Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

RfC: Can we use individual staments to measure scientific consensus on pseudoscience

On the Pseudoscientific concepts per scientific consensus, there is a dispute (see section above) on WP:NPOV/WP:PSCI interpretation and on what type of sources are sufficient to WP:V verify properly the "scientific consensus" on a topic. This part is undisputed:

The following have broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status. Indicative of this are assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science

And this other part was removed as a violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:RS#Consensus and WP:SYN [2] (see section above):

or, in the case of non-notable concepts that have received no attention from those bodies and academies, and only then, the indicative can be that expert scientists have challenged the legitimacy of these ideas and no other expert scientists have contradicted them.

The question is, should we keep this text or remove it?

keep there are topics notable enough to get an article, but not notable enough to get a statement by a scientific body declaring them pseudoscientific (and/or unscientific), so it's impossible to meet that level of verifiability. WP:PSCI does not require statements from scientific or governmental bodies, if there is a statement by a notable scientist of the field on a reliable source saying that it's pseudoscience, and no other notable scientists saying that it's not, then that should be enough. There is no requirement anywhere that sources for scientific consensus can't be from individual scientists. WP:RS#Consensus says, for example, that consensus can be determined from "independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion", and it just warns about using reliable sources for claims of "most scientists". The section of the policy has never required anything other than "a reliable source for the consensus" (or a version of that wording), see the creation of the section on December 2006[3], and versions of January 2007 [4] and April 2008[5]. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If we are talking about "non-notable concepts", how can there be scientific consensus? WP:N is the criterion for whether an article per se should exist, not whether it should be on a list. Non-notable things can be on the list, per WP:PSCI, but it seems to me that those would go under "obvious pseudoscience" rather than "generally considered pseudoscience" by the sci community. (The exception would be for obscure topics that belong to a an established pseudoscientific superset, e.g. perpetual motion machines, and our existing wording does cover that.) "Generally considered" requires a high threshold in terms of sourcing; "obvious" does not. You say "There is no requirement anywhere that sources for scientific consensus (or "most scientists") can't be from individual scientists" -- is there a V RS, anywhere, saying that they can or should, and when they should? Per WP:BURDEN, you need to provide one if you want to put single scientists alongside scientific academies. Otherwise there's a huge WP:UNDUE problem. Or we can just go with "obvious pseudoscience", which stuff like "Hongcheng liquid" obviously is, and put it under the "idiosyncratic" heading or something like that. regards, Jim Butler (t) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Enric's arguments. Statements that this is contrary to the ArbCom findings are incorrect, and it is misleading to say that we are taking one persons view and using it to represent consensus. Protestations that we should wait for the Royal Society or similar to declare something PS grossly misunderstand the nature of these organisations and are unreasonable demands that would damage the Wikipedia project. Verbal chat 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Also Keep current name. There are no NPOV, V, or RS problems with the article content or the name. Renaming has been the subject of other RfCs, and has not gained consensus. Verbal chat 07:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Also keep in current location. There are no NPOV, V, or RS problems with current placing or usage. Basically No Change. Verbal chat 20:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Question You seem to have a novel notion of "scientific consensus": you're saying that somehow we can infer it from one scientist's stated opinion. Wow. One dude = consensus. That is amazing -- it's like that scientist must have superpowers or something, to be able to impose the sheer force of his will upon reality, thereby forging a sort of singular consensus. Hey, consensus means agreement, right? And no good scientist would disagree with himself! The implications are profound... so, um... got a source supporting your position? --Jim Butler (t) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious? Since all expert scientists are always objective and fully informed when talking about science, and there is only one, objective, scientific truth, a statement by a single expert scientist is of course enough. The qualifications ("non-notable concept", no contradiction) are only needed to prevent damage in case someone is not actually a real expert scientist. Sadly, that's not such a rare phenomenon, after all.

More seriously, Verbal, there are plenty of brilliant scientists who are openly racist, antisemitic, antiislamic, etc. Would you trust their judgement about a somewhat dubious field that is tangential to their main area of expertise? What if we don't know anything about the expert scientists character? Scientists may stay away from a subject because they think it's not sufficiently promising, or because of funding problems. It's unfair to take this as prima facie evidence it is pseudoscience, and to lower the bar for applying this pejorative label so extremely. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe in this case "scientific consensus" is like a singularity or a unitary executive. ;-) --Jim Butler (t) 07:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Where have I said or supported the use of a single persons opinion to describe scientific consensus? Verbal chat 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it was the part where you supported keeping the proposed wording, in the RfC, under the indicated section. --Jim Butler (t) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Note the plural: "scientists". Don't link to inappropriate and silly essays please, it's rude. A better link would be one where I say a single persons say so is allowed - which I haven't done. That isn't what the wording asks for. Scientists are multiple people, a scientist is a single person. m:Don't_be_dense indeed. I am therefore fully endorsing the view that Enric has given. There is another essay that might be relevant for you behaviour, Jim, but I'm too polite to link to it. Indeed, I specifically stated "it is misleading to say that we are taking one persons view and using it to represent consensus". Verbal chat 10:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a distinction without a difference: using two or three scientists (or five or fifty, if they're just signing a petition or something) to indicate "consensus" is just as ridiculous as using one. (Yes, such sources have weight; no, they shouldn't be used under the "consensus" header.) If some alt-med article wanted to cite a study involving a few self-selected patients, "skeptical" editors would nuke the source, and rightly so; yet those same editors are saying they want to use the same type of source here?? Seriously, the irony astounds me.

So, I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position, but you did say you agreed with Enric's comment above (emphasis mine), which included the statement that "if there is a statement by a notable scientist of the field on a reliable source saying that it's pseudoscience, and no other notable scientists saying that it's not, then that should be enough." And above, you again said you are "fully endorsing" Enric's position, while in the next breath[6] you contradict yourself and reiterate that "it is misleading to say that we are taking one persons view and using it to represent consensus". So maybe you'll excuse my confusion. Where do you and Enric agree, and where do you diverge? Maybe one scientist isn't consensus, but at what point when you add the second or third or tenth or whatever, does consensus emerge? How exactly does that work? What RS says things work that way? This reminds me of a quote on Eldereft's user page: "The plural of anecdote is confirmation bias".

I'm not meaning to be a WP:DICK, but I do find it unhelpful when editors just state their opinion and don't explain their reasoning with detail or consistency. If I've misunderstood, let alone misrepresented, your position, my apologies; please assume I'm dense and explain specifically how WP policy supports your position, and why my interpretation is wrong. And again, please show us a source supporting your position regarding what constitutes "consensus we can believe in", so to speak. --Jim Butler (t) 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree (more or less) with Jim Butler that this is what the RfC is about. You even seem to be endorsing Enric's clear statement: "There is no requirement anywhere that sources for scientific consensus can't be from individual scientists." The problem is that we can't rely on such statements to be interpreted reasonably. Do you remember the spiteful Nigerian quackery article, the abstract of which was for a long time our only source for claiming homeopathy to be pseudoscience? If that's not what you have in mind, you should be more careful about what you endorse.

BTW, you may be wondering why I didn't comment elsewhere in this RfC. That's because while I think the current wording is no good, the question is complex and I am not sure what would be the best solution. (Short of removing everything non-notable from this list, that is. I am generally deletionist wrt lists and categories, and most of this article seems to be an excuse for labelling. I don't see why it's encyclopedic to list non-notable and borderline pseudosciences. But that's really an argument for merging into pseudoscience.) --Hans Adler (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hans. I agree with you that the word of one person generally shouldn't be used (possible exceptions for people like Feynman, and perhaps the head of the RS, or similar, but those would need discussion). Jim has (AGF) misunderstood my comments and the original wording, and the RS policy, where it has always been plural; "from individual scientists" not "from a scientist". I think this distinction is important, but seems to have confused a few people. Verbal chat 10:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The text we are discussing (the one in bold above) has "expert scientists" in a context that is already plural ("in the case of non-notable concepts"). Given the context (for non-notable pseudoscience it's hard enough to find even one expert; a history of label pushing related to pseudoscience; no details about the number of experts required) I don't think it's correct to read it the way you seem to be doing, and even if it was correct, many would misread it.

Moreover, I can't find your statement about individual scientists in WP:RS. What I found instead under WP:RS#Consensus: "The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source." After reading the sentence in context I think it says even if there is unanimous agreement among all physics textbooks and all physicists (who talk about the topic) that things tend to fall down, saying there is a scientific consensus on the question still requires a RS that says there is such a consensus. (In this case I would say WP:IAR, but not in a contentious matter.) --Hans Adler (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep There are some things that are clearly pseudoscience that the academies have not yet issued statements on. It would be disingenuous to not label these as pseudoscience just because the academies have better things to do. -Atmoz (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment We can do that under a different section than the "scientific consensus" one. WP:PSCI mentions two categories: "generally considered PS by the sci community" and "obvious pseudoscience". Isn't it more encyclopedic to be a bit more selective with the former? --Jim Butler (t) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(archived comments by Jim Butler that apply to a different debate)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note after archiving this longish comment: the comments below apply to a different debate, i.e. whether or not single sources published by groups like CSICOP can be used for non-notable topics, and whether single sources by anyone can be used for notable topics. My argument below is that they can, but not when the list's title unmbiguously characterizes all topics on the list as pseudoscience. See WP:PSCI. If we want a more inclusive list with relaxed inclusion criteria, we need a suitably NPOV title like "List of topics considered pseudoscientific". See what List of cults redirects to; the logic is the same. --Jim Butler (t) 07:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep, with a title change. Or remove, without one. - I'm in favor of having a robust list, but not at the expense of NPOV and VER. My logic flows from WP's very basic mission to present facts about opinions, not opinions as facts. We should not say topics "are" pseudoscience (which is what inclusion in an article called "List of pseudosciences..." undisputably does) without strictly meeting WP:PSCI's "generally considered PS by the sci community" criteria. (Yes, single sources may make statements which if uncontradicted imply consensus, but see WP:SYN. Yes, many minor topics don't attract commentary from group sources, but see WP:NOTTRUTH.)

The reason for an absence of commentary from gold-standard sources is sometimes that the demarcation is not always clear, e.g. in medicine. Listen to what one of the most gold-standard sources in the English Language, the Institute of Medicine, says: "Boundaries within CAM and between the CAM domain and the domain of the dominant system are not always sharp or fixed."ref [7] We really need to wake up and acknowledge the fact that just as there are obvious pseudosciences like perpetual motion machines, there are real cases like acupuncture, or psychoanalysis, where the demarcation problem applies. In such cases, WP needs to be smart and nuanced rather than cavalier. Scientists and doctors are well aware of mixed-bag topics like chiropractic, and if they were as obviously pseudoscientific as intelligent design or something, a big science academy would have said so. Only recently did such a group get around to making such a statement about homeopathy. The emergence of consensus, especially the verifiable kind (which is the main kind WP cares about!), takes time. We should not rush things, but rather report them as they verifiably stand. Grey areas exist, NPOV and VER matter, and we should always qualify and attribute opinions on any topic where sources fail to meet the highest standards to which WP:PSCI rightly points.

However, we can fix all this with a simple title change. We can say "X topic is called pseudoscience by Y source" and not have to worry about WP:PSCI as long as the list title is tweaked to allow for that qualification: e.g., "List of topics described as pseudoscientific". That would also allow citations of individual authors, e.g. writing for CSICOP, cf. the Ayurveda debate above. As WP:RS#Consensus says, "The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." That means such things CAN be cited on WP but NOT in ways that characterize them as pseudoscience (which includes this list, as titled).

For those who worry that such a change would dilute the impact of the list, don't worry: the first section, with rock-solid sources and wikilinks to the relevant topics, will remain just as it is. No one could possibly read that section and not understand that all those topics are considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community, and that the sci community has spoken clearly and en masse to that effect. Likewise, other sections can remain, and new ones can be added, each stating exactly what type of source is used. How can that not result in a better list?

(whew) If that came off as long-winded apologetics for pseudoscience and muddy thinking, sorry, I'd already parted ways with your thinking awhile back and we'll have to agree to disagree, and follow WP:DR as needed. If this sounds reasonable, maybe we should revisit the idea of a title change? regards, Jim Butler (t) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Well formulated and necessary given the amount of pseudoscience cropping up on this wiki. Pcap ping 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but not in this section (and that's a compromise: personally I'd rather see this wording, and all the stuff outside of rigorously-sourced sci consensus statements, split into another article. Or, keep everything in this article and retitle it, per archived RfC.)

(see proposal below) On reflection, the particular sentence debated in this RfC sounds OK to include in the list as titled, but why don't we just stick it under the Idiosyncratic ideas section instead of the "scientific consensus" section? I agree with all the other editors who have commented so far that we should include the info on WP, but we shouldn't overreach: it cheapens scientific consensus to throw the term around casually and WP:SYN-ishly assume it exists. We can just go with WP:PSCI's "obvious pseudoscience" for topics that are obscure and flaky enough for just one major dude to have commented on, no? As I mentioned above, how can "scientific consensus" exist over obscure things, except for those that belong to a an established pseudoscientific superset, e.g. yet another perpetual motion machine?

However, if someone can produce an RS supporting the position that uncontradicted statements by notable scientists really can indicate a scientific consensus position on fringe topics, then sure, let's do it. (My objections, expressed in the section above, to expanding the inclusion criteria without changing the list's title apply to including sources like the one disputed for Ayurveda, i.e. individual, non-notable scientists writing for CSICOP, or any single source commenting on a notable topic, like chiropractic, etc.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Drop, or any alternative solution that solves the problem I will describe. It took some time for me to get an opinion about this, but by now I feel very strongly that we have no business diluting WP:RS#Consensus:

The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.

Consensus claims based on original research is exactly what we are discussing here; and in the context of a pejorative label, too. We are discussing the following argument, which is a clear case of WP:SYN: "A, B, C said X is the case. A, B, C are experts on the subject. No other experts contradicted them. Therefore A, B, C is scientific consensus." --Hans Adler (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Completely agree. I too am dubious about many aspects of this list, and while I'm open to compromises (cf. below), my own views are very close to yours. Couldn't have said it better. regards, Jim Butler (t) 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been listed on the Fringe theories noticeboard. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Drop: if these topics are truly non-notable then they should not be included in this article. If, on the other hand, they are notable then there should be demonstrable scientific consensus to deserve inclusion here. Individuals' opinions may well deserve mention on the topic's own page, but are not justification for inclusion here. hgilbert (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously these topics are notable in the sense of Wikipedia, since they all have articles. Notability in the field of science that is qualified to talk about them is an entirely different matter, though. I think something like the section "idiosyncratic ideas" really is in order here, but its introduction should explain (in guarded language!) the connection to the article's title. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean notable as examples of pseudoscience. If they are notable in this respect, sources (generally more than a single individual scientist) will have mentioned this connection. If they are not, they don't belong here (this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every topic in connection with which someone has used the term pseudoscience, or an equivalent!) hgilbert (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Hans Adler's and Hgilbert's comments in this thread. --Jim Butler (t) 09:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep but word it less prescriptively. There will obviously be borderline situations, and it will depend on the degree of authority. DGG (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG - can you explain why you mean by "word it less prescriptively"? Also, would you be open to moving the wording to a different section, cf. below? thanks, Jim Butler (t) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I've suggested just above, under the preceding section[8], that if we can't resolve this RfC we may want to go to ArbCom. I think there's a particular, limited avenue for asking them to clarify a particular ruling, which in this case is WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. I'll try and find out how to do that; anyone else know? regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove This list is of poor quality and would be best deleted. But while it exists, it should be held to a high standard and so the statement of a single person is not enough to establish such a POV. For one thing, who are "expert" in such cases? For example, consider faith healing. It doesn't seem to me that this is a science of any sort - it seems to be a practical art inspired by religious ideas. But who would be the experts on such a categorisation - philologists; philosophers; historians of science; theologians; etc? We need a broad consensus of such, not a narrow one, in order to make such a finding. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove Per Colonel Warden. In general, a list of what some skeptic groups or persons have labeled "Pseudoscience" seems trivial. Further, as lists are subject to NPOV, the compilation of a list based solely on unconfirmed opinions seems a bit POV-forkish. We should keep the criteria high and - as per WP:PSCI - only include topics which are generally considered pseudoscience or an obvious pseudoscience. And in that case why have this when we already have Category:Pseudoscience? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Drop per Hans Adler. Unless there is a reliable source stating that consensus exists, we shouldn't be stating that one exists. DigitalC (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember this? -- This is a Solomon's Sword solution to the above morass

Talk:List_of_pseudoscientific_theories/Archive_9#Counter_proposal? I do. The consensus is that a two-tiered system demarcating difference between "skeptical" organizations and "scientific societies" is not supported by reliable sources and is essentially an original synthesis attempt to demarcate between things that Wikiepdia cannot demarcate. We therefore combine the two sections as per the consensus seen in that section. I'm surprised that this wasn't done earlier. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. I haven't got the time to look at your edits in detail or to follow the link, because my little daughter is bothering me. Will try to do all that later. But did you consider the fact that there is also an obvious demarcation problem between "sceptical" and "pseudosceptical" organizations? --Hans Adler (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source which reliably demarcates anything being "pseudoskeptical". ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source which reliably lumps together sceptical organisations and scientific societies. Aren't they typically run by scientific laypeople? Doesn't their membership consist mostly of people who are at most school teachers of scientific subjects? Do they all occasionally accept that they got something wrong, or do some of them suffer from the same subjective infallibility that pseudoscientists do? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to impeach any source in the article, you may do so by asking WP:RSN if it is a good source for the article. Otherwise, I think we're done playing games here. Specific issues with the article only, please. General critiques such as the one you are attempting do not help. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I had the time to at least look at the article, and I can certainly return the compliment about "playing games". Your version gives statements by "[notable?] skeptical groups" the authority (by association) of statements by scientific societies. That's completely unacceptable, since they are not even playing in the same league. Scientific societies become notable by having a lot of members who are scientists. Sceptical organisations become notable by doing good media work, so their notability is only indirectly correlated with their reliability. As a result of your edits we had the following structure:

List of sciences and pseudoscientific concepts (article title)

Topics which notable scientific or skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific (section title)

Hypnosis is actually not pseudoscientific itself, but it's often used in pseudoscientific contexts.

To make this clear: If you don't want a separate section about pseudosciences by scientific consensus, that's fine with me. Just put everything into the section for topics criticised by sceptical organisations. (I would be very surprised if the first category wasn't a proper subset of the second.) What is completely acceptable is giving fake authority to the entire second category by merging parts of the description of the first category into it. If you don't understand what I am talking about, think about the following:

List of things that are flat

List of things that scientists or notable works of literature consider to be flat

Earth is where we all live. Nowadays there is almost universal agreement that it is not flat, but many literary works, including…

Last time there was no consensus for your proposal, and your representing it as a compromise doesn't make a consensus, either. For some reason I don't think you would see removing all the misleading references to scientific bodies or scientific consensus as a compromise, so I have simply reverted. If I was wrong, please say so. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus for the proposal, no one has put forth any suggestions for what distinguishes a "skeptical" organization from a "scientific" organization and Wikipedia cannot be in the business of demarcating between the two. If you have a source which offers a demarcation between the two, show it. Otherwise, please stop being obstructionist. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(comment made subsequent to discussion below, and indented accordingly) I'd have in mind a different Solomonic solution: split the article into one with the current list and only the "consensus" section, and another with a list title such as "List of topics called pseudoscientific by skeptical groups". As things stand, you have not met WP:BURDEN: Hans is correct that you need to show that CSICOP has equal footing scientifically with the American Academies of Science. In terms of WP:PSCI, which is established NPOV policy: apart from "obvious pseudoscience" like flat-earthism, you need to show that statements by "skeptical groups" suffice to show that topics are "general considered pseudoscience" by the sci community. The burden is on you to show that you are meeting NPOV, not on others to show that you are not. No reasonable Wikipedian would agree that you can put whatever you want in the article unless others can find a source saying, e.g., "statements by scientific academies, "skeptical groups", Lyndon LaRouche and Bozo the Clown are not all the same". The WP:BURDEN is on you, SA, not those who disagree with the fanciful assertions of equivalence you wish to incorporate.

Also, please do not misrepresent the obvious fact that there has never been consensus for your proposal:

(1) it was discussed (largely by yourself), but that discussion hardly generated consensus (something like 4 in favor, 2 opposed). A glance at the edit history shows that your proposed merge was either never done or didn't last long, and the article has retained its present structure for months.. until your rash change now: which 4 editors have reverted[9][10][11][12] and only one[13] besides you has supported. Hardly the "consensus" you claim, and as a longtime Wikipedian you must be aware that this is so. Your false assertion of editorial consensus represents very poor Wikiquette, whether due to carelessness or disingenuousness.

(2) It is obvious from the RfC above that as of this writing, editors are evenly split on the closely related issue of whether to effectively "dilute" the consensus section by including statements from individual scientists in it.

SA, since you have, in less than 24 hours, managed to violate several standards of WP:DR, I would urge you to change course, and would strongly support an RfC/U regarding your conduct if you choose to continue as you have. --Jim Butler (t) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I read through the proposal and saw no consensus for it. This is a major and controversial edit which you are suggesting. Please let's open it up for community discussion before reverting again. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

ALREADY HAPPENED AND NO ONE DISAGREED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 November 2008

...and said comment by ScienceApologist happens to be false. Please do not make false assertions regarding consensus. --Jim Butler (t) 05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, if we are to keep the "Skeptics" section (which I am against), I think it is important to demarcate what is generally considered "pseudoscience" by the scientific community and what is only labeled as such by a skeptical organization or person. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that distinguish between a "skeptical organization" and a "scientific organization".

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by ScienceApologist removed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted because, as usua,.

There is clearly a difference between scientific organizations and skeptical organizations, and no one would confute the two. It is appropriate to distinguish between two very distinct types of entities. It is not appropriate to attack other editors, even (especially?) in edit summaries; ad hominem arguments (read, WP:Personal attacks) are unacceptable here. Let's look at the current version; where are the problems? The advantages? hgilbert (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:PSCI: Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." We may contain information to that effect. QuackGuru 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

QG, you are not helping by introducing additional complexity. So far it was only an edit war about the structure of the list. Now you have introduced another dimension. In any case I have asked for page protection at WP:ANI#List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. It's a pity that SA's edit behaviour (edit-warring instead of discussion) will probably be rewarded by protection on essentially his version, so that he can safely continue to not engage in reasonable dialogue. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you want to say with your quotation. It clearly says that, e.g., in the article psychoanalysis we may mention that critics say it is a pseudoscience. (FWIW, I agree with them, more or less.) It says nothing about whether we are allowed to put psychoanalysis in a "list of pseudosciences", although it seems clear that we break the spirit of the ruling if we do it without some kind of qualification. These questions have nothing to do with the original dispute here. Did you get confused because ScienceApologist moved things around? --Hans Adler (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The section title is Topics which notable scientific or skeptical groups consider to be pseudoscientific. This is attributed per WP:PSCI. QuackGuru 00:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation makes no sense to me. My point is that it is improper to have a list of topics criticised by sceptical organisations and to give the impression that they are criticised by scientific organisations. ScienceApologist's point is apparently that he proposed his changes 3 months ago and the people who disagreed with him at the time didn't use bold face – and that whoever disagrees with him is a POV pusher. What's your point? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) QG and Hans, it's simple: WP:PSCI was about when to categorize, or otherwise characterize, topics as pseudoscientific. Categorizing or characterizing a topic as pseudoscience on WP includes (cf. WP:CLS, WP:NPOVT#Categorization and other guidelines):

Including a topic in category:pseudoscience or any of its subcategories
Including a topic on a list with an unambigious, unqualified title such as this one (as opposed to a qualified title mentioning attribution, cf. what the POV-isnly titled List of cults now redirects to)
Putting a "pseudoscience" infobox (or similar template) on an article
Stating in the topic's article, without attribution, that the topic is pseudoscientific.

I'm 95% sure that I am correctly interpreting ArbCom's intention in WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE; that ruling was made in response to questions like these that I and other editors asked. Anyway, we can ask ArbCom to clarify that ruling vis-a-vis this article, and that should finally resolve our problems. regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose We don't need a reliable source to say that one source is a scientific group and another is not. It's fairly clear that some of these sources are scientists, and some are nonscientific skeptical groups. I don't see why the two groups should be conflated. It seems like an attempt to avoid NPOV and confuse readers to some degree. II | (t - c) 09:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

While there is clearly a difference based on the URLs used, don't give the false impression that scientific skeptical groups are "nonscientific". The members are often top scientists and/or very much supporters of use of the scientific method, in contrast to alternative medicine's typical reliance on anecdotes and fringe OR by individual mavericks. They are totally allied with mainstream science, IOW on the same side. If not, we wouldn't be having this discussion. -- Fyslee / talk 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

These groups may be allied but no way in heck does that mean they're as authoritative, or that they're V RS's for sci consensus. It may feel kinda like they're about as reliable, but they're just not operating at the same level at all in terms of group membership (self-selected based on enthusiasm rather than invited by peers based on accomplishment, decision-making, etc. I mean, as scientists, we do grok these distinctions... right? --Jim Butler (t) 10:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I wasn't referring to that in any manner. I was only trying to point out how misleading it was to use the word "nonscientific" to refer to people who are often scientists themselves, and who are at least allied with science, in contrast to those who often aren't. That's all I was trying to say. -- Fyslee / talk 07:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you were just commenting on the "unscientific" thing and nothing more. It's heating up a little in here and I wasn't reading you clearly. regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Support one list per my cogent and persuasive (IMHO) comments the last few times this came up. Separating this list like this does a disservice to our readers (remember them?) by decreasing the article's accessibility, and de facto the distinction made speaks more to notability of the theory than probability that any of these theories will ever be part of scientific discourse. Attribution is good, but artificial distinctions serve no good purpose. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eldereft -- If one list, can't we change the title, based on my earlier comments? And while I agree artificial distinctions are bad, there is a real and important distinction consensus statements on climate change alongside grouchy CSICOP rants about laundry balls, isn't there?

I understand your arguments, but I see a WP:NOTTRUTH caveat (i.e., we want to know, and not to think, what scientific consensus is). There is also a reliability problem with skeptical groups, who are generally self-selected based on enthusiasm for the group's goals. Hence the undue weight and WP:PSCI problems I mentioned (see un-indent, upthread): the title is unqualified and (if WP:PSCI means anything) restricts the contents to "obvious" and "generally considered" pseudoscience. At the same time, the inclusion criteria drift ever looser. Thus, if we follow Enric's approach, we'll be including less-reliable sources (like some random dude writing for CSICOP, dissing Ayurveda) who push the label too hard and venture into "questionable sciences" a/o "alternative theoretical formulations". See also Abuses of Skepticism, itself from csicop.org.

If we're going to do populate the list liberally, surely we should fix the title to something like "List of topics regarded as pseudosciences by various commentators" or something like that? In which case, I'd still argue for sequestration based on source, if we're gonna use sources that range from Academies of Science to compilations of Michael Shermer articles, which AFAIK represent a "consensus" of the editorial board that Shermer himself appointed. As Fyslee says, sure these guys are allies of science, but they're self-selected and operate outside the normally-accepted means of peer review, and thus are not nearly as V RS as the sci academies whose statements populate Scientific opinion on climate change and the like. Note also the "tiering" of sources on that list: would you eliminate that, too, as you propose doing here? Don't you think it's a greater disservice to the public to mislead them about scientific consensus, as opposed to breaking out some extra sections? regards, --Jim Butler (t) 10:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I definitely continue to believe that the title needs changing. It is the main cause of all the disputes we've had since this list started its existence. Why? Because it violates NPOV!!! No matter what anyone believes about the content, editors must not write content or titles that violate NPOV. Only article content that is sourced should make POV comments, and of course that's what (controversial) articles are filled with, and so it should be. Let's change the title and get past this hindrance to progress. We could then deal with content in a totally different manner. -- Fyslee / talk 07:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that title is fine, but it may give in to some problems with WP:TITLE. Michael Shermer is an excellent source for this particular topic (he is an expert) as are the other sources we list. The fact that they're "self-selected" seems a bit ridiculous. Sure, they are "self-selected", but it doesn't take a ridiculous amount of incredulity in order to distinguish science from pseudoscience. The television show Mythbusters would also suffice. We are not making claims of "scientific opinion" nor one on "scientific consensus" here (though they are related ideas), we instead are simply documenting claims of demarcation. All we need are sources that are acknowledged to have been relatively well-regarded for this task. Randi, Shermer, etc. are all well-regarded for this task by virtue of both their self-appointed natures and the high-regard with which they are viewed by scientists and other reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure we're making claims of "scientific opinion" here on WP. As soon as we use "category:pseudoscience" or "List of pseudosciences..." or a pseudoscience infobox, or otherwise characterize a topic as pseudoscience, we've invoked WP:PSCI and have to abide by it. That's the deal, till NPOV changes. And you say selection bias doesn't matter? That's pretty amusing. As for TV shows, great idea! How about Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, which identifies pseudoscience all the time.... e.g., ironically, when it took a pseudoscientific stance on global warming. Your arguments here are, sadly, no credit to science. --Jim Butler (t) 02:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I believe that we have to try to "get it right" and not mislead the reader. One skeptic's opinion doesn't represent any scientific consensus and we should be sure not to represent it as such. There is a large distinction (in the reliability of the sources) between an Academy of Science declaring a topic to be a pseudoscience and a skeptic society making such a declaration. I am not saying that all skeptic societies are unreliable. I am not saying this in any way, shape or form. I am saying that AoS are lightyears more reliable in terms of WP:RS. As such, if we are to maintain a list of items which have only been deemed "pseudoscientific" by a skeptic or a skeptic society, then we damn well should keep it separate from the "scientific consensus" list (either by sub-section in the same article or by a separate article). I personally don't think the that a list of things which skeptics feel are pseudoscientific is really all that notable or enyclopedic. I mean, do we have an article such as List of immoral acts according to religious organizations? I doubt it. Why? Because it seems kind of lame and POV-fork-ish. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, your recent stunt is completely unacceptable. You are simply ignoring my concerns, based on your personal fringe ideology that a Mythbusters show carries the same weight as an official statement by the American Physical Society? And then, per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, you revert twice in a row against a clear consensus that your change must be discussed first, and in the face of no apparent chance of an actual consensus for them? I am sure there must be a saying about people getting increasingly similar to their enemies. Perhaps someone can remind me what it is. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim Butler has mentioned an WP:RFC/U, but perhaps this poor behavior should simply be presented as evidence at the ongoing ArbCom? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, if ArbCom is really looking into the conduct of all parties. In just a few visits to this page, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has provided more than enough evidence to give pause to anyone who cares about WP:TE and WP:DR, e.g.:

Making and acting on false statements that consensus exists (see above, will get diffs later);
Twice violating WP:NPA in edit summaries:23:25, 26 November 2008, to Levine2112; 21:47, 29 November 2008, to myself;
Reverting with an ES falsely saying I didn't reply on talk page (02:00, 30 November 2008. In fact, between the two reverts above (the NPA-violating ones), I made 10 substantive posts to this talk page, each addressing SA's concerns or closely related ones. SA, by contrast, made one short post that glossed or ignored most of my and others' preceding comments, and then claimed I wasn't engaging. Per Hans, this is very much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and certainly disruptive.

These are all disruptive behaviors that are careless at best and disingenuous at worst, and imo (in light of his past behavior) deserve community review and sanction. --Jim Butler (t) 04:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters and the American Physical Society are similarly endowed to deal with the pseudoscientific topic because, by definition, pseudoscience is not subject to peer review (unlike real science). I stand by my position that Jim Butler's acupuncture profession gives him an extreme WP:COI on this page and an incentive to make sure that ancupuncture does not get listed on this article. Likewise, Levine2112 is known for his advocacy of anti-mainstream medicine and pro-alternative medicine that makes his actions here obviously problematic and his banning from chiropractic is perfect evidence for this. Hans Adler is a misguided mathematics post-doc, judging from his bizarre levels of insistence at homeopathy and elsewhere. It is not a coincidence that a group of alternative medicine promoters (or de facto promoters) is trying to comandeer this page. Such people have the most to lose by having Wikipedia simply state the facts that their particular ideologies have been labeled by respected independent experts to be pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of COI, provide the evidence. It's gotta be more than just my being an acupuncturist. Hint: tendentious editing is a telltale sign, and lo and behold, that would be you. You haven't responded to the substance of any of my arguments, just ad hominem. You really think a proper response to Hans Adler is to call him a "misguided mathematics post-doc"? You are also ignoring the fact that four editors have reverted you while only one supported you. Nope, bad edits against consensus won't stick, so get used to that. have a better one, Jim Butler (t) 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as your "arguments" are concerned, they are essentially claims of unreliability of sources. Essentially, you are impeaching the authority of the people who provide substantive critiques of the types of advocacy that appear on your website, despite the fact that they are considered to be very reliable sources by people who are independent of the alt med industry. You and the other four alternative medicine proponents are trying to say that the position statements of scientific societies which are essentially authored by a few respected experts are somehow "different" than the position statements of another group of respected experts simply because they're affiliated with a different group or are (*gasp*) independent. Not a single one of you has offered an explanation for how one might reliable distinguish between "skeptical" sources and "scientific" sources besides just offering your own opinion about which is which. Specious reasoning does not an argument make and just because the reasonable editors are tired of dealing with your civil POV-pushing does not mean that we have a "consensus" for the imposition of your promotionalism. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't say CSICOP, Skeptics Society et. al. are unreliable and shouldn't be in WP; we can still use them in the right places. It's just that they're not nearly as reliable as Sci Academies, and don't meet WP:PSCI's criteria. I and other editors have offered extremely clear distinctions between the two types of sources, e.g. self-selection and lack of peer-review. You've offer nothing by way of rebuttal except your opinion and more ad hominem, neither of which is tainted by any semblance of a reliable source stating, e.g., that "Peoria Health Club" are just as weight-y a source as the Institute of Medicine. The burden is on you to provide that evidence, not other editors to accept whatever you say until we can refute it.

Consider: which type of source -- a Sci Academy, or a group of scientists and laypeople united by enthusiasm for advocacy -- would you trust on climate change, pandemic flu or intelligent design? Not all groups set up like CSICOP share CSICOP's philosophy, and it won't do to "gut check" them and see if they pass our subjective smell tests. We should use objective standards. If WP wants to be a real encyclopedia, we need to avoid muddling source quality, which in this case violates NPOV as well (undue weight, failure to meet threshold for showing sci consensus). --Jim Butler (t) 20:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, the implication that there are vaunted scientific academies and there are skeptical societies is an invention of pseudoscientific POV-pushers on this page. The claim is that "they're not nearly as reliable as Sci Academies": a claim that is simply asserted (like the existence of qi) and not shown through any evaluation of actually how "statements" by both groups are made. The fact is that both groups use the same techniques to declare certain subjects pseudoscientific because that is the level of argumentation required for such determinations. The fact is, there is no reason to dismiss medical doctors working out of Peoria any more than there is a reason to dismiss MDs working out of the Institute of Medicine. The evidence is simply that the two groups evaluate the claims in exactly the same way: by considering the evidence and making a publication of their conclusions.

The claim is that a "Sci Academy" is somehow different than a group of scientists united by enthusiasm for advocacy. Having read the minutes of plenty of NAS meetings, I can tell you that they are precisely the same thing. You are living in a fantasy world out of the eighteenth century if you think that "Sci Academies" are somehow the "holy-of-holies" for organizations. They aren't. They are simply groups making determinations with the best available evidence. When it comes to demarcating pseudoscience, they are just as good as CSICOP, or any of the other groups you denigrate because they make acupuncturists cry. The objective standards are when expert scientists consider them to be reliable sources for demarcation. As it is, the sources we list are considered by objective scientists to be reliable sources for demarcation. This includes CSICOP, the National Academies, and Quackwatch. The "muddling of source quality" is a problem. It's one being perpetuated by known POV-pushers who I have consistently named on this page. It's a tiresome argument and one that simply doesn't fly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

SA, this has to be the most mind-blowingly off-base statement I've read on a talk page all year: "Look, the implication that there are vaunted scientific academies and there are skeptical societies is an invention of pseudoscientific POV-pushers on this page."[14] Let me ask you, then, where are CSICOP and Quackwatch amidst all the weighty sources at Scientific opinion on climate change? Or List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design? They're absent, that's where they are. They're out back playing with their Legos while the grownups inside transact serious science. Dude, the burden is not on me to find some history of science book stating that no, these groups are not quite the same thing. Since you want to include the sources, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find a source affirming "CSICOP, the National Academies, and Quackwatch" are "considered by objective scientists to be reliable sources for demarcation." Frankly, that idea is so far out that I wouldn't be surprised to hear it coming from an "Intelligent Design" advocate shilling for his fake societies and journals. Wow, just wow. Definitely time to appeal to a higher power. --Jim Butler (t) 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Total and complete red herring. It's neither QW's nor CSICOP's stated goal nor role to comment on climate change or intelligent design. However, that doesn't mean they aren't representative of scientific consensus. They are. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reminded the above editor on his talk page that we should be discussing topics, not editors, here. Let's focus on the issues. hgilbert (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the biggest issues here is the synergistic POV-pushing coming from disparate alternative medicine/pseudoscience believers. This needs to be stopped and the only way to do it is to bring in new eyes and faces. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

dear wikipedia, a colleague told me about this article and asked for my input. i think this is better.

a colleague at columbia university told me about this page. i am a scientist who teaches hundreds of students each semester who use wikipedia. two of my lectures are devoted to pseudoscience and i tell them about the service that skeptics provide. skeptics perform service that the scientific community itself is unable to provide. they show what practices in the general population are pseudoscience that scientists may not yet have examined. the colleague explained that some members of the public editing here think that skeptics are not as reliable as scientific societies. as a professor of physics, i say this is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.168.240 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to WP, and thanks for your input. As you may have surmised, debate over this list is ongoing. Editors are split over whether sci academy and skeptics groups should be combined. Some of those who believe they should not be combined have graduate degrees in science a/o medicine, so it's not as if the unwashed hordes are grappling with the scientifically literate or something. ;-) At issue here is not just editorial opinion, but particular aspects of WP policy. Hopefully, this will all be cleared up soon. regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you are certainly right about the sceptics performing a service for the scientific community. Wikipedia does in fact have a problem with all kinds of pseudoscientists trying to push their opinions into articles. This conflicts with our neutral point of view policy, and for this important special case there is a fringe theories guideline.

On the other hand, Wikipedia also has a problem with a small number of scientists who are trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you look at pseudoscience related Encyclopedia Britannica articles, e.g. on homeopathy or perpetual motion, you will see that they have been written with the typical attitude of a scientist who, having been forced to look closer at crap, develops a certain degree of interest in, and sympathy with, his "field of research". Many Wikipedia articles on such subjects, on the other hand, have long passages in which at least every second sentence makes it absolutely clear what to think of the topic (i.e. nothing); sometimes such passages coexist with uncontradicted passages making pseudoscientific claims. In some cases such articles are rather long, but omit important concepts or distinctions within the subject, or oversimplify certain aspects inappropriately.

A well written encyclopedia article on such a topic makes it clear from the beginning, but without saying it explicitly (mainly for pedagogical reasons), that it deals with pseudoscience or fringe science. But overall, it must not read like a "debunking" article, because the primary purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give concise information about its subject, not to determine its value.

I believe the problem comes from scientists who are unable to make allowance for their own outgroup homogeneity bias. It may help you understand the conflict on this page if you ask yourself whether it was started by such an editor. If you read ScienceApologist's talk page contributions above critically, you will see that he proposed this change in August but gave up after a while. Now he suddenly came back here, claiming that there had been an earlier consensus for his changes. When other editors contradicted him and tried to engage him in discussion about the merits of his proposal, he avoided that; instead he attacked everybody who disagreed with him. He is currently blocked from editing for exactly the same pattern of disruptive behaviour on our fringe theories guideline.

Another important bit of information is that the (ideal) standards of Wikipedia are different from those in science; in some respects lower, and in some respects higher. There are sociological constraints that make this necessary. For instance, while it is perfectly reasonable and OK for Wikipedia editors to decide that there is a scientific consensus about Welteislehre, and to treat the topic accordingly (see the essay WP:Scientific consensus), Wikipedia has a much higher standard for saying explicitly in the article that there is such a consensus (see section Consensus in the reliable sources guideline). The distinction is one between editorial discretion and more or less explicit article content. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

Along with the OP, who is my advisor, I was asked to comment on this article. I am his teaching assisant.

I read that many commenting think that pseudosciences have not been dealt a fair hand. Unfortunately, pseudoscience has been documented to kill people every day. I concur with his judgement.

The Wikipedia Writers who are writing here are saying that the statements of groups such as the Skeptical Society, of which I am not a member, are different from Sigma Xi, of which I am a member. In fact, the two groups publish equally good evaluations of pseudoscience. The Skeptical Society is normally a better source because the writers are more familiar with pseudoscience than Sigma Xi.

When we learned that Wikipedia was being used to promote a difference between the two groups and we learned that the people who were saying this were acupuncurists and chiropractors we both agreed that this is a problem. I have some friends over in the medical school that I am going to ask to comment here too.

Sincerely,

Danielle Anderson, biophysics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.170.16 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 December 2008

To whom it may concern,

I am a graduate student in astronomy. I teach a lab class on pseudoscience. I support the idea of not splitting the list. ScienceApologist made a presentation on "Pseudoscience in Wikipedia" for us and mentioned that chiropractors and acupuncturists were saying that skeptics were not as reliable as scientists. I disagree. The Amazing Randi was used by Nature to show that homeopathy was pseudoscience. If skeptics are good enough for Nature, why are they considered not as good for Wikipedia?

He showed us the VCS for Wikipedia and showed us the accounts that were insisting on splitting and deleting skeptics as sources. If Wikipedia lets homeopath and acupuncture and chiropractor "doctors" write the article, I think you should get more scientists.

Sincerely,

Andrea Lawson (talk)

Hi Andrea and Danielle, welcome to WP. Randi was a co-author on a peer-reviewed paper in Nature, but that doesn't mean that everything else he writes should be assumed to be as reliable as his Nature paper. Please avoid ad hominem arguments: the fact that I'm an acupuncturist doesn't automatically mean I have a conflict of interest here, nor does it negate my scientific literacy (M.A., chemistry, Harvard '89) or my knowledge of WP policy. The latter is quite specific regarding matters discussed here, both in terms of demarcation and sourcing.... if you stick around you'll want to check those out, e.g. verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and particularly the policy on when to call things pseudoscience.

Also, be careful what you wish for... you might start reaping the bitter fruits of false equivalence. If we start saying that advocacy groups are on par with scientific academies, that could lead to some pretty un-scientific articles. At least two prominent self-styled "skeptics", who argue against creationism and quackery and all that, were also "global warming skeptics" for a long time after explicit sci consensus had emerged on the issue. Indeed, a hallmark of pseudoscientists is to create their own fake groups and publications. Just because the skeptics do the same, to a generally pro-science end, does not justify the means when we're trying to build a solid reference work.

I'm not saying that skeptical groups aren't useful or that they shouldn't be used on WP. Not at all. I'm just saying that we shouldn't overreach. Go ahead and cite them, I agree, but weight them properly. Let's not cite them as being on par as the most distinguished gatherings of scientists on the planet, and let's not state or imply (via the list's title or whatever) that their opinions are synonymous with sci consensus. regards, Jim Butler (t) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protection

Because of the recent influx of anonymous editors who seem intent on joining into the edit war on this page, I have semi-protected it for 2 weeks. This means that any established editors (who have named accounts and a few edits in their history) are still able to edit the page, but anonymous editors are limited to the talkpage, where they are welcome (and encouraged) to participate in discussions. I also strongly encourage everyone to work through the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, towards finding a compromise that keeps the list in adherence with Wikipedia policies, and is also agreeable to editors who are working on the page. Administrators are watching this page now, and will take a dim view of any other revert-warring.

Please keep in mind that since pseudoscience topics are some of the more controversial ones on Wikipedia, that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has authorized administrators to place additional restrictions on articles in this topic area, as needed to protect the project. Additional information on this is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Right now, aside from page protection, no additional restrictions are in place on this "List of pseudosciences" article, though if there is further disruption, additional restrictions are an option. So please, try to take things slowly, listen to what other editors are saying, and work hard to treat everyone with respect and good faith, and then we won't need any other administrative actions here. :) Good luck, --El on ka 23:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub-topics of creationism

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

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

use of term/prefix 'pseudo'

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

Melanin Theory

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

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

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

Belatedly: wow, that's a tough one. Seems like the kind of thing that should be consensue-level pseudoscientific, except, as you say, for the fact that it's mostly superseded. Dunno...I guess the default (if we're using the "tier system" that I know isn't your favorite thing) is to stick it in the section its sources indicate( which is guess is the skeptic group one). --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as we are keeping the organizational scheme which focuses on source rather than content, I think that is best. It would be nice, though, to set up a bulleted sublist like the Creation Science set of ideas. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine

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

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

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

The wording I have added is as follows: "a larger review concludes that anthroposophic therapies are associated with long-term reduction of chronic disease symptoms and improvement of health-related quality of life.[81] Anthroposophical treatment of cancer has been demonstrated to improve survival rates of cancer patients.[82] Anthroposophical medicine has also been demonstrated to be effective in treating respiratory and ear infections[83] as well as mental illnesses." How is this spun? This is what the sources say, in some cases word-for-word. What changes would you suggest to bring it into closer alignment with the sources? hgilbert (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(belated) I agree with hgilbert that the section on anthroposophy should be treated under NPOV and WEIGHT, not become a POV fork paragraph about the topic, and contain appropriate balancing information, including efficacy which is likely to closely related to pseudo in the mind of any reader (if we say X is pseudoscientific by including it on a list with this title, readers will assume it doesn't work). (Check WP:MEDRS on where groups like CSICOP fall -- basically nowhere -- and also [[WP:PARITY is good.} Otherwise, same reasoning as [::::::::: below re Trad'l Chinese Med.]. --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance is covered by WP:WEIGHT, of course. If the particular sources seem to address the subject of pseudoscience directly, then we certainly should consider them and consider the inclusion of the subject. However, using scientific literature that simply claims a level of "evidence" for "efficacy" is not the same thing as discounting a pseudoscience claim. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

POV-pushing

Pursuant to the above comment, I restored Eldereft's version of the discussion of anthroposophical medicine. We are here to write about its status as a pseudoscience, not to make apologies for it. [16].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hgilbert has not yet mentioned that he has complained about this at the NPOV noticeboard: [17] dougweller (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adherents

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

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

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

2) What is wrong with Hanssonn?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iscador

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

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

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

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

I added the NCI position on the use of mistletoe to the article.Desoto10 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic

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

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

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

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

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

For all editors seeking to include the material:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1)You are using your own opinion to frame the debate even though I and others have insisted that there is no reliable source which distinguish between sources in the same way you do. Skeptical vs. scientific is not a distinction I have seen reliable sources make. 2) The sources are adequate. That some people dislike them is another matter. 3) I only remark that you are wikilawyering because you continue to make arguments from vague reinterpretations of policies rather than content suggestions. I note that the rejection of your proposal for clarification to arbcom indicates, in part, that this is your tactic. Just because some people in the past have used the accusation inappropriately does not mean that it is being used inappropriately now. 4) The assertion regarding consensus seems true to me. Reasonable people may disagree on whether consensus exists or not: it's not a clear-cut measure. However, your posturing is not helping matters. I'm trying to have substantive discussions, but it is quite difficult when people refuse to acknowledge basic facts (such as the point about a false demarcation between skeptical and scientific sources). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:PSCI: Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." We are not generally characterized it as pseudoscience. We are attributing it to when it was mainly pseudoscience for the chiropractic entry and attributing it to the skeptic groups for the Traditional Chinese Medicine entry. According to WP:PSCI: it may contain information to that effect. If you think we are asserting it too strong as pseudoscience then you are free propose or modify the wording to improve the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verified according to source as requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting and discussing

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

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

22:36, 5 January 2009

And before that:

23:07, 4 January 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depends on how the list is titled: "List of pseudosciences" says, to a WP reader, exactly the same thing as "category:pseudoscience" does: everything here is a pseudoscience, full stop, no caveats. If we do caveat sections on the list and allow "inclusion criteria drift", then it's time to change the list's title. (I've said all that before, yes? Didn't you hear that?) --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It tried a compromise by adding attribution to the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text for Chiropractic entry

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

*Chiropractic is a healthcare profession within complementary and alternative medicine focusing on spinal manipulation. Many modern chiropractors target solely mechanical dysfunction, and offer health and lifestyle counseling.^[1]^[2] Many others, however, base their practice on the vitalism of D.D. Palmer and B. J. Palmer, maintaining that all or many organic diseases are the result of hypothetical spinal dysfunctions known as vertebral subluxations and the impaired flow of innate, a form of putative energy.^[3]^[4] These ideas are not based in science, and along with the lack of a strong research base are in part responsible for the historical conflict between chiropractic and mainstream medicine.^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^{Please confirm that the Keating references are being used correctly.} Recent systematic reviews indicate the possibility of moderate effectiveness for spinal manipulation in the management of nonspecific low back pain.^[9]^[10]^[11] The effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been demonstrated according to the principles of evidence-based medicine for any other condition.^[12] Spinal manipulation, particularly upper spinal manipulation, carries some risk of side effects with possible neurologic involvement (fainting, dizziness, light headedness, headache, or numbness or tingling in the upper limbs), and low risk of more serious complications such as subarachnoid hemorrhage or vertebral artery dissection.^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]

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

Healthcare professional? No. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

This proposal is a short summary of the main chiropractic article but does not focus on the topic of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We need the first sentence for context and something along the lines of the second for NPOV (think of it like a hat note informing readers that the field is not unified, perhaps). Would you prefer to drop everything after the conflict sentence? Perhaps it could be replaced with some elaboration on the hugely pseudoscientific aspects, with the issue of the tenuous-at-best evidence base reserved for the main article? - Eldereft (cont.) 16:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The text proposed by Eldereft above looks OK to me. I oppose the current text, and in particular I oppose this edit; adding "characterized by" to the lead is OK, but removing it from the sentence about chiropractic results in what appears to me to be a non-NPOV sentence, asserting an opinion from a source as if it were a fact. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ASF. On Wikipedia, we assert opinions as fact when there is no serious disagreement among reliable source. I think you should understand this by now. The current proposal is off topic and is not specifically about pseudoscience. It is irrelevant how the text looks. We should stick to adding relevant text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ASF says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." It does not say that we "assert opinions as facts". ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion,^[18] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

According to ASF, we should assert opinions as fact when "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic Consensus versus Scientific Consensus

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

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

The following text says vertebral subluxation is pseudoscience.

Comments on Chiropractic Consensus versus Scientific Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional Chinese medicine
Certain aspects of chiropractic
Subluxation

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

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

Chiropractic did not have serious research to test chiropractic theories for most of its existence, and is continuing to be hampered by antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas that sustained the profession in its long battle with mainstream medicine.^[19]^[20] Scientific consensus does not support chiropractic's vertebral subluxation and it is characterized as pseudoscience, away from establishing an identity of back pain specialists.[43] The text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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." According to WP:PSCI: it may be categorized as pseudoscience. A list is not a category. QuackGuru (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there is scientific support or consensus for the statements in this passage, above, or that they are necessarily true: (the passage beginning "Autonomic cranial and sacral" and ending "impingement of a spinal nerve.") This talk page is not a place for arguing about the subject matters themselves, but only about the content of the list. See WP:SOAP. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The text is supported by the reference. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title

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

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

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

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

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

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

We agree, I think, that:

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

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

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

How about List of Pseudosciences and Purported Pseudosciences? That should do it. --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty broad-based (in a positive sense) - what do others think? hgilbert (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Something in that direction is what I'm seeking. The even simpler List of purported pseudosciences would work even better. This gets us totally away from edit warring over which division to place an item in (of the four WP:PSCI divisions). We just list V & RS that make a claim that something is a pseudoscience and let readers make up their own minds. We should have some inclusion criteria in the lead that limits contributions to obviously science-friendly sources, otherwise we'd be open to constant WP:POINT violations by PS POV pushers who will attempt to include their favorite anti-medical and anti-science quotes. Let's face it, the term does get used as a type of retaliation which can fool some ignorant people. Why this requirement? Because "pseudoscience" is an often derogatory term used by those on the scientific side of the fence to describe fringe ideas and concepts that don't jibe with the current scientific data. Other uses are POINT violations. If scientific data changes, some inclusions that would previously not be proper, might become proper. Until then it would be a POINT violation and OR. We just follow the scientific and skeptical sources, and any other sources that are overtly pro-science. Sources skeptical of science exclude themselves. Sources that claim to be scientific but aren't (an important part of the definition of pseudoscience!) are also out. That would be established by using scientific and skeptical sources that criticize them as PS. Another thing that be of great service to readers is liberal use of attribution. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"How about List of Pseudosciences and Purported Pseudosciences? That should do it..." We must be aware that a vast corpus of mainstream science was once categorised with pejorative titles,... Purported... seems to allow the reader to be skeptical of the skeptic!... who may?... or may not? be an ignorant fellow, unfamiliar with the empirical evidence that supports the claims s/he is skeptical about. The general public now look to Wikipedia for information on many topics that are often categorised as pseudo-science. The man in the street has a gut instinct that gems are often mixed with dirt! Allowing the reader to discern for themselves what is? or is not? pseudo-science, prevents a biased editor from exercising unwarrented censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Carnegie (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to call things "purported" per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Subjects without referents. Pseudoscience is always "purported" so including that WP:WEASEL word is unnecessary and essentially spoonfeeding the reader into questioning the article/list. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSCI sees things a bit differently, and does distinguish between cases where we can affirmatively label a topic and cases where we have to attribute the classification as opinion. That's why we don't stick everything ever called pseudoscience in "category:pseudoscience": ArbCom never said anything about spoonfeeding the reader; it's simply NPOV to attribute classifications that aren't obviously majority ones. In that light, Hgilbert's suggestion of ""List of fields described as pseudoscientific" sounds pretty good. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The cited arbitration refers to unreal phenomena such as mythical creatures. I'm not sure we are ready to place pseudosciences in this category.

I've seen no response to the very clear guideline, so I'll repeat it here: "List of pseudoscientists" may not be appropriate as the term itself is disputed. A better name in this case could be "List of people described as pseudoscientists". What about "List of fields described as pseudoscientific". hgilbert (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that that is nothing more than an essay, which is simply the opinion of one or more wikipedians, it is not a guideline. The "List of pseudoscientists" example is also not clear as that is a bad title due to WP:BLP concerns. Verbal chat 19:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

True re the special case of BLP, but BLP is essentially just an extra-rigorous elaboration of the foundational principles of NPOV/VER/OR. So the same concerns do apply. Same idea with WP:CG#Category_naming, which is an actual guideline: "Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (e.g., if an event is considered a war crime), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed." --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you have the consensus of the Wikipedia community for this incredible extension of guidelines/policies in the direction you are proposing. A well-worded post to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, or WP:NORN (though I'm not sure where that one would go) might clear up matters for you. Outside opinions are things you could definitely use. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevant sources

I agree with points 1 and 2. About point 2, we should include relevant sources and not let this article be a dumping ground for any references. References must explicitly address the "pseudoscience" accusation for inclusion and not just dump any references. QuackGuru (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reply in the section below, "Traditional Chinese Medicine and balancing sources". Just because this is a list of topics labeled pejoratively doesn't mean we abandon NPOV. In our brief annotations, we can describe arguments for topic's scientific side in an NPOV way by using, as SA suggested, 3rd party sources. --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. WHO and NIH as "dumping ground" type sources? Count me in, that sounds like a good place to be. ;-) --Backin72 (n.b.) 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please show how the sources are relevant to the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They provide balancing views that the subject has scientific and clinical value, that's how. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please show and not assert how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. This article is about pseudoscience. Please provide the exact quotes from the source or sources that address the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I replied below; no need to duplicate. --Backin72 (n.b.) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with subdivision

I think there's a clear and obvious problem with dividing obvious pseudosciences up between those that have been explicitly labelled as such by scientists and those that have only been noticed and critiqued by skeptical organizations.

The division is a false one and ignores the fact that pseudosciences can be objectively recognized by their use of the language of science and their lack of acceptance by the scientific community. Thus per WP:WEIGHT the criticism of a body by a notable skeptical organization, in the absense of countervailing scientific credentials, is sufficient to denote a pseudoscience. --TS 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We have therefore changed it and continued the conversation lower down on this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine and balancing sources

Look, there's never been consensus to include any topic based just on articles published in "Skeptical Inquirer" or other single authors. We've had several editors (ScienceApologist and QuackGuru mainly, also Verbal and Fyslee) tag-team reverting several other editors who are less inclined to edit war (myself, Dematt, Levine2112, hgilbert). (Not precisely the same as "consensus", last I checked.) But if such topics are going to be included over the objections of several editors, the least we can do is provide a fair summary of the topic. That principle is straight out of NPOV, and the article's "inclusion criteria" are irrelevant: once a topic is in, it's described and summarized per NPOV.

This revert from QuackQuru was entirely unnecessary, and smacked of tit-for-tat since I've been objecting to his sources on chiropractic. My additions were the second and third sentences; its seems self-evident that the entry is better with them:

*Traditional Chinese Medicine. Practices such as acupuncture, qigong and ideas such as chi are held as "quackery" and pseudoscientific by skeptic groups like CSICOP.^[21]^[22] According to the NIH consensus statement on acupuncture, these traditional Chinese medical concepts "are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture."^[23] The World Health Organization lists 28 conditions "for which acupuncture has been proved - through controlled trials - to be an effective treatment", and several dozen more for which evidence is suggestive.^[24]

--Backin72 (n.b.) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We should include relevant sources and not let this article be a dumping ground for any references. References must explicitly address the "pseudoscience" accusation for inclusion and not become a dumping ground for irrelevant references. Adding irrelevant sources is not helpful. Please show how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't at all agree that the above is "dumping" -- it's balance, and frankly, in terms of number and weight, the WHO and NIH are like 800-lb gorillas compared to the guinea pig that CSICOP is. NPOV requires that we treat topics fairly, especially topics that are closer to "questionable science" than "generally agreed pseudo" or "obvious pseudo". Your actions do nothing to improve good faith and the 4RR is self-evidently disruptive. Look, you editors in the "label-pushing" camp are starting to get your way on chiro and Chinese med through brute force edit warring -- the least you can do is allow these highly mainstream things to be balanced out by impeccable 3rd party sources. What's next on the list, psychotherapy? --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not shown the references are relevant for this article. The references should be specific to the topic of this article. Please show how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I explained exactly how they are relevant: they provide balance from 3rd party sources regarding the scientific-ness of the source under discussion. NPOV, in other words. We don't explicitly need a good RS saying "no, it's not pseudo"; we need sources providing adequate balance to the criticisms. And in WP:PARITY terms, WHO and NIH crush CSICOP like an ant. It's really unfortunate that WP:PSCI is being so thoroughly ignored here, and all the moreso that the means of doing so is edit warring. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please show and not assert how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. This article is about pseudoscience. Please provide the exact quotes from the source or sources that address the pseudoscience debate. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your reply crosses the line into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have nothing to add beyond the above, and will let other editors weigh in. --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again: Please show and not assert how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience debate. This article is about pseudoscience. Please provide the exact quotes from the source or sources that address the pseudoscience debate. You have not shown how the sources are relevant to pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They are relevant to NPOV treatment of the subjects. They don't have to contain the magic word "pseudoscience" as long as they in some way address the scientific or practical value of the topic, or otherwise provide balance or clarification that is relevant to the criticism. That's why lists are good; they can contain annotation. It violates NPOV not to cite countering views, especially when they're overwhelmingly, in WP:PARITY terms, stronger RS's than the source asserting that the pseudo label applies. --Backin72 (n.b.) 01:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You were adding non-specific references that are not about the pseudoscience topic and do not meet the inclusion criteria. It would be best if we used references that are specific to the pseudoscience debate and not dump irrelevant references. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The goal is neutrality. If some sources are provided which use the "pseudoscience" term, it seems reasonable that other (reliable) sources may be provided which present a balancing viewpoint, even if they don't necessarily have the word "pseudoscience" in them. --El on ka 02:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The goal is neutrality using relevant references that is in accordance with the inclusion criteria and PSCI. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Once we have the source(s) needed to meet inclusion criteria, others may be added in order to explain or provide balance. That's entirely consistent with NPOV, of which WP:PSCI is the relevant part for inclusion criteria. Other parts of NPOV, like WP:WEIGHT, shows why the further sourcing (for balance, explication etc.) is appropriate. --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the sources are relevant to pseudoscience. References that specifically discuss pseudoscience are relevant. After reading the lead of this article we should use only relevant references that meet the criteria for inclusion. The type of references that are relevant are the ones that discuss pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for this pointlessly rigid interpretation of the list, and as Elonka pointed out, NPOV in fact demands inclusion of balancing material. Such material should be germaine to the science demarcation a/o provide counterpoint to criticisms, and should be from good sources. NIH and WHO qualify. There is simply no reason not to include them, and good reasons to do so. The lead says: "Some subjects in this list may be questioned aspects of otherwise legitimate fields of research, or have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them. For instance, while some proposed explanations for hypnosis have been criticized for being pseudoscientific, the phenomenon is generally accepted as real and scientific explanations exist." That's the spirit. Every topic for which there is a good WP:PARITY source should include a sentence or two for balance. --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For the time being I attempted a compromise. I added a higher quality source. See WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad compromise, but the NIH thing is especially germaine as it specifically addresses the use of TCM ideas in practice, and WHO represents a significant POV as well. Why exclude them and not Ernst? All are secondary sources meeting MEDRS. -Backin72 (n.b.) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We should use a higher quality peer reviewed source per WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself; it's not advancing discussion. NIH and WHO are close to scientific-consensus sources, and if anything are better than Ernst, good though Ernst is. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDRS: Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed. Be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed reporting material in a different field. (See the Marty Rimm and Sokal affairs.) Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Summarize scientific consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read that passage, thanks. I've read the whole page. Several times. It doesn't elevate Ernst over NIH and WHO. It's ironic, isn't it, that a great many of the sources being used for inclusion in this article don't meet MEDRS, while at least some of the topics have balancing material that does? (That is, the stuff in the "skeptics" section.) What does that say about how far the label-pushers have pushed this article? Here's another key passage:

Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field.

That's kind of amusing, because CSICOP is at best a sig-minority view (and doesn't meet MEDRS at all). NIH, WHO and Ernst all fall under "recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs" (well, not that recent for NIH, but their general point re delivery of care hasn't changed). --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ernst is more-or-less one of the most respected sources on alternative medicine we've got. Deprecating him is about as silly as deprecating Stephen Hawking in an article about general relativity. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Version 1.3

I've tried to make this balanced and acceptable, with proper weight given to RS's representing the spectrum of significant views:

*Traditional Chinese Medicine. Practices such as acupuncture, qigong and ideas such as chi are held as "quackery" and pseudoscientific by skeptic groups like CSICOP.^[25]^[26] According to the NIH consensus statement on acupuncture, these traditional Chinese medical concepts "are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture."^[23] The effectiveness of acupuncture remains controversial.^[27] A 2007 review led by Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst finds that research is active and growing and the "emerging clinical evidence seems to imply that acupuncture is effective for some but not all conditions."^[27] The World Health Organization lists 28 conditions "for which acupuncture has been proved - through controlled trials - to be an effective treatment", and several dozen more for which evidence is suggestive.^[24]

What do you think? regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 09:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick general point while I inject my coffee - this says little of why anyone would consider quackery practices based on putative energy and nonexistent anatomical structures. I would focus more on that, then qualify it by stating that the effectiveness of acupuncture (and anything else that needs qualifying) independent of its philosophical basis remains controversial. If we provide a couple strong citations and links to the relevant articles, that should be sufficient to serve our readers. My proposed entry for chiropractic suggests my idea of how to strike this balance. Still, more useful talkpage discussion is a great step. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the exact point we need to focus on here. We need to look at the title of the article (which I wish were changed...) and then stay on topic. The objections to chiropractic and acupuncture that are related to charges of being pseudoscientific aren't related to questions of efficacy. In this connection that is another matter and rather unrelated to the subject here. They are considered pseudoscientific because of claims made about them and their metaphysical base. If we took the meridians and acupuncture points out of acupuncture, and the vertebral subluxations out of chiropractic, the objections would disappear into thin air. Why? Because, to quote a noted reform chiropractor:

"Crelin showed that one of the bedrock principles of chiropractic - the hypothesis that the vertebral pinching of spinal nerves impairs nerve functioning - is almost certainly invalid. Chiro-practic without this principle is analogous to meridianless acu-puncture." Craig F. Nelson, DC

Craig Nelson could not have chosen a better analogy. Acupuncture "points", "meridians" and "chiropractic subluxations" have this in common: They do not exist as physical, biological entities, but are metaphysical beliefs. Their existence has never been proven. They are metaphysical fantasies.

A stellar acupuncturist, Felix Mann, has firmly distanced himself from beliefs in the existence of acupuncture points and meridians. He has stated in his book Reinventing Acupuncture: A New Concept of Ancient Medicine:

"The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes." (p. 14)

and…

"The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography. If someone were to get a spade and tried to dig up the Greenwich meridian, he might end up in a lunatic asylum. Perhaps the same fate should await those doctors who believe in [acupuncture] meridians." (p. 31)^[28]

We just need to stay on topic and not be diverted by matters unrelated to the subject at hand. Effectiveness isn't the (only) reason for subjects being listed here. At best it is only peripherally related, and at worst it is totally unrelated and is being used to divert us from the task at hand. Effectiveness should be discussed in the individual articles, not here. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee, I agree with your statement, but I am not sure I agree with your conclusion, because I don't know what it is. If an important aspect of something is pseudoscientific and another important aspect is OK, then we must make that very clear. If a pseudoscientific medical method is known to be effective (with some restrictions, obviously), then that needs to be said because otherwise our readers will draw incorrect conclusions. Do you agree? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and effectiveness are seperate issues. We should not conflate the two together. We should use references that specfically address the topic of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hans, I think I understand your point, and in some instances that might be feasible, but it could also take us off-topic. By focusing on the PS aspects, it should be clear that we are not "condemning" the whole subject. Just because chiropractic would be mentioned in connection with documented condemnation of VS as PS, and acupuncture and TCM would be mentioned in connection with condemnation of meridians and acupuncture points as PS, it should be self evident that we are being specific, and readers can then draw their own conclusions as to what degree such associations damage the profession or method. Does basing a profession like chiropractic on a fiction damage its reputation? That is certainly contended by mainstream scientists and medical authors, as well as many notable chiropractors and chiropractic leaders. Will readers buy their documented opinions? That isn't really our business. We just present the documentation from V & RS. It isn't necessary or on-topic to mount a defense here. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Several good points to ponder in discussion above. I'd have to disagree that efficacy and degree of "scientificness" aren't connected. If they weren't, then Fyslee's recent edit at Acupuncture#Criticism_of_TCM_theory wouldn't have been a reasonable one. If a naive reader sees that a medical treatment is classified as pseudoscience (...a problem we could help fix by changing the article's title), s/he is likely to assume it doesn't work. Moreover, I think Hans has an excellent sense of how WP:WEIGHT should apply here. (I strongly urge a re-read of the first two paragraphs at that wikilink; they're spot-on.) Different entries in the list will be annotated differently according to what RS's say (and don't say): Intelligent design (ID) will naturally get far less in the way of "balancing views", if any at all, since pretty much every RS for scientific opinion has been screaming "ID IS PSEUDOSCIENCE!!" (when they're being polite) for some time now. OTOH, who's saying Traditional Chinese Medicine is pseudoscience? CSICOP. And the utterly neutral Stephen Barrett. Not quite the same as the National Academies of Everything cutting the legs out from under ID, you know? CSICOP and Barrett (and the chiro sources as well) are OK on WP, but not considered sufficient for stating scientific consensus. All we can infer is that a sig POV exists that the topic is pseudoscience. That's what we call "questionable science", in Wikipedia-land, per WP:PSCI. WP:WEIGHT and WP:PARITY require balance particularly in cases like this, where we don't have an obvious consensus view.

Furthermore, mainstream scientists are studying acupuncture (yes, not just efficacy, but also physical basis of meridians). Dozens or even hundreds of articles per year (depending on what kind of article you count), according to Pubmed, with the pace increasing over the last decade. These scientists obviously see something worth studying there, so we can use Ernst's simple "research is active" to note that, and provide balance to the pseudo claims. Ernst is good for efficacy too, as is WHO; the latter use a coarser sieve than Ernst, but nonetheless represent a significant, worldwide POV. (Need I add that as a MEDRS, WHO crushes CSICOP like an ant?)

Regarding the supposed pseudoscientific-ness of meridians and acupoints: Yes, Felix Mann and others have gone all "mavericky" and claimed to reject acupoints and meridians, but they still keep using LI4 and ST44 for orofacial pain, PC6 for nausea, SP6 to induce menses (and avoiding SP6 and LI4 during pregnancy), and UB67 for turning a fetus from breach presentation. Seems that the ancients, with their "prescientific" worldview, managed to "encode" some clinical pearls along the way. And so far, there is nothing that I know of in Western medicine that would predict the efficacy of these points for those specific conditions. Therefore, pragmatic clinicians wink at the TCM concepts as metaphors or mnemonics (which even CSICOP reported), or perhaps speculate about them as emergent constructs, and keep on using them. So, just as we note that astrology had an astronomical component, it's only "fair and balanced" (not to mention "truthful and accurate") to note the fact that these traditional ideas are still found useful in clinical practice. I think the NIH quote is pretty rock-solid as an RS for that.

Anyway, I'm glad we're discussing, and think we've got a fair amount of ground to cover. The inclusion of chiro and acu never had consensus, and have basically been edit-warred onto the list by force by a couple of determined editors, who have blown off concerns raised by others. That's not the way things are done on WP. Even if that approach helped in some black-and-white areas, it's not justified by any kind of factual high ground here; we are in fact debating grey areas of demarcation. I am, as promised, taking this to Arb in the next couple days, where we'll all have a chance to weigh in, and hopefully what comes out of that will be reasonable (e.g., they may nudge us toward a title change). --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a title change will solve many of our problems here. Our wording needs to be improved so we are being specific. It's not sufficient or proper to just prop chiropractic and acupuncture in and say that they have been accused of being pseudoscientific. It needs to be explained what aspects of them have been so accused. It needs to be clear to readers that it is those aspects that are the problem. It isn't spinal manipulation (SM) itself that is PS, nor is it needling itself that is pseudoscientific, it is the basis and claims made for them that are the problem. SM and sticking needles into people are phyically testable acts with a possibility of producing physiological effects, some good, and some not so good, just like any other modality or medicine. It is the claims made for them that are problematic, and the accusations made against chiropractic and acupuncture are being made because they continue to make these claims. It then becomes hard to separate the sin from the sinner. If chiropractic would officially renounce any adherance to the unproven (after 104 years!) theory of vertebral subluxation and state that "we are going to concentrate on being back pain specialists and will only use SM as one method with no magical claims for its efficacy beyond what is scientifically proven," and if acupuncture would openly state that "we reject the claims made about acupuncture points, which have not been proven to be histologically existing entities, and will do research on whether sticking needles into people can have a beneficial effect," THEN those professions would be more accepted and would step into the scientific limelight in a more effective manner. Their research would no longer be hampered by an agenda designed to "prove our existing theories," but an agenda designed to see if something is happening, and why it's happening, and if it's not happening we will change our theories accordingly. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense, for the most part. Qualification and balance with entries are naturally going to flow from WP:WEIGHT and other rules and guidelines. On meridians and acupoints, I agree they're not proven to have a physical basis, but Truzzi would say Mann has taken on a burden of proof by asserting a negative hypothesis about them. Helene Langevin and others have done some interesting research, and Mann might be proven wrong. Also, even if they're structually elusive, functional activity is a good enough reason to keep them around, at least to some degree. I get the sense that a great many acupuncturists and researchers accept the meridians and acupoints provisionally, as clinical starting points. As the standard teaching text from Shanghai College says:

"The theory of the channels is interrelated with the theory of the Organs. Traditionally, the internal Organs have never been regarded as independent anatomical entities. ... From the beginning, however, we should recognize that, like other aspects of traditional medicine, channel theory reflects the limitations in the level of scientific development at the time of its formation, and is therefore tainted with the philosophical idealism and metaphysics of its day. That which has continuing clinical value needs to be reexamined through practice and research to determine its true nature."^[29]

That's a rock-solid RS for TCM theory as it's now taught in China and the West, and is hardly a pseudoscientific argument. Some of the stuff you'd like to see done in acu research is actually happening now. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 09:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that acupuncture's "theorizing" is dismissed as pseudoscientific posturing by a number of the sources already in the article. As to whether there are "evidence-based benefits" to being poked with needles, well, Ernst points out that nausea does somewhat abate in such circumstances. The mechanism by which this abatement happens is not associated in the literature with Traditional Chinese Medicine theorizing, though, so the critique more-or-less has not been contradicted by the clinical trials mentioned. Note too that WP:CRYSTAL should be invoked whenever people begin making claims about whether the stuff that should be done will be done (or is "actually happening now). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to this article. For now, the pending request, where editors are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)