Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 3

message: The inclusion of Peter Duesberg and the AIDS reappraisal moviment is in contradiciton of the afirmation earlier in the article that "Pseudoscience should not be confused with unpopular or minority-opinion scientific theories".
Peter Duesberg IS a scientist, he was being considered for a Nobel before he started promoting his views on Aids. An he is not the only scientist with great credentials that argue against the HIV theory. 
The scientific method is NOT based con consensus, so is not right to put the "non-HIV theory" in the same place as Atlantis, Lemuria, and other real pseudoscience.
Even though he's a scientist it's still pseudoscience. There is no scientific backing - no studies, peer-reviewed articles, etc. Profonikz 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Duesberg and AIDS reappraisal 

message: This entire article is unreferenced. The opening intro says that these lists are basically made up of opinion, so I fear that the NPOV tag will be hard to overcome. This articles seems like a likely candidate for an AfD. Levine2112 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above discussions. We can't have this article tagged and then the dispute settled every time a new editor comes along and reads the article for the first time. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How was the "unsourced" dispute resolved? This is a long list without any references. Levine2112 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The overwhelming majority of lists on Wikipedia don't have references. The criterion inclusion is a reference on an item's corresponding article (this is the convention elsewhere). Items have and continue to be removed due to there being no sourced declaration on the item's article that the concept or area of endeavor is pseudoscientific. The introduction to this list says as much, and this is how your concern has been settled before on this very talk page. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that we are crystal clear, if an item listed here has a corresponding article which makes no inference that the item is considered pseudoscientific then it can be removed from this list without contention? Levine2112 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we just went through this with the quackery list.  It seems that lists have to be NPOV and verified with reliable sources as well, especially if contentious.  It shouldn't be as hard with this list as quackery, because it was hard to find reliable sources that actually called something quackery.  Pseudosciences should have some references somewhere, but otherwise if it is not referenced it could theoretically be taken off according to WP:verifiability. --Dematt 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  That is correct. Remove at your leisure, and if someone thinks it should still be on the list, it'll be their responsibility to justify it with citations. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and Unreferenced

message: List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts seems incorrect and misleading if this article is just a list of disciplines which some critics have labelled "pseudoscientific" but in actuality the disciplines may not be. No immediate suggestions come to mind that aren't as clunky and long as something such as List of concepts which may or may not be pseudoscientific. I know that sounds ridiculous but in essence that is what the opening paragraph is saying. So it is pretty damning to put something under this article because regarding of the opening paragraph, the title of this article suggests guilt. This is equivalent to a List of evil people and then have an opening paragraph that says that this is a list of people which may or may not be evil in truth but someone (perhaps a rival) may have called them evil. Would you want your name on that list? I certainly would not. I'm not sure if I would even want my name on a list entitled List of people who may or may not be evil because any association with that list may suggest impropriety.
Anyone have any suggestions as to how to rename this article into something less damning? Otherwise, I would suggest removing everything which is is "iffy" - which may or may not be - and just leave the things which are hard to dispute as anything but pseudoscience (i.e. Intelligent Design). Levine2112 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title should stay. Few people would want to be on the list of serial killers, either, but the concepts "serial killer" and "pseudoscience" are not normative. Both have truth conditions that are empirical in nature. This is in contrast with "evil," which is a normative concept. Finally, the requirement for this list that scientists have labeled a practice pseudoscientific is in place because of WP:NOR and WP:V. If you think an item should be removed, do so (especially if the corresponding article fails to establish with reliable sources that the practice or concept is pseudoscientific) or bring it up here for discussion. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that pseudoscience should be a truth condition. But if that holds true here - if there is an empirical way to determine if a discipline is in fact a pseudoscience - then why the need for the intro which makes it clear that the disciplines in the following lists may or may not truly be pseudoscience; that they may be have been placed here because a critic of a discipline called it pseudoscientific or that a rival with a competeing theory said it to be so or that science in large still hasn't made up its mind about the discipline. To me, this intro makes the application of the "pseudoscience" label sound like a grey area and not a black-or-white, it-is-or-it-isn't empirical determination. Therefore, my question is: if pseudoscience is a yes/no conditional label determined by empirical truths, then why the need to explain that some of the disciplines listed here may or may not be an actual example of pseudoscience? Levine2112 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning the introduction, I think it's because a compromise was made with someone who objected to the inclusion of a pet discipline. You can remove it to see if anyone comes here to complain, and we'll find out more. Personally, I don't think any such qualifications should be made in the introduction. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My fear is that skeptics (and pseudoskeptics) like to brandish this label and often time you hear them misattributing the psedoscience label to discipline. I can't even pretend to be an expert in all of the fields listed on this article and I certainly cannot tell you if each of them are empirically pseudoscience. If I remove that paragraph then I would be guilty of perhaps making this article even more POV. If we change the title to include the phrase "alleged to be" (for instance) then that might clear up the POV issue, but then it makes the article weaker and perhaps more weaselly. This is a rock-and-a-hard place scenario indeed. Levine2112 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change. Suggestions? 

message: I'm curious if there is any policy at wikipedia concerning crackpot theories. Sometimes, these theories become embedded in popular culture, and hence deserve a page in an encyclopedia. However, should every single crackkpot idea that has one or two promoters be given space here? I recently came across a page suggesting wierd gravitational effects occur during a solar eclipse (the Allais effect). The topic is well written, and altough the NPOV could be improved somewhat, I am not sure if this article should be put up for deletion or not. Lunokhod 13:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might check out WP:FRINGE for a start. --- LuckyLouie 20:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a wikipedia policy concerning crackpot theories? 

message: This article survived a nomination for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific conceptsJeepday 12:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles For Deletion

message: Given the talk going on here, and the fact that QuackGuru included the recration of his list in mainspace, I think folks here may want to keep an eye on this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles related to scientific skepticism. The results of that AfD will likely affect this article as well: if it's considered fine to tag a list with 368 references to keep it in mainspace, I'd say that will affect this discussion. -- Kesh 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again. 

message: I think the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations fall more into the "conspiracy theory" category rather than the "pseudoscience" category. --Candy-Panda 04:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Candy-Panda, you have every right to remove it from the list or ask for a reference to support it being here. --Dematt 04:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not pseudoscientific concepts involved in the moon hoax. NASA lied about the trip, but they didn't claim to get there with a perpetual motion machine. 129.44.172.8 11:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There has been a reference to support it being there for a long time now (see the section). It's from a reliable source, too–the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Simões (talk/contribs) 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To make it easier to see, I converted it to the proper format using <ref> tags. Simões (talk/contribs) 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my point.  It is not our job to weigh the merits of each purported "science".  We are not qualified, and even if we were, we are not supposed to make that determination.  We just report what we read from reliable sources.  If there is no source specifically stating that it is pseudoscience, then it does not belong on this list.  Also note that just because somebody makes a web site that calls everything they don't like a pseudoscience does not mean it is.  This is a serious scientific endeavor that requires high quality neutral party type sources.  To be sure to be NPOV in controversial concepts, there should be equal quality sources that disagree and the discussion needs to be made here, not just on the "article".  Then we will be heading in the right direction in providing something valuable. --Dematt 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow. If by "that" determination you mean "determining that it's a pseudoscience by ourselves," then I never made such a claim. And this isn't a case of some random Joe making a website. It's from an academic society. Would you mind clarifying your comment? Simões (talk/contribs) 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, Simoes, I was responding to the post above yours.  But, in regards to the reference you made, here's the problem. I looked at the reference given for Man on the moon .  I don't see him callin this concept pseudoscience.  That is not saying that it is correct, valid, fringe, or even pseudoscience, but he didn't say it.  He used the word fringe science in the paragraph, but most of all, he characterized it as information that should be viewed with a "skeptic's eye".  That is where this belongs; in a list for scientific skeptics to look at.  Nothin more, nothing less.  Because even he did not say it was pseudoscience because he would not put his reputation on the line.  If he won't do it, we shouldn't.  See what I mean.  If these are all classified and placed on the lists that they really belong, whether it be fringe science, creation science, medical science, non-science, or whatever science, then we would not have much on this list. This list should be small because real scientists call very few things pseudoscience. --Dematt 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo moon landing hoax accusations 

message: Pizzazz, Simoes is right.  This article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted.  It is a better option than a category because categories can't be made NPOV.  This list can.  There are certainly things that belong on a list of pseudoscience, we just need to clean it up. --Dematt 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD Again 

message: This is the current lead:
*The following is a list of fields of endeavor and concepts that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects. Some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community. Note that the pseudoscience label may be applied by disputants working in the same field to disparage a competing theory or form of argument used by a rival; by commentators from outside a field to disparage a whole field; merely to characterise the fact that a theory published in a popular book has no academic credibility whatsoever; or in reference to a theory now discarded. See the individual articles for more information.
1) First step is that we have to define "critics" in the first sentence.
2)The rest is just weaseling to add a POV field.
Any suggestions?
--Dematt 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I took out Prescientific system because it seems to be OR.  What seems to be left is not characteristcs of PS but things that are not PS (fringe, minority, etc.) so I changed the section heading.  I'm okay with anything that you might feel needs reverting, just trying to clarify what does belong on this list. --Dematt 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics section 

message: Okay, I've chopped a lot, but we can put some back in if we want.  We're still missing the criteria for inclusion that is not vague.  I am not sure that we need the two sections that were in the Characteristics (now Pseudoscience is not) section.  How is it looking so far?  I'll pause and let anybody make comments from here. --Dematt 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've done a marvellous job. I wonder though if we will ever be able to make this list completely Wiki-compliant. I fear that tag at the top of the article is there to stay. You know? Levine2112 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a way to write the inclusion criteria that won't be vague? --Dematt 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't. I wish there was a steadfast rule of inclusion here. I look at the list and one of the first entries is Mount Ararat. Is the mountain a pseudoscience or a pseudoscientific concept? Bear in mind, while science may not accepts the story of Noah's Ark, the mountain is real. I mean it is a real mountain. It isn't a concept. It's a large mass of rocks projecting out of the Earth in Turkey. I mean if there was a theory purported as science that was called the Mount Ararat Theory that claimed that Noah's Ark landed there, then perhaps it should be included. Otherwise, we should have entries here for every mountain, river, and land mentioned in the bible's text. I know this is ridiculous, but I am trying to make a point. If this is a list of things kind of/sort of related to pseudoscientific theories, then fine. I can sort of see why Mount Ararat would be included here then. But that is not what the title of this article claims to be. Everything listed here should be a concept that has been reliably labelled and widely agreed upon as pseudoscience. Make sense? Levine2112 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we get the inclusion criteria correct, then the sources will either be there or they won't be.  We don't have to worry about the actual listed items yet.  Don't even look at them. We are not supposed to make the criteria = the list, the list is supposed to = the criteria.  That is half the problem.  This criteria was adjusted so that more could be placed in it.  Unfortunately, it was adjusted to shear nonsense.  All we have to do is bring it back. --Dematt 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Then I think you are awfully close here. Levine2112 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning 

message: Wow, look at this.  It is the edit history of this article since 2003 when it started.  This article has been through this very same thing from the beginning.  Ever feel like we're on one big rollercoaster ride;)  It's obvious that this is going to be a big time waster for all of us.  I think I'll revert to the beginning, take out the prescientific stuff and keep the tag on it.  This article may never be able to cut it, so it should have a tag on it.  It really should be in PS projectspace, but i won't push it if you guys want it here.  For now, I don't think there should be much argument in taking anything off this list that does not have a reference.  If it ever comes up for a vote to Merge or Move, I'll go that way.  Sorry I put everyone through this, but I had to give it a try.  Thanks for listening.  --Dematt 01:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Four years! Wow. More like a carousel than a roller coaster. Just ggoing roand-and-round and not getting anywhere. I agree. This article would be better suited for Project Space. Levine2112 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we go along with this rationale, we should also put the George W. Bush and evolution articles on project space, too. Please feel free to work on other articles on your watch lists if you don't think this one is improvable. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you, Simões. And I don't think this is a matter of how much time we put into this article. I just think it shows that in all of this time and all of this enery we arrive at the same place where we were 4 years ago! George Bush and evolution might be articles with heated debate, but the two topics are definable concepts with various world POVs surrounding them. Even the article Pseudoscience is a little better than a list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Pseudoscience is at least a definable concept. Now then, inclusion into a list of things that are pseudosciences or pseudoscientific is a whole other matter. Inclusion should have hard-and-fast criteria. The problem here is that the criteria is soft and vague. (* * See my comment on Mount Ararat above * *) If we can nail down the criteria for inclusion, that would be another matter, but thus far (in at least 4 years) no editors have been successful at this. Please give suggestions if you have any ideas on how we can do this here together. Levine2112 02:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend a sole criterion of an Academy of Sciences (national or regional level) declaring a field or concept pseudoscientific. I can't really see there being conflicting declarations on something, but if we ever come across one, we can just note it next to the list item. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simoes, you might be on to something with Academy of Sciences!  Are you aware of any statments that they have made pertaining to this?  Lets look at them. --Dematt 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one from the Iowa Academy of Sciences. If we do end up going by the "Academy" standard, that would cover a number of the items on this list. I do note, however, that this declaration is hosted on a scientist's personal website, and the scientist is probably not a member of Iowa's Academy. Ideally, would should find statements in print and/or on the websites of the Academies themselves. I'll dig some more. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: I found a copy of the statement on the Iowa Academy's website. Huzzah! Simões (talk/contribs) 03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does seem like a step in the right direction. Let confirm that AoS passes WP:RS more than any other source or at least a reasonable amount. Oh, and here is that statement from Iowa Academy from their actual site. It does date back to 1987 unfortunately (science is ever changing and getting a more up-to-date source would be more reliable). Levine2112 03:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm liking what I am seeing so far. --Dematt 03:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what kind of yell is Huzzah!:)  --Dematt 03:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huzzah! ;) Simões (talk/contribs) 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, it even has it's own article!  Mine doesn't Ho yeah! :)--Dematt 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that any list of this sort should also include the replies from the proponents of the theory in question. If there is ongoing research, counter-arguments or proposed changes in methdology to bring it in line with the scientific method, then this should be included. Should this post be here, or in the sandbox? --Comaze 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This post belongs here, and it is a very good point.  I agree.  It seems to me that, if we make a sPOV statement by the AoS, then all other POVs should have a shot at it, unless it is an extreme minority POV.  That would keep the article NPOV according to the same guidelines that all articles.  That could make for a very large article if we allow narrative type explanations, though.  Should there be limitationss? --Dematt 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible task 

message: Okay, so proclamations from Academies of Sciences are not getting us near the amount of items we want. As I noted here, national and regional academies only make statements on pseudoscience when there is a concern that a particular pseudoscience is finding its way into education or government. Only a few pseudosciences ever get this far. My solution for this is to allow two more types of sources: statements from specialized scientific organizations (e.g., a society of plasma physicists), and statements/publications from scientific skepticism organizations. This last bunch will most certainly fill out the list, but there may be some concern that these skepticism organizations are a little too trigger-happy, labeling anything that smells funny to them "pseudoscience."
This concern may be addressable by separating out list members by the three source types. At the top will be the section listing pseudosciences as declared by the generalist Academies. These Academies are definitely our most reliable sources, as their broad membership (in terms of being cross-specialization) makes their released statements highly indicative of what the scientific community as a whole thinks.
Next will be the section of fields and concepts declared by specialized societies to be pseudoscientific. Such societies, while not as broadly representative as the Academies, are arguably highly representative of specialists. This makes their statements (arguably) not quote as good of reliable sources as statements by Academies but still sufficiently reliable for policy purposes.
Finally, there will be the items declared by the skeptic organizations to be pseudoscientific. Without a doubt, this section will be the largest. Declarations from these organizations are the least likely to be agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (though I think the likelihood, for the most part, is still high). While I think WP:NPOV#Undue weight should prevent us from including replies from the practitioners of the alleged pseudosciences (see Comaze's recommendation above) contained in the first two sections, it would be more warranted for this one. This is especially true given that skeptic organizations will often have comparable numbers to the smaller, allegedly-pseudoscientific groups they're criticizing, making the latter not so much of an "extremely small" minority relative to their critics.
Okay, that's my proposal. If there is consensus for it, one handy piece of literature I can pick up from my university's library is The Skeptics Society's two-volume The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. It is bound to be a goldmine as far as this list goes. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand what the 'concern' is that needs to be 'addressed.' If confining the entries to those that are properly verifiable at an appropriately high standard results in a shorter list, so what? Arker 01:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Simoes, My point was that replies from notable opponents (mainstream scientific consensus, skeptics societies, etc.) and proponents (professional associations/societies/researchers) of alleged pseudoscientific methods may pass WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Comaze 01:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what happened to me, Simoes.  When I started to investigate who was saying what was pseudoscience, I began to realize that this is not a scientific term.  This is a concept in the philosophy of science that is still not settled and extremely controversial.  It has its purpose; mostly to motivate people with good ideas to come up with ways of studying their ideas methodically before announcing them as fact (test with scientific method).  Because it motivates through negative feedback, there is danger of misuse.  Think about it.  The purpose of science is to sort through all the observations in life and decide what causes what in an effort to build a knowledge base for future generations.  There was a time when a man who believed the earth was round would have been beheaded as a heretic.  But scientific thinking is what saved these free thinking men.  They were able to use reasoning to overcome unsubstantiated belief.  Most of them did not know what we know now - they just knew it was not right.  However, they were smart enough to seperate science from religion in order to save their own lives.  Most of the Top 1000 scientists of all time were vitalists.  Louis Pasteur was a vitalist(which we have on our list).  Today that seperation still exists, but it seems the line between them is getting thinner, hence we start seeing theories such as Emergence try to explain why reductionism has not been able to discover how it all works, yet.  IOWs, true scientists know that the nature of knowledge is much more complicated than a list of Yeah and Nay for PS.  There is a large (dare I say Huge) gray area of unknown that needs investigating.  Many will spend their lives searching down the wrong paths, but who knows which one will unlock the door to a vast cavern of new knowledge.  Will it be in space? the ocean?, underground? or "energy fields"?  Nobody knows, it all needs to be studied -thoroughly.  How many times have you looked for your keys and couldn't find them and your wife takes one look and they are right where you looked!  True scientists understand this, and that is why they resist using this label until, as you say, it reaches a level that may be putting too much emphasis on something that is not proven - like govenment involvement.  So, the AoS sources are the best.  If we lower the bar to include scientific skeptics (which includes people like you and me) then the list is so watered that it becomes meaningless and untrue.  At that point it becomes a pejorative list for someones favorite hate group, which is not what WP is about.  IOWs, it becomes a list for scientific skeptics rather than a list of pseudoscience.  So I think we need to raise that bar further than scientific skeptics to at least someone with a PhD in science. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 14:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New problem, new solution 

message: I think that Catastrophism should be removed from the list under Geology. It is true that many catastrophic theories (often linked to the bible) are psuedoscientific, but most geologists realize that natural catastrophic events have shaped the landscape of the Earth and other planets. Most notable are impact cratering and giant floods (caused by breaking of ice dams). While this article can definitely be improved, it is not, in my opinion, psuedoscience. Lunokhod 11:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of those borderline cases. Catastrophism is flooded with psuedoscientific concepts, so much that the real study is almost overwhelmed. I think this one could stay, if we can cite sources and point out that there are legitimate studies in the field. (Again, with sources.) -- Kesh 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the article is a well balanced historical description of the origin of catastrophism (both scientific and religious), the loosing of favor to uniformitarianism, and the gradual acknowledgement by the scientific community that some catastrophes are important geologic processes. I suggest that we remove Catastrophism from the list, but keep flood geology and add a link to Velikovskys book Worlds in collision instead. Lunokhod 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove [[Catastrophism]] from list? 

message: I'm curious if we should add anti-gravity to the physics list. This topic is somewhat gray, and lies somewhere between extreme minority opinion, psuedoscience, and crackpot. The article in its present form has a major NPOV problem. Lunokhod 11:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord, that article's a mess. And yes, I think it should be on this list, with similar caveats to Catastrophism. -- Kesh 21:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[anti-gravity]]? 

message: Are there any good arguments why Holocaust denial should not be here?   MaxPont 12:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a scientific matter, but a historical one. A visit to Aushwitz is a sobering experience. While wild animals may even begin to eat other animals while they are still alive, man's inhumanity to man is sometimes enough to even make an atheist believe in the devil. -- Fyslee (First law) 12:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a concept of Pseudohistory that is exactly the kind of place that argumetn should be made. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it already is there. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Holocaust denial not on the list?

message: Okay, there haven't been any objections to the draft yet, but I wanted to get a clearer sense before putting it up. Please note that this draft is considered a starting point for possible later expansion and reflects the fact that the only consensus on what should count as a reliable source here is for statements from Academies of Sciences. So please support or object. Simões (talk/contribs) 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huge improvement. Roger 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search with your browser for the following sentence on this page: "Most of this list could be replaced by using the category tags on the individual articles." The discussion proceeds from there. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seemed to be support for the idea there.  It seems like the primary objection was lack of annotation.  So, keeping in mind my initial argument, I'd propose the following criteria of inclusion/introduction: "This is a list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts.  The criteria for inclusion in this list is that the element (1) has sustained inclusion in :Category:pseudoscience; (2) is a field, practice, endeavor, or concept; (3) is annotated (sources can usually found in the original article; if not, the article probably should not be in :Category:pseudoscience)."  The point, again, is to shift the burden to the editors of the individual articles (where it belongs), and to reduce redundant labor.  Fireplace 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use a Wikipedia article (or category) as a source. I tried the "let the listed article have the reference" line myself, but that didn't fly with many people. We really do have solution now after four years that has not faced any substantial resistance. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the argument against it? (The proposal isn't to cite a Wikipedia article as a source.) Fireplace 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fireplace, your suggestions above show some really good insight.  Please review the last few days of conversation and stick arund as we try to make these next few decisions.  Thanks! -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In my own defense, the discussion on here is long, convoluted, and difficult to read.  I read a lot of it, but missed your point on what is or is not verifiable.  I'll admit to not clicking on every link on here, but the ones I did certainly linked to articles that described itself as pseudoscience.  Most of what is on this list is most definitely pseudoscience, so if the article referenced on the list does not describe itself as pseudoscience, then we need to fix the article not this list.  I apologize for stating that you were circumventing the AfD process, although, to me, it seemed like this article has been nominated for Deletion a couple of times, been kept, and then I saw your proposal, and WOW, it was stripping the article bare.  I like Jim Butler's idea below, but you've implemented it so we're good to go.  Once again, sorry about the bad faith assumption, but it sure appeared like it to me.  Orangemarlin 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've spent some time reviewing some of the edits on here.  I just don't get what is going on, and it is frustrating.  Items like Flood Geology which is so far over onto Pseudoscience, that there is no room for interpretation were removed from this list.  Why?  Is it because it wasn't categorized as Pseudoscience, which was probably a result of a Creationist removing the tag from the article?  Right now, all I see with this article is a revert war where a couple of editors want to eliminate it and have failed a couple of RfD's, others trying to edit it into uselessness (which will get it deleted), and others adding links.  This is frustrating, since this article could be useful.  Orangemarlin 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flood Geology in fact is on Simoes's draft, under Creation Science. Jim Butler(talk) 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: One comment post-edit-conflict:  Simoes, you're technically correct to purge the list of all non-verified stuff, but given that the editors above have raised the temperature a little bit, I think your actions may tend too much toward escalation.  Maybe better to just fact-tag them all instead.  I agree with your point, but OTOH, see WP:POINT.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 07:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and self reverted. Simões (talk/contribs) 07:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of draft to replace current version 

message: :::Well, that didn't go over so well;)  I do consider that some might be seeing this as an attack on the page, but it is nothing more than working together to get it to satisfy the aforementioned WP policy.  I encourage those objecting to look at the other options; basically we have three:
:::# Do nothing and keep the tag
:::# Change the contents to reflect the name
:::# Rename the list to reflect the contents 
:::Number 2 and 3 still require changing the lead to reflect specific inclusion criteria. -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to wait and see if linas, et al. come to once they realize they're working off a false assumption. Orangemarlin already seems to have. QuackGuru, on the other hand, is consistently confusing. I never have any idea what he's talking about. Simões (talk/contribs) 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not fully onboard, because I'm not clear on what is being proposed.  Can someone summarize what it is that needs to be done with this list?  Orangemarlin 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got my support.  I've got you on my watchlist. -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am consistently confusing. I think you know exactly what I am talking about. Please explain. That would beneficial. --QuackGuru 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read some of your comments above QuackGuru.  I'll have to agree with Simoes that your commentary can be unclear.  Orangemarlin 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I think it did go very well. There it still an article and the list remains intact. I do not see the editors who want to start the list over trying to add any references to the list. I wonder why. Any ideas to gut the list is ill advised. I recommend to everybody to start to find references and build up the list. Nothing more. --QuackGuru 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Options

message: In a short period of time, a bunch of edit wars, deletions, 2 AfDs, now 2 proposals for much sparser drafts. What do people not like about the current article?  I do not get it and I do not want to read all this history to find out.--Filll 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so confused, I'm getting a headache.  It reads like a bunch of people have agendas, and they don't make sense.  Orangemarlin 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My proposal is for a much larger draft. Fireplace 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support having a tiered list, with topics recognized science societies or scientific journals etc have claimed are pseudoscience on one tier, then a 2nd tier which skeptic societies claim are pseudoscience, but I would also include a 3rd tier of suspected but unsourced topics. I would then mark all the unsourced 3rd tier topics with  or  and then slowly find as many references as possible to reduce the uncited topics. Is this what is being proposed? Or something like it? I would not favor removing the unsourced material now, but I would mark it and then find cites for those topics slowly as time and resources permit.--Filll 23:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the way I interpret Simoes proposal. The list he put up initially was just the first part with the Academy of Sciences as the source. The other tiers were not on the list yet. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My plan was to exclude anything without a source until something was found, but, yes, the end result is roughly how you describe it. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty much agree, with the caveat that we can't change WP policy on VER (i.e., there is a balance to be struck, and unsourced stuff shouldn't stick around forever).  I'm personally not in a hurry to delete anything that sounds like a plausible, sig POV.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 09:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is the problem here? 

message: Hey, I need to not fail out of gradschool, and a temporary crunch time hit a few weeks ago. I'll be through the storm pretty soon and will resume working. ;) Simões (talk/contribs) 15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear from you!  Go pass gradschool and we'll wait for you.  Good luck! -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Dematt said.  May your efforts yield abundant fruit!  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 08:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost back 

message: Should we put up intelligence testing up here? It's always been criticised for being flawed and such...--Jazzwick 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, as long as we have an appropriate source.  See Iq#Criticism; Steven Jay Gould is fairly notable, isn't he?  But there has been some debate (see above) over whether the opinions of individuals, vs organizations, are sufficient for inclusion.  AFAIK, there are disability rights organizations that question IQ testing; I'll try to find a cite.  I see no reason why such groups aren't just as much V RS's as self-identified "skeptical" groups (per talk above, clearly "second-tier" relative to Academies of Science, but still sig POV's).  Also, check this out:  "Many times, if the researchers had a child they couldn't test, they just assumed he or she was retarded and assigned a low IQ score.". thx, Jim Butler(talk) 09:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligence testing