Category talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Should this category be purged of its poorly related subcategories?

Looking at a number of articles which are listed in subcategories of this one they appear to be related more to para-scientific, meta-scientific, historical, religious, mythological, skeptical, fictional and other classifications than strictly being pseudoscientific in nature.

Once one is a couple of levels down in the categorization tree there appears to be little actual relationship with the narrow meaning of the term Pseudoscience.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree that this category should be purged of its poorly related subcategories... Johnfos (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, someone do it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried, but the removal was opposed and the categories/pages reinstated. It requires, i am given to understand, a slower, more contentious and consensual process for each of the encroached categories/pages to which this pejorative category label has been applied.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So the process of building consensus is inherently contentious? Wow. Humans have been stirring up bad Karma all along, huh? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, i hope not. Mine was an observation on what seems to be the process selected for refinement. As for 'bad Karma', i don't see how it relates, really. Bad karma is psychologizing activity which is blamed and for which suffering must be the repercussion. Contentiousness is the struggle of opinion against opinion which may result in the action originally selected (or its opposite, naturally).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute any bulk deletion of sub-categories. I would suggest that this needs to be discussed subcategory by subcategory. Where the field does not make any purportedly scientific claims, or where these claims are fully covered by an already included (or includable replacement) subcategory, I think they can be deleted, after said discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree good to discuss each one, though it should not be hard to figure out whether they meet WP:PSCI. --Jim Butler (t) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:PSCI is biased and illogical, and in fact there should not be special treatment protecting pejorative tagging of categories or pages in Wikipedia. In this case, WP:PSCI treats theory, religion, phenomena, and faux science presentations ('science'(pseudo) in a broad sense) as categorically the same as singular nouns ('sciences'(pseudo) in the narrow sense of something presenting itself as what is employing the scientific method to engage in empirical studies and presenting 'scientific data'), which those involved with these referents are, in most cases, not doing.

• Literally (regardless of the pejorative abuse of this term both interior to and exterior to Wikipedia), a pseudoscience is something which presents itself as a science in the application of the scientific method. Those items which may seem to flow from such a pseudoscience, or those items which may have the character as being the focus or product of such a pseudoscience, may be supplementally 'pseudoscience', but not in the "hard" sense to which this category label ought be applied.

• These 2 term-usages (which i am calling 'hard' and 'soft' in the above) should be specifically identified in any discussion when talking about 'pseudoscience'. Can the plural of the term be applied? If not, then we are not talking about a pseudoscience, which is what i contend should be the proper applied use of this category tag, but NOT to potential or even actual peripheral data which is evaluated as pseudoscience, and struggled over by scientistic cultural factions.

• For this reason, and because i want to protect esoteric topics against abusive pejorative tagging, i have created a List of categories/pages to which the hard sense of 'pseudoscience' should NOT apply and which should be discussed here as an incremental consideration and removal established from rational (rather than contenteous and mistaken WP:PSCI-related) standards. This list is extensive, and starts, due to alphabetic customs, with one of the most embattled, aged, and ambiguous cases, (Category:Astrology and the Astrology page). In this and in whatever subsequent discussions i engage, i will attempt to take the actual terms from anti-Pseudoscience factions that have been employed to describe it (presumably in a supportable manner with citation to extant scientific evaluation).

Astrology a Pseudoscience?

From what i can see, astrology is differentiated from Astronomy, which emerged from this divinatory discipline of personality-evaluation. The term, referring "to any of several systems of understanding, interpreting and organizing knowledge about reality and human existence, based on the relative positions and movement of various real and construed celestial bodies," may utilize age-old generic self-descriptors of being 'scientific' or 'science' in the (OLD soft) sense of generating a body of knowledge, but it does NOT (and this is going to be the important point for every one of the contested categories and pages in this discussion) try to (hard sense) masquerade as a clinical and/or empirical application of the scientific method touting reliability as a modern scientific enterprise.

As a divinatory art generating augurian knowledge, the 'science' of astrology is not a pseudoscience. It may be presented by pseudoscientists who try to give the impression that it is underwritten by sociological studies (which would in fact be lies), but my experience with astrologers is that they do not describe it this way. Instead, chart and transit data surrounding astronomical configurations and aspects are evaluated just as any divinatory art might be expected to proceed. Let us not confuse pre-modern usage of the term 'science' and 'scientific' with modern empirical standard usage to evaluate knowledge categories in an encyclopedia. That pushes a POV, and is an unnecessary hindrance to the art (/'science' in a general and loose sense) and its coverage for its article(s).

Astrology should not have to attempt, for its continued coverage (uninterrupted by opposed faction perspectives) within Wikipedia, to justify the legitimacy of its divinatory principles or components. The fact that its proponents may use the term 'science' loosely with respect to it is moreso a testimony to its age, really, than to any pseudoscientific quality about its character. It used to contain science of a type (astronomy) and it is plainly understood that it does no longer, instead employing astronomical data in pursuit of divinatory aims.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that this is an encyclopedia. It does not exist to publish your theories or mine, but rather to cite information from reputable sources. Can you cite reputable sources which dispute categorizing astrology as a pseudoscience? Even if you can, we must still cite the multiple sources which hold that it is a pseudoscience. --MediaMangler (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that we shouldn't be squelching information about topics of coverage in the interests of pushing a POV. Citing is fine, but only where it pertains to substantiating the claims being made in their proper placement within their own field/domain. It doesn't matter whether scientists have the point of view that astrology is a pseudoscience if their estimation of its language and character both ignores the contentions of astrologers and is wrong.

If you bring forward cites that demonstrate that astrologers in general, or proponents of astrology especially, maintain that they are producing for the public scientific data/information (in a conventional or modern sense, as one might get from a clinic or peer-reviewed scientific journal), then i agree that astrology should be categorized as a pseudoscience. Generally, however, the term 'science' is used archaically by astrologers to refer to a divinatory means of obtaining knowledge (e.g. 'the science of the stars' is not a substitute for astronomy, but a means of using astonomical data and evaluating it divinatorily in reflection of composition and aspects -- study the material from real astrologers and i think you'll find that this is accurate; ignorance is not a license to pejoratively tag esoteric topics due to cultural struggles that you can document coming out of the scientific community from apologists).

There's no good reason to spread the pejorative and mistaken POV of scientists beyond the Pseudoscience page (to other categories or pages) because of their evaluation of a divinatory system as a faux science. Far better to carry neutral overviews on the elements of astrology to those pages instead, detailing how astrology is a kind of divination as understood by authorities of the occult (scientists aren't authorities in the field of occultism), rather than any kind of proper science. If this can't be substantiated by the interested researching the occult field, then whatever can be explained about how astrology is presented, without intrusive anti-POV, should be sufficient.

There is good reason for the Pseudoscience page to place astrology on its list of pseudosciences if those cited who actively study pseudosciences (preferrably actual scientists and/or anthropologists, not just science apologists) assert that astrologers are faking themselves as scientists and their doings as science in a modern sense. The Pseudoscience category should remain, with proper citing, attached to pages describing the scientific evaluations of types of divination (studies that were conducted on astrology, for example, showing their groundlessness), or on magic, the paranormal, or other occult phenomena, from actual scientific standpoints, and primarily applied to those things which promote themselves as sciences in a modern sense.

A NPOV should be the aim of applying Wikipedia categories, neither tarring astrology with the character of 'Pseudoscience' that it does not deserve, nor exalting it as some kind of 'Science of the Magi' which it does not earn in any modern sense. Explaining what this phrase meant in former times will be preferrable to relying upon those who misunderstand its use of 'science' as a term through the ages.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>UPDATE: the following Divinatory Arts are currently still subcategories of Pseudoscience: Category:Astrology, Category:Phrenology, and Category:Physiognomy (sic! this should actually be called 'Physiognomancy'!).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As they should be. Unless someone can find trusted, respectable real scientists who happen to think they are on the cutting edge of science. But, I'm sure that these real scientists I so respect are elitist snobs who have no clue of the great wonders and mysteries amd powers and crystals that so control humankind. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Do you think that these arts are pretending to be sciences in some way, or are you simply in favour of a wider aperture of inclusion for the category application?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to treat them loosely as arts, that's fine and your prerogative. However, they have been and are still presented as being science by their adherents. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In what manner do they resemble sciences such that a modern explorer of these presentations might reasonably become confused as to their character? Can you point toward one or two of the main authorities on divinatory arts (Blum on Runes? Waite on Tarot? Master Wang on Yijing, or even Blofeld, Legge?), who maintains that the level of reliability approaches that of modern empiricism and approximates by peer review or reproducability to conventional scientific studies? I think you would be hard-pressed, and that this is an extreme exaggeration. We cannot be misguided by the mere employment of the term 'science' in a conventional (soft, knowledge-producing) way. True pseudosciences pretend to greater levels of reliability than this, and don't depend so strongly upon the skill of the knowledge-producer to effect. Their reproduceability makes such things as blinds, double-blinds, and other helpful techniques, possible. Divination, comparably, has a set of requirements, inclusive of a querent, a diviner of some skill, an oracle, a means to produce the outcome, and the capacity to interpret its meaning with respect to the query of focus. Divinatory arts are no more sciences than books are instances of movies, and reliable sources on them don't in general pretend to their scientific character.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you have not justified your claims about divinatory arts with citations, i shall presume until you do that you cannot, and that all divinatory arts should not be covered by the Pseudoscience category until each of them is shown through citation by reliable sources to a) pretend to be sciences and b) actually not be.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>UPDATE: the following Divinatory Arts are currently still subcategories of Pseudoscience: Category:Astrology, Category:Phrenology, and Category:Physiognomy (sic! this should actually be called 'Physiognomancy'!).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Second call for the a defense against removing the category of Pseudoscience from all these based on a lack of demonstration that they in fact qualify. Without such a citation defense the application of the Pseudoscience cat tag cannot be sustained.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Clarification on the Pseudoscience category's application from the Arbcom included the contention that Karl Popper, whose work i admire, maintained that Astrology is a pseudoscience, and that data supporting this was listed on the Pseudoscience page. I will therefore hold on Astrology and remove all other divinatory arts (particularly Category:Phrenology, and Category:Physiognomy) within the next day unless some support is given for science evaluation of all of divination (or individual divinatory methods) are pseudoscience. I will check into the Astrology case myself when i have time if nobody else brings it to this page for consideration.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

However, there are as yet no sources which support this assertion about Popper listed either on the Pseudoscience page or in this discussion or in the discussion for Clarification of the Arbcom decision. I have no reason specifically to doubt it, but i would like to see a reference to this for bolstering of the case against Astrology.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Astrology is an ancient form of Numerology. no scientist can reference the sources of numerology so can anyone, scientists in particular, classify Astrology as a pseudoscience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raynard07 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Crop Circles a Pseudoscience?

Non-human phenomena, even if constructed (deceptively) by humans, should be strictly separated from science (in a hard, noun sense) if it cannot be shown to present itself as a science. At most, these phenomena may be pseudoscientifically-evaluated, or deriving from pseudoscientists, or the efforts and processes of pseudoscientists. Where we should be concerned with tagging them is where they are specific instances of personal or social processes that rationally qualify for the category tag as sciences by competing as a type of knowledge-producing thing. Since here we are dealing with non-human phenomena, we might as well deal with all these non-human phenomena as a batch and Crop Circles are the first and representative phenomenal member of that set.

There is NO justification for the use of the Pseudoscience category tag of the noun (hard usage) science for any of these items. Phenomena don't represent themselves as scientific. Phenomena don't give the impression of being sciences unless they are personal or social endeavours described by human beings as 'sciences'. What the scientific establishment may try to debunk as 'bad scientific data', or 'false claims', or 'folklore', or even 'legends' may be (soft) 'science' in some old or non-specific manner, but these are not themselves qualified for the category tag 'Pseudoscience' primarily because they are not themselves mechanisms designated or represented as producing "scientific data" (or empirical knowledge, etc.).

Based on my rudimentary knowledge of crop circles, they should perhaps deserve the category tag(s) of 'hoax', or perhaps 'mysteries', or even 'art', but since they are objects/phenomena, they are not themselves sciences or presenting themselves as sciences in any way.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, "Non-human phenomena, even if constructed (deceptively) by humans" is contradictory. It's like saying buildings are non-human phenomena.

Crop circles, which is indeed a hoax, is (or was) part of UFOlogy, which is a pseudoscience. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that was unclear. A phenomenon other than a human being or group of human beings. This is a 'thing' that might be artificial or natural. It is not a body of knowledge, a theory, or a therapy, which are separated into other categories for purposes of distinguishment.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cerealogy a Pseudoscience?

All that said, "crop circles are geometric designs of crushed or knocked-over crops created in a field. Aside from skilled farmers or pranksters working through the night, explanations for their formation include UFOs and anomalous, tornado-like air currents. The study of crop circles is termed "cerealogy" by proponents."

FIRMLY AGREED that if Cerealogy represents itself as a scientific examination of crop circles and it is in fact falsifying this study and its findings, then cerealogy (only) should be provided the category tag of Pseudoscience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>UPDATE: the following Phenomena (real or not) are currently listed as subcategories of Pseudoscience: Category:Orgone energy, Category:Pseudonutrition, Category:Psychic powers, and Category:Skeptics.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the cat from skeptics, but the others represent valid uses of the pseudoscience tag. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>The Category:Crop circles no longer exists, and Cerealogy as a category does not exist. I would suggest that as a page it be categorized as Pseudoscience when i get to the pages if we must also go through the pages one by one should note be necessary, as i see it. We should be able to agree on the category's principles of implementation and species of subcategories instead.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We apparently do not agree on the implementation and species and so it remains challenged that it applies to phenomena and this is a second call to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from all phenomena identified above unless each of them is defended with specific cites from reliable sources indicating that they are properly so included. Your contention alone that they are proper is insufficient.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing Category:Orgone energy, Category:Pseudonutrition, Category:Psychic powers from the Pseudoscience category today based on the fact that these were not defended with citations from reliable sources for their inclusion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You do not have consensus. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding. I understood that the Arbcom ruling indicated that if there wasn't a successful defense of this category's application, then it should not remain attached to any category or page. Did you think that there had been some verified scientific source for all three of these items indicating that they qualify as pseudoscience? I don't see it here. Could you direct me to it? At this point consensus isn't required to follow the Arbcom decision, supportable attachment is what we're examining. Please explain if you think of this differently, thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:PSCI. Thank you for your attention to this matter. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have, as well as the Arbcom upon which it was based. I haven't found much support for the category's use here and have been referred to the individual categories and pages, so i have set about discussing the applicability of 'pseudoscience' on each of these pages. I had focussed it here previously, but since there were objections and no clarified communication it seemed prudent to follow direction and take it up with the page editors as groups. Now of course i'm being accused of causing a ruckus, which i had sought to avoid before by focussing here. You can't please everyone it seems.

Many of the same people (including you) are engaging me on those pages, so i am not sure what is to be gained by going there except a quiet corner in which you can then tell me that the Arbitration is not binding after all (which you have now done: that you don't consider anything but WP:PSCI to be important), or that things are "obviously pseudoscience" without offering up any actual defense of them. Why should i consider this seriously? Is your contention that if nobody else is concerned, or responding then you can apply the category to whatever you can get it onto? Or do you have some actual notion of its limitations? What, if so?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Crystal Healing a Pseudoscience?

"Crystal healing is the belief that crystals have healing properties. Once common among pre-scientific and indigenous peoples, it has recently enjoyed a resurgence in popularity with the new age movement." It is one of a number of therapies or (often alternative) healing methods/methodologies which are being called pseudosciences. To my understanding, as long as what is being specified is not a methodology of providing to the reader reputed scientific information then it doesn't strictly qualify as being purported a science and so cannot be called a pseudoscience. Crystal healing is a practice, not any kind of knowledge-generating mechanism or process. This should be the case with every instance of alternative therapy which is presented by the scientific or medical establishment as phoney, useless, or even quack medical treatments. Instead of 'pseudoscience' they should be tagged at least 'alternative medicine' and maybe even 'quackery' when it can shown to have been completely unmasked as frauds (and these additional pejorative labels are valuably applied).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>UPDATE: Category:Crystal healing no longer exists.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy a Pseudoscience?

For example, homeopathy is described as "the belief in giving a patient with symptoms of an illness extremely dilute solutions of substances that produce those same symptoms in healthy people given larger doses." This is a belief in a process, and at best a description of a practice founded on a (challenged, questionable) methodology. The fact that it is challenged doesn't make it a pseudoscience, though it may be described as 'deriving from pseudoscientists'. Those who purport to underscore its virtue and effectiveness must, if proclaiming its scientific value, be practicing pseudoscience, and this acativity on their part is what should be underscored as pseudoscience, not the practice of the therapy, whose relation to science is tangental at best since it is in fact a type of therapeutic remedy with disputed value.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>UPDATE: the following Therapies/remedies (valuable or not) are currently listed as subcategories of Pseudoscience: Category:Homeopathy, Category:Patent medicines, and Category:Reiki.

Homeopathy portrays itself as a science. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it mainly a British phenomenon? These two sources had science-claiming examples:

http://www.bahvs.com/history.htm ("...the science of homeopathy")

http://www.us.elsevierhealth.com/product.jsp?isbn=14754916

"science/technology/health science" "peer-reviewed", "clinical and basic research"

CONCEDED. Homeopathy presents as a science. is it a pseudoscience? where are the counter-arguments?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Which are the most convincing cites indicating that homeopathy is NOT a science, and fraudulent?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

SECOND CALL for substantiation that Homeopathy is not a science.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the way you do this. If you're going to make such a huge change, you should be contacting relevant editors. The number of people who watch category pages is small. So this will be a no. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SECOND CALL also on the defense of Category:Patent medicines and Category:Reiki as pseudoscience. These are not the same as homeopathy. Without such a defense these will be removed from the category Pseudoscience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break with your "second notices." Read the Arbcom ruling linked to at the top of this page. As long as RS source exists establishing that a V viewpoint exists that a topic is pseudoscience, it can and should be categorized as such. That's the ruling. You need to stop trying to enforce your own rules and start following the Arbcom's. Odd nature (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Does a reliable source exist supporting that view? If so, where? For all three of these categories??-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the Homeopathy article? Right in the lead:

...and its use of remedies without active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience or quackery.

Those sources are: National Science Board (2002). "Science and engineering indicators". Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |chapter_title= ignored (|chapter= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |section_title= ignored (help)

Wahlberg A (2007). "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom". Social Science & Medicine. 65 (11): 2307–2316. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.024. PMID 18080586.

The first confirms what was already conceded: that homeopathy is viewed as a pseudoscience. Is it one? The second is not obviously related to homeopathy (it isn't mentioned in the title), and there is no quote from that source indicating that it supports the stated view.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I really think you're being needlessly disruptive here, by not even glancing at the articles in question. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be. I was attempting to have a clear conversation on this page about the category under consideration, and nobody was interested in drawing my attention to the various cites on the pages in question, suggesting instead that i take the conversation to those pages. So, when i did so i am now beginning to receive complaints. I can't please everybody, or read everything. Thanks for your feedback and your patience. Astrology and homeopathy are obviously perceived as pseudosciences. Are they really such things? I haven't yet seen good clear evidence of it. I'll try to help your case by looking again at the Homeopathy page citations for more.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking i am not more convinced than i was when starting the article. The two sources above seem to be the crux of the assertions about its being pseudoscience. The first makes it obvious that some regard it as such, but the second is far less clear. Complicating this are assertions interior to the article that the medical establishment is integrating homeopathy in part along with other 'alternative' medical or therapeutic techniques. If it was quackery or pseudoscientific, why would this be happening? The Lancet articles are both queries, asking whether or not homeopathy is due to the placebo effect, for example. This is not a clear-cut case in the slightest. Does anyone have better reliable sources to support the contention that homeopathy is pseudoscience?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read Pseudoscience. There's a checklist of what makes pseudoscience, and Homeopathy covers all that and more. It violates the basic principles of science, in that serial dilutions, eventually get to the point that there are no (zero) molecules available to have an effect. They attempt to state that some magic appears to make the water have memory of those molecules. So, really, homeopathy is an ingenuous method to steal money from people by charging them for water, or alcohol. Using a pseudoscience. My thoughts aside, please read above. Thanks for your attention to this matter. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are my comments on Pseudoscience and on Homeopathy as presented there and in the lists:

There is no source for the bit about Karl Popper's evaluation of Astrology.; the same is true for contentions about Paul R. Thargard (i'll make note of that in the Astrology section above); "...both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community" -- conceded already; "Systems of belief that derive from divine or inspired knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science." -- very reasonable; "pop science is disseminated to, and can also easily emanate from, persons not accountable to scientific methodology and expert peer review" -- this is part of the problem with sci-skeptic groups like PSICOP pretending to represent scientific interests also; "pseudoscientific therapies such as neuro-linguistic programming, EMDR[49], rebirthing, reparenting, and Primal Therapy being adopted by government and professional bodies and by the public" -- I haven't seen these listed in the Pseudoscience category, perhaps they should be; ""pseudoscience" is reserved to describe theories which are either untestable in practice or in principle, or which are maintained even when tests appear to have refuted them." -- very reasonable; no discussion have i yet seen about Feyeraband's criticisms of the term's usage, which seem sound to me and inform in part my interests in a strict interpretation of the term for categorical application; I also have not seen Richard McNally refuted; it is maintained that Homeopathy's ideology runs contrary to what are understood to be natural principles or laws; the web page did not convince me that Homeopathy is a pseudoscience.

I also went further and looked at the list provided linked from that page (which i had seen before and not examined as closely) and set about looking at each of the sources for that "List of pseudosciences...." associated specifically with Homeopathy, and here are my notes: 24) PSCICOP is not a reliable scientific authority; 25) NCAHF is not a clearly reliable scientific authority; 26) can no longer be found at (that URL ); 27, 20) lack of evidence is not evidence against; 28) that some of its key concepts run counter to our current way of thinking regarding natural law is no guarantee of homeopathy's pseudoscientific status; 29) the source indicates that homeopathy may work for minor illness, and "homeopathic remedies help some people get through these problems with fewer symptoms and may shorten the length of these illnesses." the source is the American Cancer Society; 21/30) make it clear that homeopathy is not "obviously pseudoscience" and that at best the situation is that the scientific community regards it as such, while some portion of the general populace regards it as potentially effective for minor ailments.; 23) this is the most interesting section of text: and it is inconclusive ("A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.") The fact that numerous medical aid insititutions fund Homeopathy does not negatively colour data about its potential.

Have any better scientific evaluations of homeopathy as pseudoscience than these? It seems a borderline issue to me, and still looks like a British issue moreso than an American one. I hope you see that i am not ignoring your sources, that i am considering them carefully, and that i am displaying to you more thoroughly that you are doing so for me, critiquing them meaningfully.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. From the Arbcom ruling:

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."

We have the National Academy of Science saying it's a pseudoscience. That is quite enough. At this point, you have a bad case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, i missed that part. Could you point out again where the National Academy of Science said that homeopathy is pseudoscience? I even searched on Google for this and couldn't locate it. Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask for that cite on the page itself, since it seems not to be forthcoming here.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lunar Effect a Pseudoscience?

"Lunar effect is the belief that the full moon influences human behavior." Like the description for homeopathy above, this is a belief and so fails the strict qualification as a mechanism for producing scientific data or knowledge. It should be classed with all theories, ideas, concepts, explanations of principle, and ideologies as at best 'pseudoscientific' as evaluated by modern scientists but should not have a tag as a pseudoscience. This should also apply to all religious ideologies which do not as part of their ideology make claims about the scientific character and caliber of the knowledge that they are obtaining/presenting.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>UPDATE: the following Ideologies, Theories, or Beliefs (valuable or not) are currently listed as subcategories of Pseudoscience: Category:AIDS denialism, Category:Ancient astronaut theory, Category:Esoteric anthropogenesis, Category:Hollow Earth theory (should be 'Hollow earth theory'?), Category:Intelligent design, Category:National mysticism, Category:Obsolete scientific theories, Category:Scientific skepticism, Category:Vitalism, and Category:Young Earth creationism (should be Young earth creationism). Category:Lunar effect is not currently a subcategory of Pseudoscience and no longer seems to exist in any case.

You're being too literal. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear that you want to keep some of these based on non-noun (soft) categorization. All of them? Some of them? Which ones if so, and why?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

SECOND CALL for removing all ideologies from the Pseudoscience category as there has been no rational defense, with citations, to keep them included. They aren't sciences, obviously. Demonstrating that they are somehow otherwise qualified by citation would be important to preserving the Pseudoscience category tag's usage.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Today i will be removing Category:AIDS denialism, Category:Ancient astronaut theory, Category:Esoteric anthropogenesis, Category:Hollow Earth theory (should be 'Hollow earth theory'?), Category:Intelligent design, Category:National mysticism, Category:Obsolete scientific theories, Category:Scientific skepticism, Category:Vitalism, and Category:Young Earth creationism from the category of Pseudoscience based on a lack of defense for any of these as being pseudoscience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. AIDS denialism is based on pseudoscience. Have you actually read it?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What i've read is unimportant. What is important is a cite to a reliable source indicating that the category as a whole is pseudoscience. Can you supply one? That's all i am asking for. Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Talk page for the category yielded no additional source indicating pseudoscience, just another description which my own reading seemed to confirm but still with no citations easily identified. I'll leave this one for the moment because it seems very likely, but there seems to be a reluctance to source or a lack of knowledge with respect to how to find such sources.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal Subjects

There is no description of the subjects in general, just a list of abilities, skills, powers, whatever one may wish to call them. Strictly speaking, these are phenomena which are not described as scientific enterprises and therefore, like any other source of unusual information like possession or meditation or mediumship, does not qualify for a Pseudoscience category tag.

That said, any institutes which purport to scientifically evaluate paranormal effects, skills, events, or phenomena of any kind which are not doing so are absolutely pseudosciences, involve pseudoscientists, and should be labelled as such.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Which are not doing so" what? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Any institutes which are purporting to evaluate paranormal stuff in a scientific way and produce scientific data, but which are not doing so, are absolutely qualified for the tag 'pseudoscientists'.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but how would one tell, per sources? Like, what is an example? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that only in the aftermath of their activities and via effective and coherent evaluations of their actual methodology could such sources be ruled as pseudoscientific, their activity itself as pseudoscience. The supposed phenomena under consideration is no more a 'science', or pretending to be a science, than is a crop circle or a Big Foot. Examples of institutes which have conducted such studies with variable results are the Rhine institute and the SRI. Further afield, were some place like the Berkeley Psychic Institute to begin to make plainly scientific claims about its members' or participants' powers and how they had tested them scientifically, then i would expect that pages on their studies (especially) could be tagged Pseudoscience if they were reviewed as such and cited by scientific studies.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re sources, i thought this reference was interesting as regards the Rhine institute (but i am a long time fan of Martin Gardiner. :) Did he just make commetary, or do actual investigations into Rhine's methodologies? These kinds of scrutinizing questions should be asked about these types of sources. I could look that one up myself (because i have Gardiner's book), but i'm just using it as an example here in response to you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>UPDATE: Category:Paranormal subjects no longer seems to exist as a category or subcategory.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Reincarnation Research a Pseudoscience?

In general, research that includes a diverse base of information sourcing which doesn't necessarily present as "scientific" per se should not by itself be categorized as pseudoscience. In the case of reincarnation research, granted that it might be difficult to engage in scientific examination of the evidence, and given that so much included here (pages) is anecdotal and not presented as more than this, i recommend restricting the category tag of Pseudoscience tag only to the Reincarnation research page and leaving the rest alone unless they try to present as if they are providing scientific knowledge. This is a case where specific pseudoscience activities are a subset of the overarching category of data or knowledge, some portion of which is obviously not trying to be or promoting itself (falsely) as scientific.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Second call to fix this so that the Pseudoscience category tag only is left to the Reincarnation research page and removed from the rest. Objections?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

<OUTDENT>NOTE: Having heard no objections, revised per the above.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This change was reverted by OrangeMarlin based on his contention that there was no consensus. Has someone offered up a defense of this category as pseudoscience? Isn't discussion here supposed to avoid revert-wars? I certainly won't engage them, but i need to know what are the proper procedures when discussion isn't taking place and intransigence is obvious.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually it appears that all of those which i did on this day were reverted. I'll continue to try to discover the proper way to discuss and revise this category's proper implementation. So far i'm meeting up with lots of silence, quips, and evasions, followed by games of cat and mouse. Is this the proper place to discuss it? When it doesn't happen, and the discussion is taken elsewhere, will that become the host of silence next? I remain hopeful that we can make some progress.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology a Pseudoscience?

I have personally researched, first-hand, the methods and expositions of Scientology, from L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi through to its secret documents exposed online by (in some cases) my friends. I have engaged their local churches in an attempt to understand what they promote and how they go about promoting it. I did not like what i encountered, but that is hardly important to a consideration of categories and their applicability.

Category:Scientology is currently listed as a Pseudoscience. Scientology is a religion. I am not aware (but may well be mistaken) about the level of scientific scrutiny Scientologists contend their data has. At least they associate themselves with psychology, and therefore may approximate Category:Parapsychology, which i agree is Pseudoscience. I think categorizing a religion as a pseudoscience should be a very difficult thing to do, and that without a good reason presented here, it should also be omitted from the subcategories of Pseudoscience until it is shown to warrant it. Elsewise we may also want to be considering other religions like Category:Christian Science, or any Category:New thought subcategories which may come to exist such as Category:Religious science (does not currently exist), Category:Science of mind (does not currently exist), or any number of other religions/religious categories that have 'science' as part of their name which have no connection to empirical studies but make claims to scientific espousals of knowledge. I would be happy to research this for consideration and evaluation if we deem it important to evaluate every 'scientistic' religious org/group. It is obvious that specific pages in this category should be seriously considered as to whether or not their usage of 'science' is modern or some old or soft usage akin to the Ideology/Theories/Beliefs species of subcategory.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Second call to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from ANY religion, inclusive of Scientology unless it is demonstrated on this Talk page that they a) make claims to being a science and b) are not one.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

<OUTDENT>NOTE: having heard no objection, change has been effected as suggested above and the Scientology cat has had its Pseudoscience category tag removed.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I object. Stop doing this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your objection, but i don't see any reason behind it, nor citation to support for any contentions that these qualify as pseudoscience. Could you direct me to some? Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Religions can utilize pseudoscience. Again, we're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Obvious and Conservative Pseudosciences?

<outdent>UPDATE: Here is a list of actual Pseudosciences or Pseudoscientistry which are currently subcategories of Pseudoscience: Category:Creation science, Category:Parapsychology, Category:Pseudoarchaeology, Category:Pseudophysics, and Category:Pseudoscientists.

It seems totally defensible to include, if it pans out that the whole of the category includes what should be considered anti-pseudoscience advocates, such subcategories as Category:Scientific skepticism and Category:Skeptics. I am not yet convinced that these overarching subcats are completely comprised of anti-pseudoscience advocates on the order of PSICOP, for example. Their individual subcats or pages would therefore be proper entries for the category of Pseudoscience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Second call to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from Category:Scientific skepticism unless there are directions to consider each of the subcats or pages for it. Someone already removed the tag from Category:Skeptics-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

<OUTDENT>NOTE: having heard no objection, i have removed the Pseudoscience category tag from Scientific skepticism category. We may wish to review the contents of this category at some future date to determine if any of them are applicable (it seems to me that they may be, though we may encounter them another way also).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, never mind. I actually agree here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the correct way of proceeding.

Self-ref (talk · contribs), you need to take your concerns to the talk pages of individual articles; there you should start discussions on the value and accuracy of a pseudoscience categorization. Category talk:Pseudoscience is a wildly out-of-view location to discuss proper categorization of these topics. In many cases (i.e., homeopathy), the merit for the categorization is blingly obvious (i.e., sourced in the second paragraph of the article).

I think it's clear that Self-ref can and should initiate discussion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a pseudoscience category on the talk page of a subject in question. The current activity of making large-scale demands for sourcing in an under-the-radar category talk page is inefficient and unwise at best, and deliberate obfuscation at worst. I agree with the early ArbCom returns that this is a genuine content dispute that should be settled in the typical manner...so I strongly encourage Self-ref to discuss proper categorization of Subject X at Talk:Subject X. — Scientizzle 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional direction. It has been slow in coming, but that's ok. I have already begun approaching the talk pages of the more controversial and extremely obvious selections based on my available time and whim. I am sometimes receiving insults for not knowing everything about every category/subject, but that's the way it goes. I'll post to the Category and Page purging threads where i receive definitive support and when i determine that no support is forthcoming just prior to removing the category. I hope this will be a suitable solution and everybody will be happy about it.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Supported Categories

Category:Phrenology sustained due to a cite of Encycl. Brit..-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't how this works self-ref, and you know it. Verbal chat 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

Those who have edited in related areas within WP might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Should this category be purged of its poorly related pages?

Here is my analysis of the page count for Pseudoscience category based on my category species findings expressed in the similarly-named topic above:

1) Types or species of pages which i maintain that the category of Pseudoscience should be stripped from based on my strict criteria of inclusion such that what would be left in would be those types or species of pages describing things 'presenting as a science in a strict/hard (noun) sense' and falsely or fraudulently so (followed by how many pages currently are included): Divinatory Arts (7); Fallacies, Frauds and Hoaxes (3); Ideologies, Theories, Intellectual Positions (29); Phenomena (real or not) (72); Religions (1 -- Scientology); Research (partials?) (1 - Anthropological criminology); Therapies/Therapy-related (31). The types or species should be identified before a page (or category) is included, and this be the fulcrum of inclusion due to the conservative limits that ought be placed on pejorative category tags. Should any be interested in how i assign the pages to these types, please indicate to me where i should place that list, and i'll do so for the interested. The assignments should be fairly obvious, with a few exceptions that i may be misunderstanding or about which i have insufficient knowledge.

2) Specific pages upon which i maintain that the category of Pseudoscience should be maintained (and evaluated) based on the same criteria and my specific knowledge of the details: Cargo cult science, Creation science, Cryptid, Cryptobotany, Cryptozoology, Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (should be Encyclopedia of pseudoscience), History of pseudoscience, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, Pseudoscientific metrology, Popular psychology, Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudoscience, Pseudoskepticism, Somatotype and Constitutional Psychology, Template:Pseudoscience, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (book?). These qualify for the type or species of 'Pseudoscience' in a strong or 'noun' valence (a pseudoscience in a rational and sustainable sense).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your "strict criteria" are irrelevant to editing at Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS which means it's pseudoscience if it's shown to be so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that they are. I think pejorative category tags require much stricter standards of employment than are being exercized, and deserve scrutiny and analysis. I have provided that, regardless of the net consequences or effect. The negative character of this category should require the jumping of additional hurdles before application. Instead what we've seen is application without conclusive status as such.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please see this arbcom decision about pseudoscience. In other words, this has been discussed, and you should read the decision. We're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear that i read that 8-editor decision and disagreed with it strongly, finding it bankrupt of logic or wisdom. The onus should be on you and them to demonstrate with citation that 1) the things mentioned proclaim themselves to be sciences and that 2) they are in fact not so. I'm seeing very little actual justification brought forward here even for the items which are not covered by the arbcom. With the level of support that ought be easily brought to bear, it should be no difficulty at all to use the arbcom to demonstrate their qualifications as pseudosciences (or pseudoscience should you insist on the soft and weak alternative).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If no defense is offered for the categories of a species (phenomena, ideology, etc.) then the pages of the species shall also be removed if they have no specific defenses by citation demonstrating that they are pseudosciences. Where argument is sustained with rational defense and citation, and the category species is not removed from Category-Pseudoscience because of this, then that species will be evaluated page by page where necessary. Otherwise there is no reason to go through a topic by topic or page by page evaluation. Almost no defense is being brought up to retain the Pseudoscience category's implementation and the work should be done by those who support its usage, not those who are attempting to refine its usage to something supportable.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom isn't just an "8-editor decision"...ArbCom "exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes". You're welcome to ask for clarification, and I'd even encourage you to go to the talk pages of individual articles and start the relevant discusssions on the value and accuracy of a categorization. A wholesale de-categorization based upon your criteria would be certain to result in editwarring and other nonsense. — Scientizzle 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Wow, sounds GREAT! see below-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-ref, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. We don't have to (quoting you) demonstrate "that they are pseudosciences" or that "they are in fact not so." That's not our job as editors. We only present V & RS that mention them in that light. Verifiability, not truth, is the arbiter here.

Your edit history seems to indicate that right from the beginning you have misunderstood this matter, with many edit summaries stating that some subject was "not pseudoscience". So what? If someone thought it was and wrote it in a V & RS, then we document it. We just document that it is someone's opinion, regardless of our own feelings on the subject.

I really do question your mission here as you are obviously not a new user. Are you a blocked or banned editor? What has your previous username been, or have you been editing as an anon IP? -- Fyslee / talk 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is quite possible that i misunderstand many things. I am attempting to learn as i go. Generally what i meant by 'demonstrate that they are pseudosciences' was that there was contention by reputable scientists that a thing is pretending to be a science and is in fact not so. Verifiability sounds good to me. I am not seeing a lot of it here. Neal provided some direction in the Arbcom clarification by mentioning Popper with respect to Astrology. I knew that one would be difficult to defend. Can you explain what "writing it in a V & RS" should look like and where that has happened in this discussion on this page so far? I'd like to see what you accept as an example. I like documentation and that sounds promising. I don't mind conceding once i have verified, and if i want to attempt to argue against a source i presume that i can bring up comparable sources with opposing views for comparison. Isn't this how it should work?

It appears that my ability to orient (only seeming in many ways let me assure you) gives the impression of greater familiarity with Wikipedia than i truly have. I am editing a little on other wikis (without the strict standards), so the technics are becoming a bit more familiar through time from outside experience, but the social and protocol aspects of this project are very new to me. I have some advisors offline but they aren't usually too helpful in the zones of my involvement. My previous editing experience was minimal and as another User account named 'boboroshi' (which i think may have been dissolved, i haven't looked. I am what i say that i am, and would appreciate your presumption of Good Faith that i have the project's overall benefit in mind and heart. Thanks. :) -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanation accepted. In fact, from looking at your website and your wife's site, you look like exciting people. Please excuse my direct manner of speech above, but your POV, editing style and subject matter seemed very similar to a banned editor, and I really was suspicious! Welcome to Wikipedia. This is a great learning environment, especially since NPOV requires us to treat POV that may offend us as being required parts of articles. It is our job to actually ensure that they are included! That can be hard at first, but once one gets used to it, it broadens one's horizons and opens the possibilities for interchange with people who edit on the "opposite side" of the fence, in a hopefully collaborative manner. The best articles are written through such collaborative efforts. I wish you well and hope we can work together here. Oh, as to WP:V and WP:RS, you will just have to read those fundamental policies. Then please visit my talk page if you want to hear my POV in certain situations. As with all other policies here, those two can be subject to some interpretation depending on the situation. -- Fyslee / talk 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. :) I do appreciate the slack, and the welcome. I understand that one of the problems of fairly anonymous accounts is the possibility or likelihood that they will be used to conceal participation on the part of the same person trying to achieve the same ends using different means. The matching was unfortunate, but i think my patience and good nature will win out where another character previously fell or was tossed, and of course i can excuse your being on the lookout for that, indeed. I'll watch to see the V & RS demonstrated. Broadening horizons is fun, definitely something i enjoy.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So granted that Scien is correct, i have no objections to establishing, somehow, an agreed criteria for exclusion, or taking the pages one by one in an evaluation either here or on the page itself to make a determination. I'll presume the latter will be necessary unless i hear something promising from someone who wants the category's application to remain or to expand. I gather that mass-changing is not desired, and that a proper defense of any category or page will be the supply of a verifiable and reliable source on scientific consideration of status as to pseudoscience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification on Pseudoscience Category Arbitration

Request for clarification on Pseudoscience Category implementation -- Let's get some expert guidance from the Arbcom on the use of this pejorative category tag.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And that's not their job. Your abuse of the system is getting boring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It was their job to clarify. Your contentions about that seem to have proven false. I thought the clarification was helpful, but it doesn't mean that they established clear lines, only means of determining these.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-ref, I notice that part of your objections seem to stem from a view that the term is pejorative. Whether it is or not isn't my point here. I hope you realize that Wikipedia is an all-inclusive encyclopedia, and it's uncensored. It is totally irrelevant whether a word or subject is a pejorative, or used as a pejorative some of the time. We use those terms in articles and as article titles here and couldn't care less whether they are offensive to someone or not, especially fringe editors or true believers. If we did and acted on those concerns, we would be adding editorial bias to the articles through prior censorship. -- Fyslee / talk 23:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we allow overt racist terminology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is a subcategory of 'Pejorative' is meaningful to me, yes. I think it should be restrained to greater extent than other category tags for this reason. I think i have seen other arguments with similar interest. It is not offensive to me. It is merely potentially abused. Therefore i have an interest in seeing that it is used properly. The clarification on proper usage was helpful, i think, and i look forward to seeing how others use that clarification for support or opposition to my interests in seeing it removed due to its misuse. If you could explain why you think that it is properly used in the areas that it is, that would go some distance to helping me see where you are coming from. So far you seem to be evaluating me, whereas i would prefer it if you would begin to address the category's specific applicabilities (in terms of species, for example, or how to distinguish adjectival usages of 'pseudoscience' from 'bad' to 'good'). I'm willing to be shown that i am in error. Mostly what has been brought to bear so far in these discussions on this page, however, are not anything to verify, just quips and complaints. Thank you for your consideration.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Should't it be mentioned by what is meant by the opposite of "but that are not considered being so by the scientific community.[1], i.e. explaining when something is considered "accepted by the scientific community, i.e. when a scientific consensus is reached and how the process is coming about? I find not many people have been learned this or are familiar with this. An assist: The first step usually is that someone finds something and this is researched by 1 researcher or a small team. Then other researchers are asked to see if they come to the same conclusion. If so, a federation of specialists on the topic will take notice of all the research that has been done, is still going on and what future roads are being explored, confirm if the procedures of good statistics etc. have been respected and what claims can already be retained as "true" and what still needs more what kind of research or procedural steps. If then also other specialists from domains that are close to area of research, can align their insights with the insights from the research, the validity of the claims becomes even stronger. If that gets also confirmed by their federations and a federation that groups both specialist sub-federations together, the "truth" is even more confirmed. The top scientific federations to have creditbility of doings so are the AAAS, the NAS - National Academy of Sciency, NASA, IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Something along these lines would make a practical guideline for people to judge the validity and value of a claim or research result. Has something like this already been worked out somewhere? Thx for this excellent work and I'm proud of contributing to making a good encyclopedia/wikipedia... what a great effort and what a complex happening! Only when collaborating in it I realise how disciplined an effort is it. I hope they teach in schools how such a process of a work in process works and how it is necessary in order to bring value!Ah, I just notice now that I clicked "Preview" that scientific consensus is a topic that's discussed in the wikipedia. Maybe there this is explained and that they say something about the term pseudoscience and eventually more precise wordings. I came here after a frustration expressed in the talk page of [Antineoplaston, a research finding that is in the scienctific consensus pipeline, and where some are frustrated is is labelled "Pseudoscience", rather than indicating with a number or tag or something where it is in that pipeline of scientific consencus. --SvenAERTS (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cat:Pseudoscience removals

Self-ref (talk · contribs) made massive changes to a number of articles and categories without discussion. Posting here really isn't the best place to discuss it--the discussion pages of each of the articles and categories would be best. But more proactively, there are a fairly large number of editors that watch pseudoscience. They should be included, with some form of consensus. Making a pronouncement, waiting for someone to respond, doesn't qualify as consensus. This isn't good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is false. I was asked not to touch articles because they had to be discussed on the pages. Therefore i discussed the category's applicability to OTHER CATEGORIES here. When there was no support for leaving the Pseudoscience category on them, i removed them.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-ref, you not only do not have consensus, you do not have substantial (if any) support for these changes. Please discuss the use of a category on the article talk page, not the category talk page, which is for discussion of the existence and/or definition of the category, not for whether it is appropriate on any specific pages. Give adequate time for input. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet begun to try to discuss the articles on the article Talk pages. I have not yet begun to remove articles from the Pseudoscience category. This appears to be a misunderstanding. Please revert all my removals that were reverted unless you are now telling me that every single one of these has to be discussed on their category Talk pages (rather than here), which is new information, seems futile, and doesn't make any sense to me. I'm attempting to coordinate with folks, but you seem to be making it more and more difficult to challenge the use of the Pseudoscience category in a way that did not apply when it was abused, which is sadly convenient and will eventually exhaust my interests. Also please point out where these protocols for Talk page usage are, so that i may become fully aware of them. I saw nothing stipulating that the discussion of the category's applicability for another category shouldn't be on the category page itself and should be handled on the talk page of the category in question (at which almost nothing is taking place).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Talk is a poor place to have direction without at least attempting to get involving from article:talk or project:talk pages. Wikipedia does not have Rules. Please do not invoke "where are these protocls" when other editors dispute your edits. You do not have consensus. Consensus requires agreement and active editor participation. In the absence of new consensus, old consensus should stay.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration indicates that in order to retain the usage of the category for the categories and articles to which it is applied, there should be reliable sources to support the retention or it should be dropped. Do you agree that this is the case?

Why and how does the Arbcom ruling and clarification relate at all to consensus? Does this mean that if a cabal of editors (a "consensus") decides something, then it remains effective until another cabal of agreeing editors arises to make another decision? If so, all the interested have to do is wait out those with less interest or time and they'll get whatever they want. Thanks for helping me understand how Wikipedia operates.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Which arbitration are you talking about. Your request for clarification {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience] or The original major one [1]. The original Arbcom resulted in WP:PSCI which has a very simple summary of how and what counts as pseudoscience for wikipedia.

Anything Generally considered pseudoscience or Obviously pseudoscience should be categorised as such.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

False. I am referring to the original ruling at this location, which pertains to what is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. This requires us to cite something science-based in order to retain the Pseudoscience category's application to a category or page, to my knowledge. If you understand it differently, please explain why, thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, does this mean that the requests for reliable sources as to the pseudoscience character of the subcategories at their Talk pages which i issued today as i was previously requested by others are now useless? I am beginning to feel like i am being led on a wild Cat chase. ;) Is the real HQ of the applicability of the Pseudoscience Category the Pseudoscience Page? If its applicability is in question on a category, should we be talking about it on the Category page itself (i cannot believe that's true)? This all seems pretty confusing. I thought this page was a very good one for direct communications about all of it, and yet nobody is taking the time to either 1) redirect discussion elsewhere or 2) defend the category's usage. Is that because there is no real defense? For pages, i can understand the talk page of that page. For categories, it appears there is some confusion about the proper venue. Please advise.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify why your actions today were ridiculous. My example: Category:Intelligent design. Please read the second paragraph of Intelligent design. Note the citations that clearly note that ID is widely considered pseudosciece by the relevant fields? How is removing Category:Pseudoscience from Category:Intelligent design justified? — Scientizzle 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your very clear direction to a reliable source indicating that Intelligent Design is actually pseudoscience. Obviously in that case it isn't justified. Now can we move on to other less clear areas?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your method right now is that if you'd just take a few minutes to read the articles, most of your mass message taggings already have cited sources that support a general pseudoscience categorization. Not all, naturally--and I welcome such challenges to improve substandard articles. But it's an annoying waste of energy (and damages your credibility) when others must respond to flatly obvious cases like the above-noted ID categorization. — Scientizzle 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worrying about my credibility. I am trying to follow out what has been given to me by those here who could not or would not merely directly address the questions i had about the category's applicability in this Talk page. I will issue challenges now on all the categories and pages in the Pseudoscience category as i get around to them and watch them to see what comes of it. I don't mind being made fun of, or having my credibility damaged, since i have no vested interest in a POV or my reputation. I do mind evasiveness, and wild Cat chases when i'm attempting in good faith to clean up a bit after some abuse. I am attempting to refine the usage of this pejorative tag, and will take what steps are necessary to get that done, one way or another. Undoubtedly i'll blunder into blatantly obvious usage, but since these aren't being outlined here, that's fine by me. Thanks for your assistance in orienting and in any help you might be to me in restraining category abuse.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Issuing challenges on "all" of the "categories and pages in the Pseudoscience category" is, bluntly, stupid. Don't waste everyone's time. Take the time to actually understand the ArbCom ruling--you clearly don't, yet. Challenge those categorizations that need to be challenged, but don't make more work for everyone else. — Scientizzle 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop right now based on your assertion that it is stupid, Scientizzle. Does this mean that you'll help me to identify the pages which are already established, in your opinion, as pseudoscience, and which ones are questionable because they don't fall under W:PSCI or the clarification? Since i've been going at this all on my own, i figure i'll welcome any help i can get. Mostly (with a few lovely exceptions) i haven't received more than quips about why what i'm doing is not right. What do you think?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First, Self-ref, I applaud your humility and dedication. Those are two laudable attributes. Second, if you haven't already, please read through the WP:PSCI policy which was written based on the ArbCom. You will see that in order for something to be labeled/categorized as a pseudoscience or as pseudoscientific here at Wikipedia, it must either be shown to be an "obvious" or a "generally considered to be" pseudoscience. Further, there are two categories defined which do not qualify as meeting the criteria of being labeled "pseudoscientific" or as "pseudoscience". These are "Questionable science" and "Alternative theoretical formulations". I think if you start there, and then look at the subjects you are disputing, it may help you frame your argument (or may convince you that the subject is aptly labeled). Whatever the case, again I admire your humbleness and tenacity. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, you're helpful, thanks! Here's the problem: I already was familiar with WP:PSCI and how it is based on the Arbcom. What is your opinion about what must be done to 'show that a topic is obviously a pseudoscience' or to 'show that a topic is generally considered (by the scientific community!) to be a pseudoscience? Is an editor saying so enough? Or should the defender of the tag's placement have to point to a reliable source supporting their position to keep it there? If a "consensus" of editors from before all agree about it being a pseudoscience is this enough, or should they be required to provide referral to reliable sources?

Also, thanks for your focus. You are quite correct that identifying the set of 'questionable science' and 'alternative theoretical formulations' will enable an easier remediation. I had reduced it to species, but subspecies (of science and of theories) will assist my task further. Again, thanks for your help.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think a "consensus of editors" means. Please review WP:CON. You may be pleasantly surprised. Anyhow, per WP:PSCI, I would demand reliable sources which demonstrate that the subject is an obvious pseudoscience or a generally considered pseudoscience. That doesn't mean that one critic described Subject A as a pseudoscience. That means that a general reference source such as Encyclopedia Britannica describes Subject A as a pseudoscience. Or an Academy of Science considers Subject A to be pseudoscience. I certainly don't think that organizations such as "Skeptic groups" qualify as enough of a reliable source to broadly characterize a subject as pseudoscience here at Wikipedia. However, the organization's opinion may be notes with proper attribution in the article for Subject A. Make sense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, L2112, i agree with you that this seems to be the Arbcom decision, and that it is a suitable standard from which to approach each of these category and page qualifications. For my part, when i initiate a conversation on a Talk page and it concludes with such a citation of substance, i'll report it here as i am able. :)-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ZZM has answered your question above. Nothing much more to discuss here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories are not content

Categories are navigational aids. They are not content. They do not require citations. Actually, there is no real way of providing citations for categorisations as far as I can tell.

Generally they should be based on reason, and like all things wikipedia be on consensus.

Returning to citation issues typically they are also based on Common knowledge. Thsi can be tricky with contentious articles, but is always difficult to find direct citations that show that something obvious is true. Most sources will assume you know what your talking about, and wikipedia does have some capacity to do this too.

Any issues you have with individual pages should be taken up on individual pages talk pages. And discussed there. That will allow editors involved in those pages (and who should have any appropriate references) to help you out. You should avoid using pre-conceptions (eg. Scientology = religion ≠ science ¤ can't be pseudoscience) to bring original research for exclusion into the matter. In the abscence of a new consenus on how to move forward, previous consensus should be maintain - even if the basis for the existing consensus is wrong. Wikipedia is an unreliable source, without clear cut rules, and a work-in-progress, stamping over one set of badly justified decisions with a new batch of badly justified decisions people don't agree on is not moving forward at all.

(NB: Similarly new consensus should be abided by even if the justification for new consensus is still wrong.)

People are getting upset here because you are imposing your own justification for removal of these articles from a category that serves to assist in navigating through wikipedia's immense content and not to define article content.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I started out by imposing my own justification, making the decision and removing the cats applications. I was informed that this was wrong (would result in revert-wars), and that i should talk with people on the category's talk page to determine where it was applicable. I informed those i met here what my thoughts were on the strict interpretation of pseudoscience and was informed of the Arbcom, WP:PSCI, and their binding character upon editors. There were already discussions underway attempting to remove this category and to purge their bloated category contents, but with little headway. I assisted these. I was informed that i should begin these conversations on the Talk pages of the categories instead of here, or better, on the article pages as relates to the category content. When i began to do this i was informed that i was causing trouble. I don't think that there is an easy way to go through the review of this category's application, and will take what measures i can to continue to discuss them in the various places using standards of sourcing and criteria for inclusion which seems to be implied or directly specified by the Arbcom and the Clarification which i requested. If you have specific suggestions for how to resolve the matter of support, please provide it below. I don't think what you have said immediately above is very helpful. Quite a bit has been achieved already. The individual pages and their categories seem to be the next to throw off the imposing category from below. Kind regards.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Category Page Revision Suggestion

I suggest revision so that this category page's description reads:

---

Pseudoscience A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not. For example, astronomy is a science, but astrology is generally viewed as a pseudoscience. -- The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved October 13, 2008

This category is comprised of highly notable topics that have a following but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community (such as astrology), and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth).

The term pseudoscience itself is contested by a number of different groups for a number of different reasons.

---

Would someone less controversial than i please make this correction? Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why change it? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So as to conform with the operating parameters we've received from the Arbcom and WP:PSCI.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What difference do you see the change in text making? Both to pages in general (more/less restrictive) and to ArbCom compliance. To paraphrase: why change it? Verbal chat 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and done it; more or less. (The sentence with the examples is redundant in our context.) If anyone considers reverting me, please think first. The previous definition is obviously defective: Nose-picking is generally considered to be without scientific foundation, so it would be a pseudoscience. Most dictionaries agree that if nobody believes it's a science, it's obviously not a pseudoscience. E.g. Webster's (3rd ed.): a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific. There is no reason why out of all definitions we should pick an obviously wrong one. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology

(is a religion) If you want to leave it here stick up Christianity as well. It has many weird rituals some to heal . It's as diverse and strange.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It may have some official recognition is some countries, but wikipedia takes a worldwide view and follows RS. Verbal chat 21:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientology originally billed itself as 'scientific'. It only changes its status to 'religion' when it got accused of practising medicine without a licence, and still makes numerous pseudoscientific claims. AFAIK, it still has a tendency to emphasise the purportedly-scientific side of itself on first contact with recruits & only reveal the religious side when they're hooked. As such it is an easy fit within the category. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It fits equally well in this category as it would in a category for pseudoreligions. It's a religion masquerading as a science, and a business masquerading as a religion. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)