Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive 4

message: I've re-added several deleted items that clearly belong in the list. They were deleted after 5 days w/ a fact tag by a para-psyc promoter. Seems the note at the top ==Reasons for inclusion== which refers to the listed subject articles should cover this. Subjects with articles indicating their pseudoscience status would seem to belong here. Citation requests should be in the parent articles. Vsmith 14:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with re-adding the items.  I could probably provide citations from my reference books, but I simply don't have the time.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will leave the items in for a few more days so that sources may be found.  The idea that the citations are not needed because that is covered in the relevant linked articles is not valid in all cases; furthermore, in some cases where the is significant dispute as to whether the item is pseudoscience, it cannot merely be listed as being unequivocally pseudoscience.  In some cases you have a scientific consensus against it, for instance astrology.  In other cases, the assertion must be modified.  I am not a "parapsych-promoter", and you should learn to spell it.  I will, however, putting an "uncyclopedic" tag on the article, due to phrases like this:  "is a crackpot idea that states your mind can alter the reality around you through". Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags I carefully selected as being right for this page were removed, along with some citation requests.  So if we can have only one tag, it'll have to be totally disputed. Please don't remove citation requests. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing.  It is not OK to say that the items are cited in their pages, unless you are going to 1) actually read the pages and see if this is so, and 2) update this page very frequently, as other pages change.  So, since that is not going to happen, citations must be provided in this article- which should probably be deleted anyway. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added citation requests to psychic on Nov 1, 2006 and they were promptly removed.  Furthermore no citations were provided in the article, but they were said to be in the talk page, threfore not needed in the article.  That's not the way it is supposed to work.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It was not you who deleted them.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here are two articles that might be relevant, but I don't have time to read them right now:
#Is Parapsychology a science?, Paul Kurtz
#Parapsychology: Science or pseudoscience, Anthony Flew, first published in Science, Pseuoscience, and Society.  Both republished in A Skeptic's Handbook of Pasapsychology, edited by Paul Kurtz, chapter 21 and 22, 503-18, 519-36.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Martinphi - I think pragmatically it would be better if you would let fact-tagged stuff stick around longer than a few days.  Will be better collaboratively (i.e. editors will be more inclined to assume good faith toward you) in the long run.  Just my two cents.  Regarding sourcing, the issue is not settled, but you may want to look at discussion above.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jim (:  Yes, I'm going to let them hang around a while.  I'll come back to it.  I did read the discussion about the two-tiered system.  It looks fine, I think anyway.  It will be hard to include parapsychology in a first tier, because even if you find some source, it will be contradicted by others.  As long as the system is thoroughly explicated in the article, I'm OK with it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions 

message: There has been objection to calling telekenesis "pseusoscience".  If not pseudoscience, what is it?  Science?  Magic powers?  I'm not sure if the objection is because it doesn't claim to be scientific, or because it truly is scientific (the article does make mention of scientific aspects).  Could someone clarify?  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is part of parapsychology, which is called a pseudoscience (I think), by some (and only some) in the skeptical organizations.  It is not known if it is a pseudoscientific concept, but there is some evidence that it might happen. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that anything that is "part of parapsychology" just gets included with parapsychology instead of being judged on its own?  And you didn't really answer the question.  If you don't think it's a pseudoscience, are you saying it's a science?  --Milo H Minderbinder 12:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Milo, it isn't a science.  It might be a scientific concept, or a pseudoscientific concept, but not a science.  So the question wasn't really put right.  There are scientific -parapsychological- sources that say it exists.  There are skeptical sources that say it doesn't.  I object to inclusion of any and all items on the list without a source- even though in my belief all but maybe 4 or 6 of them are pseudoscience.  If they are not sourced, I will insert citation requests, and eventually delete them.  They should be sourced to something like an Academy of Science.  This would be OK in any case in which said source is not contradicted by an equal or better source.  If they are cited to a source that doesn't represent all of science, I will insert in the list item who says it is pseudoscience. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said: They should be sourced to something like an Academy of Science. According to what policy? Answer. Original research policy. I hope you are not trying to make of new policy and call it consensus. QuackGuru TALK 05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess you'll tag Time Cube and remove it from the list since an Academy of Science hasn't sent down the stone tablet from the mountain declaring it a pseudoscience?  (I note that your recent tagging was limited to your pet paranormal topics which you have been heavily POV pushing lately - I'd like to assume good faith, but it's obvious that your actions are to give credibility to topics you support and not actually make the list better)  I'll also point you to the arbcom's finding:  "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." --Milo H Minderbinder 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice opinion. You do realize it is your opinion. Try stating official policy. Try again. Ψ QuackGuru TALK 09:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Here is the official policy: if it isn't sourced, and can't be sourced, it is OR.  Therefore, it should be deleted.   That's all. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more."  --Minderbinder 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Milo: first, be nice.  Second you quote ArbCom: "Obvious pseudoscience: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more."  So that's fine.  Keep time cube.  But you have to source those nearer to science- no matter what you personally think of them. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telekenesis 

message: OK.  I've been waiting and waiting.  Seems you've now decided that "mechanical" means of deciding what goes on the list won't work, cause it wouldn't include enough.  Fireplace's draft looks OK.  It is a list of things someone, whoever, thought or thinks are pseudoscience.  Fine with me, as long as it is clearly stated.  I'll include the Million Dollar Challenge, pseudoskepticism, and maybe psychology, and a few other things.  I can source those, and there is no scientific consensus that they are not pseudoscience.
But anyway, could someone tell me how long I should wait on this article for citation requests to be filled? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll submit that the topics you tagged are obviously bogus, and may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.  --Minderbinder 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange.  If that is so (and some of the tagged items are the most scientifically justified on the list), why are people discussing sourcing this article?  It doesn't need better sourcing.   Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No one ever said anything about the "mechanical" means not working. As far as I can tell, Fireplace is holding this show up because he finds it aesthetically unpleasing to have obscure topics in their own section. Simões (talk/contribs) 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's unlikely there is a satisfactory purely mechanical criterion for category-inclusion." Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so Fireplace said it once. This is quite an exaggeration, though, because his complaints are aesthetic or of the "item X isn't on the list" sort. Neither of these should be show-stoppers warranting starting from the beginning again. It actually works  just fine as far as policy is concerned. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I have no problem with mechanical means- but Fireplace is right that it give funny results. So how long do you think it is fair to wait for people to source and attribute the things I put requests on? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation requests

message: The recent edit warring  is of course a bad idea (and also, if I'm counting right, puts Martinphi at 4RR).  However, it may be "nature's way" of illustrating the article's need for standards regarding sourcing.  This would be a good time, imo, to move past semantic and cosmetic objections, and go with the draft as originally discussed, which (thanks to Simões's scholarly efforts) is quite well-written.
Additionally, if some editors remain eager to have WP mention what someone someplace has deemed a pseudoscience, perhaps a new "list of topics referred to as pseudoscience" (note redirect of List of cults) could work, following Fireplace's approach here.
Dragging this out has been one of the sillier debates on WP, imo, and far too WP:POINT-ish.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, wrong count, only 3RR- I counted really carefully.  And I was totally patient about this article, since you guys were trying to source it.  I'm sorry to have tried to get your attention like this.  I tried the talk page, I tried deleting them before, I tried asking when it would be enough time to have waited...and it just doesn't get sourced.  So anyway, I hope it can get sourced soon. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that sourcing is a major issue here.  As is the general guideline about edit warring; it never hurts to leave the "wrong version" of an article alone.  Just saying.  (Have another look at WP:DR; useful stuff here.)  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I know, and I did leave it alone, more than once.  This isn't the first time I've taken those things out.    I suppose the only other option was to rfc, mediation, etc.  It does hurt something every day to have things called pseudoscience with no sources. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option is simply to disengage and not edit war, knowing that any given version of a WP article shouldn't necessarily be taken very seriously.  Edit warring can come back to haunt you in mediation, RfC's and so on.  See m:The Wrong Version. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring bad, of course, and...

message: The tiered draft has complete citations, so it is already superior to the current version (however aesthetically unpleasing some think it is). Would anyone mind if I were to replace the present mess, ending the silly dispute above? Simões (talk/contribs) 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be the time to just do it. - Vsmith 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it- and BTW, it really wasn't such a strain to source the Parapsychology entry, was it? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done. I'll go ahead and fill in the rest of the entries from the skeptic encyclopedia. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bump draft up and see what happens? 

message: Does Ideomotor effect really belong under parapsychology?  AFAIK, it's not defined as a paranormal ability, but rather a psychological phenomenon said to underly purported paranormal phenomena (such as dowsing, Ouija boards etc.).  IOW, it's actually a scientific theory explaining pseudoscientific arguments.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 05:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not sure that anyone seriously doubts the basic, physical ideomotor effect. Removing that one would be more reasonable. Simões (talk/contribs) 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideomotor effect

message: I moved Materialization under Parapsychology since that is where the bulk of the cited references for its existence come from. Example: (http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/Sai%20Baba%20Indians/Gyatri.pdf) -- LuckyLouie 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Materialization

message: "The lead specifies the type of source required for this section. are there any for these?" --Do the articles by Ben Radford and Joe Nickell cited from CSI (CSICOP) qualify as "regarded as pseudoscientific by mainstream scientific skepticism bodies"? Nickell calls it pseudoscience. Unfortunately, skeptical bodies have not updated their dictionaries of pseudoscience since the ghost hunting trend became popular a few years ago. Except for CSI, most haven't commented seriously on it, perhaps feeling that it's a self-evidently bogus pursuit that requires no comment. LuckyLouie 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it belongs in the bottom section, you can throw it in there and see if anyone complains. For the middle tier, it needs to be something endorsed by the scientific skepticism organization as a whole (official statement voted upon by the board, etc.). Simões (talk/contribs) 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to fit there, either. Ghost hunting is not an obscure 'one or two proponents' situation, as it has thousands of devotees and at least two popular reality TV shows purporting it as being scientifically-based. Oh well, no harm done. We'll just have to let it retain its claims as a science for the time being. --- LuckyLouie 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I see that the topic is included in :category:pseudoscience and the CSICOP criticisms are present in the article, so such claims aren't going unaddressed.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see why we shouldn't just throw it in under Parapsychology. That seems to be the easy answer to the problem. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost hunting

message: I note the article says "Shamanism is a New Age movement that often involves questionable marketing practices, cultural biases, and plain fraud". Is this a joke, Shamanism is as old as human (pre)history. Even according to the main wiki article, "Shamanism refers to a range of traditional beliefs and practices concerned with communication with the spirit world." How in God's name does (unsourced) garbage like this get to be in an article for more than two seconds.Davkal 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're giving the anthropological definition, which has nothing to do with the newfangled shamanism qua New Age movement. I got the definition from the given source. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See neoshamanism. The quick fix here is to simply change the wikilink. Also, Shermer didn't write any of the entries. Simões (talk/contribs) 13:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A further problem is what is says after the name - "movement that often involves questionable marketing practices, cultural biases, and plain fraud", which, as far as it actually means anything (although that is doubtful), tells us nothing whatsoever about the thing other than it seems to be very bad. If things like "neoshamanism" are going to be included, then a let more work is going to have to be done to get proper definitions, as well as, I think, a far more accurate statement at the top explaining exactly how such things come to be in a list appropriate for inlusion in Wiki.Davkal 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to elaborate on that entry, knock yourself out. Simões (talk/contribs) 14:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Elaboration - the definition says nothing about the subject and is nothing more than vitriol. If it is not changed it will be removed.Davkal 14:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to be  disruptive. - LuckyLouie 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shamanism

message: I have added the totally disputed tag because this article is a bit of a joke. The definitions bear almost no relation to the articles they are linked to in more cases than I can list. There is no way this article can remain in anything like it's present form.Davkal 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: totaly disputed

message: Go ahead and rewrite the definitions as you see fit. Defining the terms without the "purported" or "alleged" language is fine so long as you don't then use the terms in a way that implies their existence. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm alone on this view. :\ Simões (talk/contribs) 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I slugged in some neutral defintions from the appropriate WP article leads. The Parapsychology article is currently disputed, so copying that lead does not seem appropriate, but in the interests of improving this article perhaps there can be some compromise reached which suits both Martinphi and others. LuckyLouie 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions