. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the SA version is much more neutral. Verbal chat 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

hgilbert has not yet mentioned that he has complained about this at the NPOV noticeboard: dougweller (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adherents

Hgilbert, based on this edit, I surmise that you disagree with the use of the word adherents to describe people who use Anthroposophic medicine. Referring solely to health care providers in the context of that sentence seems unduly limiting, as it excludes everyone else who makes their health decisions in that context. By way of analogy, it would be absurd to state in Aspirin that it is only used when directed by a doctor. Is there some third wording that would be better? - Eldereft (cont.) 22:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "practice" implies (to me, at least) that the sentence refers to practitioners. The practitioners of anthroposophical medicine are doctors, with M.D. degrees or the equivalent. I have tried an alternate wording that avoids the issue; what do you think? hgilbert (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I think that that wording is perfectly acceptable, thank you.

2) What is wrong with Hanssonn?

3) Ernst is a systematic review, which should generally be considered reliable to make unqualified statements. Is the source being misused, or is it out of date? - Eldereft (cont.) 23:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since we know that there are at least 3 studies of the sort he claims there are none of (see the studies I cited in the last edits) with dates 2004, 2005, and 2007, we should either remove his claim as being out of date or at least qualify it heavily.

I would consider that Hansson does not critique anthroposophic medicine explicitly enough for a citation here, but I will not stand in the way of it being put back in if others disagree. hgilbert (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I added the Hansson citation some while ago, so waiting for additional editors to weigh in seems sensible.

Hamre et al. (2004)(PDF) is not randomized.

Grossarth-Maticek and Ziegler (2006)(PDF) is a bit of a CV-padder in a pretty new journal, but we should not expect the creme of the scientific crop here. One arm was randomized, but the paper discusses only iscador; this is not the definitive paper for that treatment. However, a sentence on mistletoe might not bloat the entry unduly, as it is by far the most widely utilized Anthroposophic medicine.

Hamre et al. (2005) is non-randomized, among other issues of study design.

EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing addresses the scientific principles behind, and applications of, evidence-based healing practices from a wide variety of sources, including conventional, alternative, and cross-cultural medicine. It is an interdisciplinary journal that explores the healing arts, consciousness, spirituality, eco-environmental issues, and basic science as all these fields relate to health.

And now there is new text for me to check since last night when I tracked down these papers which completely miss the issue. Please be more careful. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kienle and Kiene (2007) is at least a systematic review, so we are starting to get somewhere; some of the trials included were randomized, even. I will note, however, that as of later that year, the American Cancer Society said of the evidence base for mistletoe (though all types were included, not just Iscador): Available evidence from well-designed clinical trials that have studied mistletoe did not support claims that mistletoe could improve length or quality of life. Can we start a new subsection below to discuss Iscador?

I would also like to make sure that we keep separate the issues of theoretical justification and evidence-based efficacy - Intelligent falling makes far more accurate predictions than any medical system could ever hope to, but it is still (parody) pseudoscience. Both issues do have some place in this entry, but they should not be conflated.

I would also like to quote here the sentence being cited to Ernst to emphasize how the thusfar proposed modifications are not supported by the above sources: Available evidence from well-designed clinical trials that have studied mistletoe did not support claims that mistletoe could improve length or quality of life. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out above that at least three of the sources presented here post-date Ernst's article; his comment thus cannot be assumed to apply to them. hgilbert (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have gotten mixed up with my copy/paste. The actual sentence cited to the Ernst systematic review is: No thorough scientific analysis of the efficacy of anthroposophical medicine as a system independent of its philosophical underpinnings has been undertaken; no evidence-based conclusion of the overall efficacy of the system can be made at this time. This does not apply to those studies for more reason than anachronicity. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) There is a more recent publication that thoroughly reviews the efficacy of anthroposophic medicine; this is an updated version of a comprehensive review undertaken under the aegis of the Swiss governmental "Health Technology Assessment Report". Kienle, Anthroposophic Medicine, 2006, and partially available at Google Books. hgilbert (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Iscador

This appears to be currently the best source for the use of mistletoe in cancer therapy: Ernst E, Schmidt K, Steuer-Vogt MK (2003). "Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised clinical trials". Int. J. Cancer. 107 (2): 262–7. doi:10.1002/ijc.11386. PMID 12949804. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). If we want to treat the evidence base for the most prominent Anthroposophical medicine, this would seem the way to go. A brief sentence explaining why Steiner decided that mistletoe would cure cancer would also be in order. As I mentioned earlier, it is my opinion that the Anthroposophic medicine entry is already about as long as any individual entry should reach. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It would not be fair to represent this without also mentioning that it is generally accepted that "mistletoe extracts can inhibit metastasis, reduce size, and cause necrosis of induced tumours" (British Canadian survey of mistletoe research) in animals and have antitumoral effects in vitro. hgilbert (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The National Cancer Institute offers the most thorough and up-to-date review of the treatment of cancer with mistletoe extracts.hgilbert (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That source you cite severely criticizes the studies. I think it criticizes them enough to warrant no inclusion of studies here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

use of term/prefix 'pseudo'

A use of the term/prefix 'pseudo' to mean "false" appears to be routinely applied within this article and others, e.g. 'pseudopodia' as a characteristic of amoebas. As applied with such words as 'forgery', pseudoscience may actually refer to propaganda as well as to examples of occult pooling of memory-images -- including mental groupings of memory-images that do not really occur in nature (known as 'hallucinations' when non-voluntary). beadtot66.217.68.88 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

First, QuackQuru, you and most other editors are well aware that chiropractic is a controversial inclusion, because editors have differed on which category of WP:PSCI it falls in according to RS's. (Not "obvious" PS. Verifiably "generally considered" per an RS? To be determined. "Questionable science?" Yes, it fits that; some critics, but not necessarily a sci-consensus source.) So, if you're going to have one more go at putting it in, you might (a) let editors know on this page, (b) use a descriptive edit summary per WP:ES instead of the remarkably uninformative "meets inclusion crieteria". Thanks, QG.

That said, I'm reverting SA's revert of TheDoctorIsIn, because I'm virtually certain that we've never reached consensus as to whether articles published in Skeptical Inquirer represent official endorsement of CSICOP. (An analogous question would be whether everything published in NEJM carries the considered endorsement of the Massachusetts Medical Society. I believe the generally-accepted answer to that question is "of course not".)

Finally, ScienceApologist, your edit summary in rv-ing TheDoctorIsIn violates WP:NPA, did not advance the debate, and was inappropriate: "Obvious agenda". The demarcation of certain topics, like chiropractic, is non-trivial. You don't own the objective high ground in this case at all. You've got an opinion that you are free to argue here. Do so according to the same rules we all are expected to follow, and we'll be able to have a straightforward exchange of views. To the extent you lapse into uncivil POV pushing, misrepresentation of consensus, WP:IDHT, personal attacks, or other issues already amply cataloged at ArbCom, you will merely be adding to the stack of evidence on the "unfavorable" side. --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The references are reliable and are currently in the main chiropractic article. The references easily meet the inclusion criteria for this article. If you think the references are not reliable please remember there is consensus for similar text and the same references for inclusion at chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As an IP pointed out, the inclusion criteria are different here because this is a "List of Pseudosciences". Inclusion means that WP is affirmatively saying a topic is pseudoscience, just as the earth is round (oblate spheroid). Which means we have to meet WP:PSCI, the criteria for which are, as you know, easily visible at the top of the page. Sticking the material in at chiropractic is simply citing an RS in an "according to..." manner, consistent with WP:PSCI's "questionable science".

For all editors seeking to include the material:

• Please remember that WP:BURDEN places the burden on you to include material. Saying it's "sourced" is insufficient, since the issue is whether the sources meets WP:PSCI. Since the inclusion criteria are disputed, the proper thing to do would be to exclude it until and if consensus settles on inclusion.
• ScienceApologist, please don't misrepresent consensus; this is at least the second time you've done so on this page.
• Verbal, I see that you reverted "per WP:BRD" and then failed to discuss at all. What's up with that?

thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The source or sources explain the pseudoscience of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Every editor on this page knows exactly what I'm referring to above re sources needing to meet WP:PSCI. --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem the reliable reference. The source meets WP:PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't! --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to all articles on Misplaced Pages. WP:PSCI also applies to all articles on Misplaced Pages when we use the label pseudoscience. At the chiropractic article, we label chiropractic pseudoscience and it meets the inclusion criteria of WP:PSCI. If labeling chiropractic pseudoscience at chiropractic has no objections then there should be no objections here. QuackGuru (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, BLP applies to all articles on WP, although articles come under its purview only to the degree that BLP material is discussed in them. Same deal with WP:PSCI: its "razor" only kicks in when we are concerned with "categorizing" or "characterizing" topics as pseudoscientific. If we're just mentioning the views of some critics, that's fine as long as we have an RS; that's what WP:PSCI means by "questionable science".

However, if we're having WP affirmitively state that a topic is PS, e.g. by putting it in category:pseudoscience or here in "List of Pseudo...", then we've got to meet a higher threshold in terms of source: topics "which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

The sources in the passage you'd like to add are both apparently OK on WP, though at the low end of reliability; neither appears to be from a scientific peer-reviewed publication. There is certainly no reason to belief that they are RS's for what the sci community "generally considers" to be the case. (Interestingly, I feel quite sure that sources of such marginal quality, if cited for a contention like "chiropractic is not at all pseudoscientific", would be eviscerated by some of the strongly "skeptic"-leaning editors.)

That about sums it up. --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Backin72 is essentially supporting his comments with originally researched innuendo. QW has sources. Therefore, QW is the one in the right. Let Backin72 find sourced evidence to back up his synthesis, but until then we should not be using it as justification for any edits. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Explain where the synthesis is, please. All I did was cite (and repeat, in my own words) WP:PSCI, which draws distinctions between "questionable science" and "generally considered pseudoscience", and states the type of source required. You do remember the debate over categorization at the RFAR on pseudoscience, in which both you and I commented, so I'm sure this is familiar territory for you. So, where's the synthesis? Questioning whether Keating speaks for the sci community, or what?

Also, your reversion once again misrepresented the existence of consensus. All we have here on the talk page are QG and I discussing, with you just now weighing in. We also have a few editors not discussing but giving ES's of varying degrees of coherence. Whatever that is, consensus it ain't. It is, however, a good example of your "damn the torpedos" approach, which unfortunately won't work very well in a situation where you're not self-evidently right. I's one thing to debate creationism or perpetual motion, and quite another to debate whether we have adequate sources for demarcation of well-known topics that aren't trivial judgement calls. It is that behavior that is corrosive to building an encyclopedia. --Backin72 (n.b.) 20:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All you do is original synthesis based off of your parochial understanding of WP:PSCI. You have no sources which disparage QG's sources, nor do you dispute QG's sources are saying what he is telling you they are saying. Instead you are trying to Wikilawyer your way into removing alternative medicines which have had parts of them verifiably described as pseudoscience. I think the encyclopedia building is going fine without the feet-dragging and the false claims of (non)consensus that you are making. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please treat this as a real debate, not foot-dragging to be smacked down. (1) You say I'm doing original synthesis, but only offer up a pejorative ("parochial"), and never explain why. (2) The burden is on editors to provide adequate sources. If you suggest the Boy Scout Handbook as a source for sci consensus, I don't need an RS disparaging it. The same apply to Keating, Homola and the Skeptical Inquirer article: RS's for opinion, i.e. inline attribution, but not sufficient (per WP:ASF) for presenting their opinions as facts, particularly in the case of topics falling under WP:PSCI. (3) "Wikilawyering" -- that accusation is the first refuge of those who can't defend their position. (4). And you repeat the false assertion re consensus. Look, as I said before, this isn't a debate over AIDS revisionism or something where the facts are clear. You do not have the objective high ground here, and the issues aren't trivial. All I'm asking is that you change your talk page edits from "battling creationists" mode to "substantive discussion" mode. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:PSCI: 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." We are not generally characterized it as pseudoscience. We are attributing it to when it was mainly pseudoscience for the chiropractic entry and attributing it to the skeptic groups for the Traditional Chinese Medicine entry. According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. If you think we are asserting it too strong as pseudoscience then you are free propose or modify the wording to improve the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, chiro is "questionable science". According to WP:PSCI, "questionable science" shouldn't go in a category or list that definitively says it's pseudoscience. Certainly, the article on chiro, or a list of alleged pseudosciences or something similarly qualified, can contain such criticism. However, we cannout put chiropractic into category:pseudoscience. Nor can we put it on a "List of pseudosciences...", which is similarly definitive. Numerous other editors have acknowledged this point in the past; it's just a straight reading of WP:PSCI. I see you guys are tag-teaming on edit warring and while not addressing the argument very substantively, so for now I won't pursue the matter further here; you're asserting a local consensus which (a) doesn't exist and (b) is contrary to global consensus on NPOV. --Backin72 (n.b.) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. Where does it say in WP:PSCI it cannot go on a list? QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the list is. We don't put Menachem Begin in "List of State Terrorists" because there isn't broad enough agreement among RS's to do so. Similarly, we don't put "questionable sciences" on a "List of Pseudosciences...". No matter how much explaining may be done under the entry, it's already been affirmatively categorized as pseudoscience. That is not OK under NPOV.

"Questionable sciences" are defined as "theories that have a substantial following... but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience", and may contain information to that effect: that is, we cite and attribute the criticisms (cf. my edit to chiroractic, which added the necessary attribution to Keating. What we cannot do with "questionable sciences" is characterize them as pseudoscience:

• we can't put them in category:pseudoscience (but we might put them in category:disputed science);
• we can't say that "X topic is pseudoscience" (but we can say "according to so-and-so, X topic is pseudoscience); and
• we can't put them on a "List of pseudosciences..." (but we could put them on a "List of alleged pseudosciences").

That's it in a nutshell. We report facts about opinions unless we have a source reliable enough to report information as facts per se (e.g., the HIV virus causes AIDS). --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about which list chiropractic belongs to, but I do have an objection to that edit of Chiropractic. The text in question did not claim that chiropractic is a pseudoscience, and what it did claim is supported by several reliable sources (including chiropractic ones) and is not disputed by any reliable source. For more about that particular edit, please follow up in Talk:Chiropractic #"by Joseph C. Keating, Jr.", a thread I just created. Eubulides (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not just Keating. When it is not just Keating attribution seems unnecessary. See WP:ASF. According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. To that effect, it can be on this list as long as it is written in accordance with NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading it, the Keating source is not calling chiropractic a pseudoscience; nor does the text at Chiropractic make such a claim. Eubulides seems to agree with this above when he/she states: The text in question did not claim that chiropractic is a pseudoscience.... Further, the Keating source is speaking from a historical perspective (up until the 1970s) and does not necessarily reflect current opinion. That said, if there was a list of items historically characterized as a pseudoscienc (in the past), then this sources may serve well. But as it stands, this source does not meet the inclusion criteria set forth by this list article specifically. (Nor does it qualify to meet the requirements of WP:PSCI.) -- Levine2112 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I previously explained how the source meets the inclusion criteria. It does quality under WP:PSCI. There is more than one source and there are more sources at the main chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources which you have presented characterize chiropractic as a pseudoscience; nor does the current Chiropractic article characterize it as such. If you believe differently, please present us the text from the particular source which characterizes the subject as a pseudoscience. Honestly, that would be the best way to move forward from here per WP:BRD. -- Levine2112 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with QW's addition. It is well-sourced and explains the situation plainly despite Chiropractic true-believers' objections. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't characterize me as a "true believer" per WP:NPA. We don't need personal attacks here. What we need here is a recent and reliable source which represents the views of some notable skeptical society and characterizes the subject as pseudoscience. Thus far, none has been presented. If you have one, please provide the source here along with quotes from the source which espouse such a characterization. Until then, please refrain from re-inserting the text into this list. Thank you. -- Levine2112 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The same text and references is in the main chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As Eubulides and myself have explained above to you, the Chiropractic article does not characterize chiropractic as a pseudoscience anywhere. If you are refering to the Keating sources, then please provide the quotes from these sources which characterizes chiropractic as a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time for QuackGuru to finally stop this campaign of inserting chiropractic into this article. I count at least 25 times in the past two years where he/she has attempted to insert chiropractic into this article in some form or another with similar or weaker sources - all of which have been rejected in past discussions such as there:

1. Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive_9#Chiropractic_and_New_England_Skeptical_Society
2. Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive3#Chiropractic_.3D_Pseudoscience
3. Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive7#Chiropractic

Despite these discussions - all of which ultimately rejected QuackGuru's reasoning for inclusion, he/she continues the campaign to include this material via edit warring. Here are at least 25 instances of QuackGuru attempting to insert chiropractic into this article for the past two years:

These edits had been reverted by many different editors. Several discussions have taken place on this talk page, each coming to a consensus that no source has been presented which merits the inclusion of chiropractic. Despite this long history, QuackGuru returns every so often and attempts to edit war this material back into this article. I truly feel that QuackGuru's campaign has worn down our patience here at this article and suggest to him/her that it is time to move on. -- Levine2112 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the source: A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That source has been rejected in the past discussions I list above because it is nearly 12 years old and even still doesn't characterize chiropractic as pseudoscientific. The source talks about pseudosceintific ideas within the profession, but it doesn't label the entire professional as such. These days, those "ideas" are only perpetuated by some minority - albeit perhaps a significant minority - of chiropractic doctors. -- Levine2112 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The source has not been rejected at chiropractic. According to the source the pseudo-scientific ideas are a continuing barrier. This meets the inclusion criteria for this article and the chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The source has been rejected at this article. Yes, it is accepted at Chiropractic, but it is not being used to characterize chiropractic a pseudoscience. This has been told to you over and over and over again. Please cease with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments. You are wasting our time and trying all of our patience. For two years you have been edit warring, trying to include this material - and for two years your insertions and arguments have been rejected by the community at large. It's time to move on. -- Levine2112 06:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. To that effect, it can be on this list as long as it is written in accordance with NPOV.

According to source A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.

When the source states it has continued "pseudo-scientific ideas" it is characterizing chiropractic as pseudoscience anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am done until you move on from these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments. -- Levine2112 06:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No specific or valid objection has been made to my previous comment. The text is well sourced and in accordance with WP:PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with QG. There seems to be a bit of WP:POT to boot. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the statement above of "several discussions have taken place on this talk page, each coming to a consensus that no source has been presented which merits the inclusion of chiropractic", could someone provide links to these discussions? Thanks, --Elonka 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar text has consensus at the main chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Verified according to source as requested

Levine2112 asked for verification on the talk page and in his edit summary: Reverted to revision 262039080 by Levine2112; the sources given say nothing of the such. please provide exact quotes on talk page as requested.. using TW.

According to the source: A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.

The text has been verified as requested by Levine2112. According to the source the pseudo-scientific ideas are a continuing barrier. Per the source, we need to get the present tense corrected. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying it meets WP:PSCI certainly doesn't make it so; there is no reason to believe that chiro falls into "generally considered pseudo", and "questionable sciences" shouldn't be on a "List of Pseudosciences" any more than they should be in "category:pseudoscience". QG, I think the list Levine compiled above is prima facie evidence of WP:TE on your part. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. We can include information to that effect according to PSCI. Levine2112's objection was sourcing. I provided verification as requested by Levine2112. Chiropractic is clearly associated with pseudoscience according to the sources presented. Where in policy does it specifically say we can't include it on a list. QuackGuru (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

as I've explained below and repeatedly, the sources are not adequate because they don't meet WP:PSCI's high requirements for sourcing topics that are "characterized" (i.e., affirmed without qualification on WP) as pseudoscience. --Backin72 (n.b.) 12:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Levine2112 the source is adequate becuase he requested verification of the text. Please read his edit summary: Reverted to revision 262039080 by Levine2112; the sources given say nothing of the such. please provide exact quotes on talk page as requested.. using TW. When an editor requests the exact quotes from the source it means that editor agrees the source is adequate and just wantsd to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting and discussing

User:Backin72 reverted to his preferred version, but it doesn't look like he is part of the discussion. Seeing this, I reverted him. I do not think it wise that people ignore the points made by QG. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I posted less than an hour before you just did:

• 22:36, 5 January 2009

And before that:

• 23:07, 4 January 2009

...and see talk page history for more. In the last 100 edits, I count 17 by myself and 18 by yourself; I didn't check how many were minor. In any case, I've obviously been discussing this ad nauseum with QuackGuru.

SA, you're hard to figure out. Do you habitually distort the record because you think you'll get away with it, or because you truly have blind spots? In any case, congratulations; your falsehoods have pulled me from retirement. I'm going to make sure all evidence of this type is put before ArbCom. --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (struck stuff possibly inappropriate for this venue --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

No specific objection has been made to this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely false also; see here. (You asked the question several times, but the diff above is the answer I gave, and I haven't heard back from you about the points I raised.) --Backin72 (n.b.) 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. We can include information to that effect according to PSCI. Levine2112's objection was sourcing. I provided verification as requested by Levine2112. Chiropractic is clearly associated with pseudoscience according to the sources presented. If you read PSCI carefully we can included information about chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

QG is correct. QG has responded to all of Backin72's attempts to obstruct and Backin72 has responded to none of QG's points. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

SA's comment does not hold up to even a cursory reading of the talk page. --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't read with a cursory attitude, then. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

QG is incorrect. Psychoanalysis has been called pseudoscience and it is not allowed to categorized as such. Find something else to push. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained how I am incorrect. Is it because I am correct? QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between a list versus a category. We have a list on Misplaced Pages that resolves the pseudoscience issue. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a list's inclusion criteria must be NPOV and these aren't. You remember your first attempt at an article don't you - List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts. I think you started that article actually. Rembember how the inclusion criteria was too vague and violated NPOV? Then of course there is the ArbCom that SA was a part of. No Chiropractic and Acupuncture do not belong just because you have a commentary article that uses the term. But don't trust me, take it to the arbcom committee and see aht they say. Maybe things have changed, like chiropractic and acupuncture have both been intergrated into medicine since then. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a specific objection to the text or references. Vague comments are not helpful. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dematt can speak for himself, but I'd say the objection is to the inclusion of all of the text, and that the references don't meet those required for a "generally considered pseudoscience by the sci community". I mean, Keating in two non-peer-reviewed articles? One article on CSICOP, neither a group statement from the org or itself a legit peer-reviewed journal? Come on, not even close to meeting the sci-consensus standard. As for "questionable sciences", yes, "information may be included to the effect" that critics exist, but only in articles or categories that don't explicitly "categorize" or "characterize" the topic as PS. You've asked that question about 10 times, and I've answered it about twice now. I've never objected to including "grey area", "questionable sciences" in an article with a looser title. Why not push for that? --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

According to PSCI we can include information to that effect but not a category. This list is not the same as a category. The reference is the attribution to the skeptic group. It is not alleged to be pseudoscience when it is referenced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The list's title unambiguously says everything on it is a pseudoscience. That's the same effect as "categorizing" or "characterizing". List titles matter. I've always said that if it were changed, I'd have no problem including "questionable sciences" with inline citations. Otherwise, I'm against it, and so are Dematt and Levine2112 and maybe some others, so we don't have consensus yet. --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Where in Misplaced Pages policy does it say a list is exactly the same as a category? QuackGuru (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere, of course. They don't have to be exactly the same for our purposes. WP:PSCI uses the terms "categorized" and "characterized". I take those to refer to categories and lists (i.e., those with unqualified names like "category:pseudoscience" or "List of Pseudosciences...") as well as any article when the depiction is made without inline attribution. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is simply wikilawyering. QG has provided excellent sources which establish the pseudoscience association. Sooner or later, it's going to be in this list. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And both he and you totally ignore the arguments specific arguments re WP:PSCI, categorizing/characterizing, sourcing, and this lists's title. Instead, you offer up "wikilawyering" as the sole rebuttal. Is that the best you can do? I mean, "wikilawyering" is almost on par with Godwin's Law around here.

While we're at it, another instance of ignoring consensus: Verbal's edit. I then posted on his talk page asking, not nicely but within civility, to stop doing that. His reply was to remove the material and call me a "troll with an agenda". As if. If Verbal continues as he is, he's headed for RfC/E land. I know I sounded a bit rude, but everything I said was correct and backed up by evidence, and any scientist ought to be able to look at data, and not insult fellow editors by making false statements. Good faith is at a nadir around here, and a great deal of it has to do with the "ends justify the means" mentality that underlies many edits from the looser-demarcation advocates. --Backin72 (n.b.) 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like I'll start a wiki-etiquette alert as I think it is you that is being highly uncivil, and not me. Your language and behaviour was inappropriate, and the majority of your comment above is unsuitable for this talk page. We can see what the wikietiquette people think for a third opinion about your behaviour if you like. Returning to the topic, I'm not convinced, and neither are others, and nor the long standing consensus of the page, by your interpretation of PSCI. Verbal chat 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Show me evidence of that supposed long-standing consensus on the page. I, Dematt, Levine, and others have objected. Out of ca. 10 regulars, I don't think that's quite consensus. Do you disagree? Explain why. As I said to SA, you don't own the objective high ground here, so stop acting like you do. We're debating a fairly subtle issue of demarcation, NPOV and sourcing. Where I accept that reasonable people can differ, you and SA and QG act as though those who differ are basically full of shit and it's not even worth hearing their argument, just like with all the other pseudoscientists. That's exactly how you've acted. See how it might be a poisonous approach to editing?

On my post to your talk page, I asked you to fix three specific things about your editing that are Wikiquette violations. I was brusque, but civil, and everything I said was true and backed up by diffs. Your response to this request to improve your Wikiquette was to blank the comments, call me a troll, and complain about my Wikiquette. Lovely. WP:POT much?

It's reasonable for and editor to ask, and for you to work on, not misrepresenting consensus, being wrong re WP:BURDEN (same diff), and failing to practice on the talk page what you preached in an edit summary re bold, revert discuss (i.e., you didn't discuss at all). Those are all substantive, reasonable things. Why do you need a Wikiquette alert to get them further explained to you? --Backin72 (n.b.) 13:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, and your first ever interaction with me was very rude and highly combative. Please keep discussion on this page on topic - improving the article, per WP:TALK. I will not reply to further such comments here, and I ask any other editor to remove such off topic posts made by anyone. Verbal chat 14:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's get down to basics. Please show me evidence of that supposed long-standing consensus on the page regarding PSCI. I trust that request is not rude. And please withdraw your claim if you can't support it. That's fair also, isn't it? --Backin72 (n.b.) 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Verbal is right, the entire thing is getting way out of hand. We have sourced inclusions and people opposing the sourced inclusions. It's as simple as that. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not address the question re: your assertion about consensus? --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112 requested verification and I provided verification. No specific objections to the verification has been made. Does that mean we have consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not; not unless the editors objecting have examined the verification and agreed it is sufficient. (No offense. I just like to examine and consider the evidence myself. Pesky habit, I know, but it's a science thing.) Please provide a diff showing whatever new sources you've found. Thanks.

Addendum: if it's this, no, I don't buy that either is sufficient. Two non-peer-reviewed articles? Fine (at best) for inline attribution in chiropractic; not fine for categorizing or placing on definitively-titled "List of Pseudosciences...". That's per WP:PSCI's requirements: stronger claims of something being seen as pseudoscience require stronger sources. Nowhere else in science do we presume that if some dude whispered "A = B" somewhere, and non contradicted him, that A = B must be regarded as factual (not even attributable opinion, but fact) for purposes of an encyclopedia. --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A list is different than a cat. WP:PSCI's requirements have been met. I provided verification. See Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Verified according to source as requested. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text for Chiropractic entry

Much as I respect the opinions and work of many of the editors contributing to this article, I would like to see the proposed text discussed here, consensus established, and a general collegial atmosphere maintained. Also, unless I missed it, the current discussion omits information about what chiropractic actually is. I would like to think that we can agree on something along the lines of Chiropractors perform spinal manipulation . , though many still adhere to the vitalistic principles on which it was founded. . , , and has neither a prophylactic nor curative effect on any organic disease. We might also consider: the (sourced) anti-vaccination stance of some in the profession; the (sourced) dangers of relying solely on chiropractic to the exclusion of (other) medicine; the (sourced) straight/mixer/etc. terminology; the (sourced) use of homeopathy, applied kinesiology, and other pseudoscientific practices; and the (sourced) overuse of x-rays, though I am not certain if those are the most relevant points to make. To that end (drawing heavily on Chiropractic and associated articles and talkpages):

*Chiropractic is a healthcare profession within complementary and alternative medicine focusing on spinal manipulation. Many modern chiropractors target solely mechanical dysfunction, and offer health and lifestyle counseling. Many others, however, base their practice on the vitalism of D.D. Palmer and B. J. Palmer, maintaining that all or many organic diseases are the result of hypothetical spinal dysfunctions known as vertebral subluxations and the impaired flow of innate, a form of putative energy. These ideas are not based in science, and along with the lack of a strong research base are in part responsible for the historical conflict between chiropractic and mainstream medicine. Recent systematic reviews indicate the possibility of moderate effectiveness for spinal manipulation in the management of nonspecific low back pain. The effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been demonstrated according to the principles of evidence-based medicine for any other condition. Spinal manipulation, particularly upper spinal manipulation, carries some risk of side effects with possible neurologic involvement (fainting, dizziness, light headedness, headache, or numbness or tingling in the upper limbs), and low risk of more serious complications such as subarachnoid hemorrhage or vertebral artery dissection.

I am aware of but not a participant in the current brouhaha at Chiropractic. To avoid forking productive discussion, I would like to focus on points that have been settled there, and update this entry accordingly. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Healthcare professional? No. OrangeMarlin 22:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How about alternative healthcare? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic (at least earlier today) said "health care", so I took that as a starting point. Would omitting that clause entirely (replace the above proposed first sentence with: Chiropractic is an alternative medicine practice focusing on spinal manipulation.) be better? To forestall the other anticipated objection to that sentence, the preponderance of non-Chiropractic reliable sources seems to describe it as complementary and/or alternative medicine. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic Consensus versus Scientific Consensus

Scientific consensus does not support the theory that vertebral misalignment or "subluxation" is a cause of organic disease (College 1996, Crelin 1973, Jarvis 2001, National Council Against Health Fraud 2005). Spinal nerves primarily supply musculoskeletal structures. Organ function is governed by the autonomic nervous system in concert with psychic, chemical, hormonal, and circulatory factors. Autonomic cranial and sacral nerves that supply the body's organs do not pass through movable joints. Spinal nerves are commonly irritated or compressed by bony spurs, herniated discs, and other abnormalities in the spine. Even the most severe compression of a spinal nerve, however, which cripples the supplied musculoskeletal structures, does not cause organic disease. It is unreasonable to assume that slight misalignment of a vertebra or an undetectable vertebral subluxation complex can cause disease or ill health when those effects do not occur because of gross displacement of a vertebra or as a result of impingement of a spinal nerve.

On June 15, 2005, the World Federation of Chiropractic, at its Eighth Biennial Congress, unanimously agreed that chiropractors should be identified as "spinal health care experts in the health care system . . . with emphasis on the relationship between the spine and the nervous system" (World 2005). This definition fails to place proper limitations upon chiropractors who use spinal adjustments to treat general health problems, plunging the profession deeper into pseudoscience and away from establishing an identity for chiropractors as back-pain specialists. Most states continue to define chiropractic as a method of adjusting vertebral subluxations to restore and maintain health, allowing chiropractic treatment of almost any ailment.

The following text says vertebral subluxation is pseudoscience.

Comments on Chiropractic Consensus versus Scientific Consensus

According to the source scientific consensus does not support vertebral misalignment or "subluxation". Moreoever, vertebral subluxations has been characterized as pseudoscience, plunging the profession deeper away from establishing an identity. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, when you have anything other than your synthesized original research let me know. -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I provided exact quotes from the reference. Your vague comments are unhelpful.

Adjustment of a selected vertebra would release vital nerve flow so that so-called "innate intelligence" could heal the body (Wardwell 1992). This theory has since been rejected and ridiculed by the scientific community. QuackGuru (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What scientific community are you pointing to? I only see Samuel Homola writing a commentary piece. He uses the word pseudosceince, but who is he? A chiropractor. Where is your scientific community? The onus is on you. -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You previously claimed it was synthesized orginal research but now you saying something different.

You have ackowledged the text is verified which is from a skepitc group. This skeptic group meets the inclusion criteria for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change in accordance with Misplaced Pages's standard. The skeptic group meets the inclusion criteria for this list. QuackGuru (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Dr. Homola is writing as a skeptic, not the official mouthpiece of CSICOP. The opinion of one skeptic doth not make a scientific consensus. -- Levine2112 05:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The skeptic group reviews what they put on their website. The source is relieble. Please see WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is whether it's an RS for this article and this item, as opposed to a "generic" RS for Misplaced Pages. Just as BLP articles have specific rules, so do PSCI ones. Regarding CSICOP, we've never had consensus that something published by X group is officially endorsed by X group. And I, and others, have accepted as a compromise this version that includes skeptical groups, even though I have grave reservations that these are RS's for scientific consensus. (please see my second paragraph just under section above; see diff). Again -- my position is loosen the list title to reflect where you want to take the criteria, and that will be fine (even though I would wonder if a list of everything ever criticized in Skeptical Inquirer were really encyclopedic). --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps now is a good time for all of us to review how we deal with lists at Misplaced Pages and remember that lists should not be used to push any POV. This seems to be the problem here; POV pushing through lists. -- Levine2112 08:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that this is bald obstructionism on the part of editors who do not with to see certain ideas associated with pseudoscience though they generally are. QG has found excellent sources that associate the ideas with pseudoscience. It is very unseemly that these sources are essentially being ignored in favor of innuendo and Wikilawyering. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add that it is obstructionism by a minority of editors with a well known bias. Verbal chat 12:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys can make ominous noises like that all you want, but it doesn't make the charges true, nor does it obscure the fact that your edits have been problematic: very heavy on misrepresenting consensus and WP:IDHT. Better to start talking on the merits rather than making boilerplate claims. --Backin72 (n.b.) 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I see consensus as supporting the inclusion of the following ideas:

1. Traditional Chinese medicine
2. Certain aspects of chiropractic
3. Subluxation

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence please? Head count? --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic did not have serious research to test chiropractic theories for most of its existence, and is continuing to be hampered by antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas that sustained the profession in its long battle with mainstream medicine. Scientific consensus does not support chiropractic's vertebral subluxation and it is characterized as pseudoscience, away from establishing an identity of back pain specialists. The text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant show me the editors on each side and show how there is consensus. (I really have no idea, QG, how you intended the above passage to apply to my question.) --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am allowed to make a proposal. I reccomend to editors to focus on improving the article instead of any attempts to block sourced material. In another thread there is a proposed chiropractic entry that is more detailed than my proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal assumes that our objections to the sources aren't legitimate. When we're citing scientific consensus (per WP:PSCI), we need better than Skeptical Inquirer articles and the like. Several editors hold this view, and that's why the "consensus" you and others prematurely assert is not present. --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title

This is not the first time this has come up, but this is the first time I have seen such clear proof that the article title contravenes Misplaced Pages guidelines. From the guidelines for lists:

Avoid using the name of the list as a way to assert a certain POV. A "List of famous British people" asserts that the people in the list are famous. A better name could be the simpler "List of British people"; per WP:BIO, individuals will be listed only if they pass the Misplaced Pages:Notability test. Avoid using terms that are in dispute as the main descriptor for the list. For example, "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists".

That seems clearly applicable to this article title. hgilbert (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have supported a title change all along. We get into these disputes because of this non-NPOV title. Just change it and we'll be able to move on and include the items without problem. I don't recall all the suggested alternatives, but here is a previous discussion. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the earlier discussion, it seems clear that there was quite widespread support for, but that there are also genuine concerns associated with the name change. To meet these, I would suggest that:

• We do not relax the article criteria (i.e. not everything that anyone has ever alleged to be pseudoscience should be listed)
• We find a name that balances the concerns that we don't want to whitewash the fact that some topics are surely pseudoscientific, nor do we want to imply that everything listed has been clearly demonstrated to be so.
• We honor the above-mentioned guidelines about a term that is in dispute. hgilbert (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We agree, I think, that:

1. The sourcing criteria should be that reliable sources must have identified pseudoscientific aspects of ideas in order for them to be included.
2. Balance is covered by WP:WEIGHT. When there are positive reviews of ideas, they must be independent, third party evaluations and they must explicitly address the "pseudoscience" accusation. So, for example, using an astrologer as a source for "astrology is not pseudoscience" is unacceptable.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good progress here! Agree with Hgilbert's points. Agree with SA's point #1. Not sure I agree entirely with #2; just as not every sci academy gets around to commenting on every pseudoscience, not every RS gets around to rebutting some CSICOP or Shermer article deeming a topic pseudoscience (and let's be real; these guys can and do get carried away with flinging the label around from time to time). An alternative: along with rebuttal of the pseudoscience claim, allow 3rd party commentary affirming the scientific or utilitarian aspects of the topic in question. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

References

This section contains references used in the above discussions. Please keep it below other sections.

1. ^ scientific community
2. ^ skeptic organizations
3. ^ reserchers
4. "An Introduction to Chiropractic". National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2007-11. Retrieved 2009-01-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. "Standards for Doctor of Chiropractic programs and requirements for institutional status" (PDF). The Council on Chiropractic Education. 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-14.
6. Nelson CF, Lawrence DJ, Triano JJ; et al. (2005). "Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession". Chiropr Osteopat. 13: 9. doi:10.1186/1746-1340-13-9. PMC 1185558. PMID 16000175. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
7. Grod JP, Sikorski D, Keating JC (2001). "Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest state, provincial, and national chiropractic associations and research agencies". J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 24 (8): 514–9. doi:10.1067/mmt.2001.118205. PMID 11677551. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. Keating JC Jr, Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. Retrieved 2008-06-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
9. Keating JC Jr (1997). "Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side". Skept Inq. 21 (4): 37–43.
10. Michael, DeRobertis (1999-02-03). "Nobel Laureates Criticize York University Affiliation with Chiropractic". Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 2009-01-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
11. DeRobertis, Michael (Summer 2001). "York U. Rejects Chiropractic College" (PDF). The Ontario Skeptic. Skeptics Canada. Retrieved 2009-01-06. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
12. Ernst E, Canter PH (2006). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation". J R Soc Med. 99 (4): 192–6. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192. PMC 1420782. PMID 16574972. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
13. Bronfort, G. (2008), "Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization", The Spine Journal, 8: 213, doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.023
14. Assendelft, Willem J.J. (2004), Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000447.pub2
15. Ernst, E. (2008), "Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation", Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 35: 544, doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004
16. Thiel HW, Bolton JE, Docherty S, Portlock JC (2007). "Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey". Spine. 32 (21): 2375–8, discussion 2379. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181557bb1. PMID 17906581. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
17. Ernst, E. (2007), "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review", JRSM, 100 (7): 330, doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330, PMID 17606755
18. Vohra, Sunita; Johnston, Bradley C.; Cramer, Kristie; Humphreys, Kim (2007), "Adverse Events Associated with Pediatric Spinal Manipulation: A Systematic Review", Pediatrics, 119 (1): e275, doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1392, PMID 17178922
19. Ernst E (2002). "Spinal manipulation: its safety is uncertain". CMAJ. 166 (1): 40–1. PMC 99224. PMID 11800245. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
20. Barrett, Stephen (2008-07-31). "Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2009-01-06.
21. Keating JC Jr, Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. Retrieved 2008-06-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
22. Keating JC Jr (1997). "Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side". Skept Inq. 21 (4): 37–43.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• List-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• List-Class physics articles of High-importance
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles