Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
We have had many RfCs on this matter, and this title has always been the best solution. Since nothing has changed, and no new arguments for change have been brought forth, such an RfC would be disruptive. If you don't like the list, no one is forcing you to play here. Of course there is a better option. Instead of creating disruption, how about abiding by the inclusion criteria and improving it? -- ] (]) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
We have had many RfCs on this matter, and this title has always been the best solution. Since nothing has changed, and no new arguments for change have been brought forth, such an RfC would be disruptive. If you don't like the list, no one is forcing you to play here. Of course there is a better option. Instead of creating disruption, how about abiding by the inclusion criteria and improving it? -- ] (]) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
: SteveBaker's concern could still be met by creating a list which only covers items in groups 1 & 2. Go for it. -- ] (]) 03:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
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.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
view·edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why has my edit been reverted? What did I do wrong?
A1: Check the edit history for the article. Hopefully, the editor who reverted you left a useful edit summary explaining why they feel the previous version of the article to be better; occasionally, links to various policies and guidelines are included. The most common reasons for reversion are that the article should not contain editorial bias and every statement should be cited to sources reliable to the topic at hand. If you disagree with the reasoning provided or otherwise wish a fuller discussion, please check the archives of this discussion page for a similar proposal or open a new section below.
Q2: One entry to this list is better described as an emerging or untested area of research, not pseudoscience.
A2: A few topics have several facets, only some of which are described by reliable sources as pseudoscience; multiple notable descriptions or points of view may be appropriately included as described in Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. On the other hand, proponents of a particular topic characterized as pseudoscience almost always self-report as engaging in science. The several points of view should be weighted according to the reliability of the sources making each claim. Advocacy sources are reliable only for their own opinions - it is okay to state that Dr. X claims to have built a creature under the usual caveats for self-published sources, but the creature's exploits should be described as reported in independent sources. If the majority of scientists would be surprised by a claim, it is probably not mainstream science.
Q3: Real scientists are investigating this topic, how can it be pseudoscience?
A3: Respected researchers, even Nobel Prize laureates, sometimes have or propound ideas that are described by sources reliable to make the distinction as pseudoscience, especially when they are working outside of their core expertise.
Q4: Why is the description so negative? Why not just describe the views covered and let the reader decide?
A4: The Misplaced Pages policy Neutral point of view requires that the prominence of various views be reflected in the articles. We strive to summarize the tone and content of all available sources, weighted by their reliability. Reliable in this context means particulary that sources should be generally trusted to report honestly on and make the distinction between science and pseudoscience.
Q5: Why does this article rely on such biased sources?
A5 Scientists generally ignore pseudoscience, and only occasionally bother to rebut ideas before they have received a great deal of attention. Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from second- and third-party sources. The following sources are almost always reliable sources for descriptions of pseudoscience:
Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.)
Statements from scientific societies
Q6: Isn't pseudoscience a philosophically meaningless term?
A6 The term describes a notable concept in common use.
Q7: Why is a particular topic omitted?
A7 Some ideas are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article; other topics have been explicitly rejected by the consensus of editors here at the talkpage. Please search the archives for relevant discussions before beginning a new one. Still, this list is far from complete, so feel free to suggest a topic or be bold and add it yourself.
Q8: What relation does content here have to the four groupings (below) from the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience?
A8 Many fail to understand the nature of this list. It is not exclusively about "Obvious pseudoscience", but, as the list's title indicates, about "topics characterized as pseudoscience" (emphasis added). That wording parallels the Arbcom description from group three: "but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience" (emphasis added). Therefore we include items covered in the first three groups below, but not the fourth. In this list, we refuse to decide whether an item is or is not an "obvious" pseudoscience (although most of them are ).
Four groups
1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
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
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 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
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
To the best of my knowledge, King Tut's curse is a belief in the supernatural, and has no actual pseudoscience in it. Should supernatural topics be included in a list about pseudoscience? It seems to me that this list is being treated as a List of Things that are Wrong, regardless of whether an individual item is pseudoscience or not. Looking at the article's history, this is a problem that has plagued this article for a long time now. I don't think the article should be deleted, but I do think that it should say focused on pseudoscience and not include items that aren't pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It's given an entry in a book of pseudoscience, it's also used in research as a given pseudoscience . Case closed. Your OR is irrelevant, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The "encyclopedia of pseudoscience" never actually describes it as a pseudoscience. Reincarnation is also in that book. Would you suggest that belief in reincarnation should be listed here? How about we just add "religion" and "spirituality" to this "list of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and save everyone the trouble of pretending that these entries are being included based off a rational definition of pseudoscience?--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.16:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@IRWolfie-: Your last two sources appear to be behind a paywall (or perhaps an account wall), so I can't read them. But based off your first source, I am not impressed. The source provides trivial coverage. I think we need to have higher standards here. Please remember that our purpose here as editors is to provide a high-quality, educational encyclopedia to our readers. By including non-pseudoscientific topics in this article we do our readers a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Without claiming to be very up on this topic in general, the pdf indicates that there is widespread belief that his is as factual as, say, Nessie, which we do cover. Clarification is needed about this understanding and how it relates to pseudoscience, presumably this could be cited to these additional sources. . . dave souza, talk17:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Trivial coverage? Reliability does not matter about how trivial something is. Notability is not the criteria for inclusion. Featuring as an entry in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience is non-trivial anyway ... IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course, it matters. Reliability is not a binary on/off switch. Rather, it's a gradual continuum. You've seized upon a source that provides only bare, trivial coverage of the topic. You have not provided any significant coverage or evidence that this is a mainstream view within the scholarly community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
An encyclopedia that is just a collection of articles from a magazine that were compiled together by the history of science major who runs said magazine. The article itself never likens belief in King Tut's curse to pseudoscience, but instead describes it as an urban legend.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
IRWolfie, re "notability is not the criteria for inclusion" (and other iterations about what the criteria for inclusion are/are not on this page): What is the criteria for inclusion exactly? I don't have much of a history with this page. Was there a consensus at some point that you're basing it on? Is it, as below, along the lines of "if it's wp:due to call something pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here?" That would be easy enough to adhere to, I suppose, and would remove the need to debate about the inclusion of this or that here (e.g. if a given source was good enough to characterize as pseudoscience on an article page there's no point in questioning it here). There are already debates on the subject on those article talk pages, which this page has produced iterations of. Do I understand correctly? If so, is there consensus here such that this might be simply written at the top of the talk page? --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No quite, because almost nothing can be called pseudoscience on wikipedia, because people assume its POV even if all the sources say it. Generally articles say it has been characterised as pseudoscience (usually by scientists). "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here". Some topics, such as Psychoanalysis have been characterised as pseudoscience, but otherwise still have some academic support (not much amongst psychologists, but amongst psychiatrists), saying "It is pseudoscience", would not be a fair reading of the totality of the sources, but saying "it has been characterised as pseudoscience for reasons X etc" is neutral. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm still unclear on the criteria for this page, then. If I'm reading your response correctly, it sounds like for the purposes of inclusion here you're saying the other article pages are effectively irrelevant. Or perhaps that pseudoscience mention in an article is sufficient but not absolutely required? For those instances that it's not required, what is the criteria for inclusion? It's clearly not simply "characterized as pseudoscience," so it must be based on the source of the pseudoscience allegation. Must be a scientist? Scientist or academic writing in a scholarly publication or peer-reviewed work of some kind? Multiple? Don't mean to be pedantic, but I think it being spelled out would avoid a lot of the effort on the talk page. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you've confused two points I was making together. I'll just repeat the first point. "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page, it's fit for inclusion here", that is what I view the criteria for this page as. See the psychoanalysis page for an example, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@IRWolfie-: According to the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience's own publisher, the book also includes supernatural claims. BTW, it also includes conspiracy theories. This not an article about the supernatural or conspiracy theories. It's about pseudoscience. Please stop insisting that we include off-topic entries in this list, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it necessary to frame everything as being personal? Now, if you read that linked page it says: "Finally, the volumes include five classic works in the history of science and pseudoscience, including ..." and then goes on to list the paranormal as being included. What it does say is "Includes over 100 entries about pseudoscientific subjects", which includes the Tut entry as well as all the others. Framing it as "pseudoscience and paranormal" (in fact something can be both as the publisher highlights) is not what that link says. To recap, It's in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience, and I have shown sources that refer to it as being pseudoscience.
Initially you said that you think its not pseudoscience ("the best of my knowledge, King Tut's curse is a belief in the supernatural, and has no actual pseudoscience in it"), but I have shown that these further sources indicate or treat it as obvious pseudoscience, yet you think these are too "trivial". Your initial opinion is incongruent with those sources. Those sources back up the pseudoscience encyclopaedia as well, which does establish due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
IRWolfie - So the inclusion criteria is "if it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterized as pseudoscience on its main article page." But just clicking on a few of the links here shows that several of them are not characterized as pseudoscience in the articles. Tutankhamun's curse, Séance, and Holocaust_Denial (3 of the 6 I clicked on and searched the page). They have references that are clearly about pseudoscience but there's no precedent for book titles in reference lists to be used for justification of claims by association. My point is, whether or not "it's WP:DUE to say something has been characterized as pseudoscience on its main article page" is a conversation that needs to happen at that article page first. To just claim WP:DUE here without gaining consensus on that page that it's WP:DUE seems problematic. Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding, though. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say "has been characterised as pseudoscience on its main article page", I said if it could be. It would not be undue for something to be included does not mean it has been included. The distinction is important. The actual content of the other article does not matter. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Except, of course, that nobody has yet to provide a single reliable source, let alone a general consensus of reliable sources, saying that this is a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
In the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, the curse is listed under "Volume 1: Section 1: Important pseudoscientific concepts".
Feder's survey, the introduction says that it's testing "pseudoscientific archaeological claims" and "pseudoscience in archaeology". Feder also calls it "cult archaeology", a synonymous for Pseudoarchaeology, a sub-branch of pseudoscience.
One of the problems with Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is that it also covers supernatural claims and conspiracy theories,, and there is no clear delineation between which items are pseudoscience, which items are supernatural and which items are conspiracy theories. But even ignoring that, we should not be examining any individual source in isolation. What do other reliable sources say about this item? Hypothetically speaking, if we have 10 sources, and 9 do not describe an item as pseudoscience and one does, we shouldn't cite the oddball source that describes it as a pseudoscience. That's a WP:FRINGE view point and a violation of WP:NPOV to present fringe viewpoints as mainstream. I have no problem with putting this item in some other list. I know, for example, that we have a separate List of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If somebody was to boldly delete the King Tut stuff, and perhaps comment that if anybody has decent sources to back up re-instatement, bring them to Talk, I'd be happy. I think the source is weak. It isn't pseudoscience, it is an urban myth. --Roxy the dog (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
AQFK. Naval provided information showing conclusively that it is in the book as pseudoscience, "Volume 1: Section 1: Important pseudoscientific concepts". The rest of what you said is flawed anyway since claims of the supernatural can also be pseudoscientific. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't care enough to. Your comment, "this is supernatural claim, not actual pseudoscience", is WP:OR, and the other is a vote without rationale. As you are a aware, we don't operate by vote counting. I've already shown it is listed in an encyclopedia of pseudoscience, and have shown its mention as pseudoscience in other contexts. Be honest, you don't want it to be here regardless what the sources say, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, it's been over a month since anyone has weighed in on this discussion. Consensus is clear. We have three editors in favor of removing this item and no editor opposing. Even if we had an editor opposing, that's still consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
This particular item doesn't contain much real archaeology, if any at all. There are no pseudoarchaeologists trying to pass bad research as good research (at least, I couldn't find any). I couldn't even find creative reinterpretations of real archaeology papers, there are only made up stories. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Are all theories to be considered "pseudoscience" until they are proven or disproven by science? For a science to be "pseudo" I'd say it has to 1.) willingly reject scientific practice, yet 2.) claim to have scientific backing. Kortoso (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
No. Please read the first paragraph of the article. We're not assuming anything is pseudoscience. It must be sourced, and in a manner that fits the inclusion criteria for this article. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
New Topic - Audio Pseudoscience (especially High-End Audio)
High-End Audio is full of pseudoscience and bunk terms. The vagueness of terms even leak down into mid-range and lower-range audio gear. Monster (company) is a big abuser of terms used to describe their cables, including more recent things like overhyped headphones like "Beats Audio by Dre" and "SMS Audio by 50 cent", which are basically nothing more than a headphone amp with bass-boost built into the headphones and sold at high prices. Actually, there needs to be an entire article about this subject on Misplaced Pages! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Froglich that "Climate Change denialism" does not belong here. This criticises the existence of skepticism on the topic of climate change; the problem with that is that (a) skepticism is not a science, therefore it cannot possibly be anything-science (proto-science, pseudo-science, anti-science, etc) and (b) skepticism is a very healthy and indeed fundamental component of the scientific method. There are indeed many lay people who hold positions on climate change that are *unscientific*, but it is by no means limited to one side or another. A survey of American meteorologists shows only a simple majority support the thesis. You cannot call this pseudoscientific and lump this with Lysenkoism or perpetual motion on which there is no shred of doubt as to their falsehood.
Therefore, I think that either this section gets expanded and more nuanced and make a clear distinction between skepticism and pseudoscientism and include some of the wackier claims of each side (and there are many to choose from), or this item should be removed from the list.Willa wonky (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
If good quality reliable sources characterise climate change denialism as pseudoscience, then it belongs in the list. The survey of meteorologists does not address this, and you appear to be misreading its results which are actually quite interesting and supportive of earlier studies. . . dave souza, talk19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Do the sources actually say that this is pseudoscience? The three references in the article are all behind paywalls (or membership walls) so I can't check them. One of the problems with this article (and this has been noted before) is that the article is used as a 'List of things that are wrong' regardless of whether each item qualifies as pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe the two articles support this label. The Science article does not mention the word "pseudoscience" and the Science, Technology & Human Values is a discussion of the lack of clear demarcations between "science" and "pseudoscience". (My first impression is that it is a bunch of nonsensical hand-wringing, actually, but it doesn't support the use of the term here.) The congressional report appears to support it and I've added a link to an Internet Archive copy. Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This brings up another concern of mine. If, hypothetically speaking, we have 10 sources regarding X, and 9 out of 10 don't describe X as a pseudoscience, but 1 out of 10 does describe X as a pseudoscience, is it considered a pseudoscience? IOW, do we cite the oddball source and include X in the article, or do we go with the consensus of reliable sources and omit it from the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Naturally we should go with the consensus of the sources. But the omission of the word from a source does not mean that we should read that source as asserting that climate change denial is not a pseudoscience, it merely means that the source does not discuss the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any consensus in this discussion that skepticism of AGWT (however "updated" in terminology to "climate change denial" -- an updating which positively screams of disingenuous alteration due to the fact that no net warming has been observed for over a decade now) constitutes pseudoscience. (There is demonstrably more pseudoscience, when not outright fraud, going on in AGWT formulation and promotion.) Furthermore, the "-denial" claim in the label, as derivative of holocaust denial, is highly insulting on multiple levels.--Froglich (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to have a POV, as are all editors, but being a climate change denialist doesn't exactly increase your credibility here. Your POV is definitely a fringe, pseudoscientific POV. As far as the "denialism" terminology, it is not exclusively related to holocaust denialism, but to many other forms, including HIV/AIDS denialism and Germ theory denialism, so no insult is intended. It's a generic term often related to conspiracy theories. See: Category:Denialism. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The deciding issue here is whether the sources used characterize climate change denialism as pseudoscience. Do they or don't they? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
If I had to guess, most sources don't refer to this item as pseudoscience. Even when specifically looking for sources which call it pseudoscience, I only found weak sources. IOW, sources with just casual references to it being a pseudoscience with no depth or actual explanation as to how it's a pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Brangifer, nobody's disputing that certain groups with vested interests have quotes at-the-ready. The issue is whether or not there is consensus here to give this particular species of nonsense credence. I count four editors in this thread (the majority of those weighing in), who are either outright opposed to it or at least skeptical of its asserted scientific and/or ethical merits.--Froglich (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
dave souza and I certainly support its inclusion based on sources which do characterize it as pseudoscience. We know that you, 2.5% of published climate scientists, and the vested interests of Big Oil and the Koch brothers, think it's "nonsense. They have very deep pockets and they don't want their denialism included here, but they don't count as sources in this list because they are not RS which characterize it as pseudoscience. We have RS which do that, so it gets included. Fortunately those sources are on the same side as the 97.5% of published climate scientists, who know more than any of us editors what is really the case. Being an amateur in these matters, I place my bets on them being right, but that is neither here nor there as far as inclusion here. There are RS which characterize this type of denialism as pseudoscience, and that's enough for inclusion. "Climate Change Denialism" is indeed 100% Bollocks according to 97.5% of published climate scientists! Big money can't change the facts, and scientists tend to go with the facts. Not all of them can be bought.
The "scientific and/or ethical merits" are not decisive here, because, for purposes of inclusion here, we are not concerned with whether climate change or climate change denial is or is not actually pseudoscience. That's rather irrelevant (for purposes of inclusion). The question is whether RS have so characterized climate change denial. They have, and that is decisive here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC) (Comment revised in response to next comment.)
I disagree with the later assertion: whether items are actually pseudoscience is relevant. Otherwise, we do a disservice to our readers by presently misleading information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I sympathize with you, and that's why we try to include subjects which really ARE pseudoscience (and use sources that are sympathetic to mainstream science, not fringe anti-science sources), but that's not the purpose of this list. The inclusion criteria ("characterized") must be followed. I have clarified my comment about relevance ("for purposes of inclusion"). We do not mislead readers by implying that climate change denial isn't pseudoscience. If there was doubt, we would leave it out, but 97% is a pretty large majority, and sources which sympathize with that position say it's pseudoscience.
Another matter is the PSI Arbcom decision linked at the top of this page. It notes the types of information we can include here, and we try to limit inclusion to the first three groups, and stay away from definitive statements in Misplaced Pages's voice that such-and-such IS pseudoscience. We just let the sources speak for themselves. Some of the subjects listed here are clearly in group one, and their articles are in Category:Pseudoscience. Others are not, but we still document what RS have said about them. The archives contain many discussions about this.
Pseudoskeptics and pseudoscientists have repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to sabotage this article in attempts to force a deletion of the whole thing. Their attempts usually are aimed at seeking to include claims by fringe sources that proven facts are pseudoscience. Such attempts are obviously frivolous and never succeed. Basically, one need not agree that content here is pseudoscience, just recognize that some RS, which are on the same side of the issues as mainstream science, have characterized a fringe idea as pseudoscience. That's all. I have now beefed up the content with a number of RS to document the fact that denials of the mainstream climate science position (97%) have been characterized as pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if we don't have a "List of pseudoscience topics", how about we rename this article "List of topics characterized or mischaracterized as pseudoscience" to make it more clear to the reader that the list contains items that are not pseudoscience? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
We've been over this about a million times and the current title is fine. Changing it always creates problems, and your suggestion actually introduces editorial opinion directly into the title! We keep it simple and just document what the sources say. For more detail of the controversies on each one, look in their articles. This isn't the place for that. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The title is wrong, useless, horrible. It's a way for us to say "We need a list of pseudosciences someplace - and we can't be bothered to come up with a battery of reliable sources to show that they truly are pseudosciences...so instead we're going to cop out and say 'if anyone *ever* said it was a pseudoscience then it goes on the list'!". The result is a list that clearly contains things that are not pseudosciences...and it's weak on evidence for things that undoubtedly are pseudoscience. Who really cares whether someone at sometime in the past said "X is a pseudoscience"...but that's what the list is. What people really need to know is the answer to questions like: "Is this guy who's selling me magnets to cure my rheumatism talking bullshit?"...and for that kind of search, this list is useless. SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
We did have a !vote on this some time ago - and the consensus then was for not changing the title. Maybe it's time for an RfC? SteveBaker (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're up to AQFK. Is this baiting, IDHT, sarcasm, or some other possibility? I obviously think it is fine. The only ones who consider it problematic are usually those who object to their favorite delusion's inclusion. They refuse to understand the purpose of the list. The lead makes it plain. Don't overinterpret.
We are deliberately and carefully treading a fine line between no list at all (which would leave a hole in Misplaced Pages's goal of documenting the sum total of human knowledge) and violating the PSI ArbCom ruling. Push it too far one way and it gives pseudoskeptics and pseudoscientists an excuse to delete the whole list. We don't want that. Misplaced Pages's goal must be served. Push it too far the other way and we're violating the ruling by definitively categorizing in Misplaced Pages's voice many subjects which are borderline pseudoscientific. We shouldn't do that. That's why we limit content to "characterizations" found in RS. The source obviously believes in is pseudoscience, and so do we, but that's our own opinion as editors. We can't write that, except in obvious cases (see groups 1 & 2 above). We don't take a position as to whether a subject absolutely IS pseudoscience here, even if is really is, but we definitely do that in some of the articles. We abide by the ArbCom decision and limit content to the first three groupings seen at the top of this page.
We have had many RfCs on this matter, and this title has always been the best solution. Since nothing has changed, and no new arguments for change have been brought forth, such an RfC would be disruptive. If you don't like the list, no one is forcing you to play here. Of course there is a better option. Instead of creating disruption, how about abiding by the inclusion criteria and improving it? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why has my edit been reverted? What did I do wrong?
A1: Check the edit history for the article. Hopefully, the editor who reverted you left a useful edit summary explaining why they feel the previous version of the article to be better; occasionally, links to various policies and guidelines are included. The most common reasons for reversion are that the article should not contain editorial bias and every statement should be cited to sources reliable to the topic at hand. If you disagree with the reasoning provided or otherwise wish a fuller discussion, please check the archives of this discussion page for a similar proposal or open a new section below.
Q2: One entry to this list is better described as an emerging or untested area of research, not pseudoscience.
A2: A few topics have several facets, only some of which are described by reliable sources as pseudoscience; multiple notable descriptions or points of view may be appropriately included as described in Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. On the other hand, proponents of a particular topic characterized as pseudoscience almost always self-report as engaging in science. The several points of view should be weighted according to the reliability of the sources making each claim. Advocacy sources are reliable only for their own opinions - it is okay to state that Dr. X claims to have built a creature under the usual caveats for self-published sources, but the creature's exploits should be described as reported in independent sources. If the majority of scientists would be surprised by a claim, it is probably not mainstream science.
Q3: Real scientists are investigating this topic, how can it be pseudoscience?
A3: Respected researchers, even Nobel Prize laureates, sometimes have or propound ideas that are described by sources reliable to make the distinction as pseudoscience, especially when they are working outside of their core expertise.
Q4: Why is the description so negative? Why not just describe the views covered and let the reader decide?
A4: The Misplaced Pages policy Neutral point of view requires that the prominence of various views be reflected in the articles. We strive to summarize the tone and content of all available sources, weighted by their reliability. Reliable in this context means particulary that sources should be generally trusted to report honestly on and make the distinction between science and pseudoscience.
Q5: Why does this article rely on such biased sources?
A5 Scientists generally ignore pseudoscience, and only occasionally bother to rebut ideas before they have received a great deal of attention. Non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience can only be had from second- and third-party sources. The following sources are almost always reliable sources for descriptions of pseudoscience:
).
.jpg){kind=small}
