" 
 *Remove This is a general article on pseudoscience.  The source seems relevant to an article or section on Quackery, but is not a source for general statements on pseudoscience.  Also, we do not use patently false generalizations even when published in a reliable source which most likely depended on the common sense of readers to make valid meaning out of the statement.  It is not a threat to public health for people to believe in the Loch Ness monster.  Nor is it true that a superstition that does not threaten public health is not pseudoscience.  We need sources dealing with the subject in general, not throw-away rhetoric in the introductions to articles on specific subjects. I could point out other problems such as the lousy writing, for example the statement that irrational beliefs are pseudoscience (they might or might not be).  That example is just a start.  It's a terrible paragraph. BE——Critical__ "