From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
| Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.
- The four groupings found at WP:PSCI
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
|
 |
In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. |
|
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
| Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 List |
This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussion(s) if you are considering re-nomination:
|
[edit] yawn... article title... again
(Putting in a separate section but referring to levine et al's comments above) Yes, this is turning into a tedious discussion. But I thought last time we discussed changing it we were close to a consensus for changing the title? I've been watching developments (though I haven't done much with the article, so don't want to intrude) and it really seems like it would solve (or an least reduce) many of the problems with the inclusion criteria if we changed the title. Most of the comments since I commented on this issue last time have been in favour. Time somebody actually moved it? (I'm probably not going to though.) CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, maybe it's worth starting a new page - 'list of pseudosciences' - we can have both, as they're separate things. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do not think we were, nor have I seen any new arguments in a long while. We actually do (and should) follow WP:Verifiability with our inclusion criteria by only allowing sources reliable to the topic at hand, not just any old statement by whatever notable body. If any specific entries are problematic, please start a new section below. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- The last archive (13), near the bottom. How about starting a new page that is just 'pseudoscientific topics'? As a new, separate page, that is. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I find it extremely hard to take this suggestion seriously. The present title was a compromise, because the problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is a famously hard one and the purpose of this list is (or rather: should be) to illustrate this with examples. A second list that simply duplicates Category:Pseudoscience would be useless. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- What, actually, is the point of this article? Is it - as you say - to provide only a few examples, or is it intended as a comprehensive list of topics that meet the inclusion criteria? The introduction indicates the latter, but that is going to become looooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggg... CheesyBiscuit (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Another candidate
Here is a good candidate. It looks like an exemplar pseudoscience
http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#
Lee Shiao Ming (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Neuro-linguistic programming is in category Pseudoscience, and should be described here. That article has been the subject of multiple mediations and has been before the Arbitration committee at least once. Please be especially careful to use and represent with scrupulous fairness reliable sources (general comment, I have not yet perused the above knol). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Handwriting
Graphology is only superficially related to forensic document examination, which also examines handwriting.
Forensic document examination is not psuedoscience. This section should be worded more carefully, to make this clear. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- The quote says that graphology isn't forensic document examination, and it is graphology that is called a PS. Verbal chat 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Memetics
Deleted memetics, references to the "mainstream considerations as psedoscience" were Aaron Lynch an american writer, Luis Benitez bribiesca a medic in a 2 page essay, and Alister McGrath a well know opponent of Dawkins. The three hold opinnions on the matter and dont add "the mainstream" support as presented. Looking for more solid references to revert the edit. 190.158.6.164 (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- My analysis parallels that of 190, above. I am not finding any indication from sources reliable to make the distinction that as pseudoscience is a notable description of memetics. The main article includes some criticism, but it does not appear to be widespread. If someone else can find a rock solid source for inclusion it should go back in the article, but I do not see it at present. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- The article is "topics characterized as pseudoscience". I would suggest that only a single reference is required to pass a characterized test. You state "some criticism" which is sufficient for a "characterization". BRIANTIST (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Focusing on what a single source or significant minority of sources say would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Everything in the world could be characterized as pseudoscience based upon a single reference if that reference just blanket labels everything that way. It has to rise to a level of significance in multiple reliable sources before it should be mentioned. (And to clarify, I am not opposed to memetics being listed presuming it has enough solid sources. I know a number of people think it is hooey, or at the very least that a lot of the claims associated with it are nonsense, but whether the people saying that are notable or have bothered to publish on the topic is another question. (I also did not specifically check the sources above, so there may be room to disagree with the above posters on those points, but I am just responding to rebut the idea that a single source makes something worth mentioning here.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- My main concern is that we use sources generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (emphasis in original). It is my assessment that the sources presented do not satisfy the inclusion criteria at the head of this article, but I am willing to be convinced (hence moving it here for discussion). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] References
Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.
