Talk:List of pseudoscience topics/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about List of pseudoscience topics. 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 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Koranic scientific foreknowledge

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Moved from article for discussion.

Koranic scientific foreknowledge (or Qur'anic science or Hadeeth science) asserts that foundational Islamic religious texts made accurate statements about the world that science verified hundreds of years later. This belief is a common theme in Bucailleism.^[1] According to Turkish American physicist Taner Edis, many Muslims appreciate technology and respect the role that science plays in its creation. As a result, he says there is a great deal of Islamic pseudoscience attempting to reconcile this respect with other respected religious beliefs. Edis maintains that the motivation to read modern scientific truths into holy books is also stronger for Muslims than Christians.^[2] This is because, according to Edis, true criticism of the Quran is almost non-existent in the Muslim world, causing Muslims to believe that scientific truths simply must appear in the Quran.^[2]

My objections are that the first source never mentions pseudoscience, Islam, or the Koran. Maybe other words are used? That leaves one podcast, and only one source is not good enough sourcing for inclusion here. This is why we require an independent article, or inclusion in an article, that specifically mentions the topic and uses more than one RS to label it as pseudoscience. This prevents gaming the system, because anyone can find one or more sources that labels anything as pseudoscience. We can't allow that here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

References

↑ Parkins, Michael D.; Szekrenyes, J. (March 2001). "Pharmacological Practices of Ancient Egypt" (PDF). Proceedings of the 10th Annual History of Medicine. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 7 November 2010.
1 2 "Reasonable Doubts Podcast". CastRoller. 2014-07-11. Archived from the original on 2013-05-23. Retrieved 2014-07-23.

The "more than one RS" seems to be a made-up requirement. The topic of this list is "topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience." Here we have a topic that has been characterized as pseudoscience. The characterization was made by a reliable source, a notable physicist and skeptic. We also have an article on the topic, Islamic attitudes towards science, that mentions the same thing.

This isn't original research, this is a WP:BLUESKY situation. This applies to any religion that has writings predating modern science, not just Islam and Christianity. I would advocate combining the sections in Christianity and Islam and simply call it "Religious scientific foreknowledge", and including any further examples that can be found from Hinduism or other religions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not denying that religion and pseudoscience are often connected, but such a low bar as this presentation opens the door wide to gaming the system. First establish the subject strongly in an article with several good sources, then bring it here. If that can't be done, then the claim becomes a fringe claim, and I'm pretty sure it isn't. So bolster the concept better. This isn't a list for isolated claims with scanty sourcing. You can do much better than this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's more sources that mention this as pseudoscience: And here are 1 and 2 better sources verifying Edis (neither is a podcast and both are considered reliable sources). — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I believe it belongs, it just needed better sourcing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is this list even allowed to exist? Answered.

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

The strict inclusion criteria were a condition. There was a lot of resistance when we tried to create and keep this list in existence, and only after these inclusion criteria were formulated and enforced did we finally find peace, and the list has now been here for a very long time. IIRC, we had the whole community against us, but they finally backed off.

The current attempts to circumvent or weaken those conditions will endanger the list again. Please don't go there. Learn from history. Those who forget history are doomed to have their work destroyed. Is this a joe job? (Bad joke. I don't believe that for a moment.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I was not there at the time, but I understand your concern and your reticence to test something like that again. But I would still ask you: do you think the community has, in any way, changed in the time since? I think it very possibly has. In my mind, all consensus has a time past which it should be challenged. Deletions are absolutely subject to a changing consensus. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

In the last decade the whole WP:FRINGE scene on enwp has matured. I know ජපස (jps) has had some thoughts on this. Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, but sourcing is still a requirement here. It always will be. WE "know" this stuff, but it isn't sky is blue to far too many preople, so we provide what RS say. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:V cannot be shirked. Bon courage (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed that SKYBLUE is not enough. But I just don't think we should require also that petty squabbles on the parent articles of each one always be resolved in favor of the word "pseudoscience" if we have a very good sourcing here to show it is. It just means we should also have good sourcing there, but was either lost or never added! — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

What inclusion criteria are used for this list? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I still don't like the title of the article. It should just be list of pseudosciences. But whatever.... ....My opinion from years past was that the ideal framing for this list with an eye towards WP:LISTCRIT should be to find excellent sources that say "X is psuedoscience" or a directly equivalent argument and then just list the idea without much commentary.... but the problem comes in when you hit things like psychoanalysis or string theory where I can point to severe critics who are pretty reliable doing just that with some controversy. This isn't even counting the unreliable idiots saying things like modern synthesis is pseudoscience or whatnot. ....Long and the short of this is that I think that the current ugly compromise is about as functional we can get as long as Wikipedia lacks an editorial board (which, let's be honest, it always will). jps (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

To be included in this list, do potential pseudosciences have to be characterized as such by a consensus of the mainstream scientific community, or just by a significant proportion? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

By reliable source(s). Many source don't even consider the pseudoscience categorization. For any description explicitly of "consensus" (a special case) WP:RS/AC is required. Bon courage (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It is very hard to judge consensus of the mainstream scientific community without consensus statements from umbrella organizations or dedicated studies. This typically only happens when the idea in question is gaining traction beyond what the vast majority of identified pseudosciences ever enjoy. Normally it's in a political context. So it's easy to point to "consensus statements" for things like global warming denialism or creationism, but obvious instances of pseudoscience like Ancient Aliens or ghost hunting are only parochially criticized. Because of this, we necessarily need to rely on individual reliable sources and it isn't particularly useful to the reader to distinguish in compendiums like this between "consensus" instances and otherwise because often it's the most obvious cases of pseudoscience that get the least attention. Rather than trying to decide what the "community" thinks, it is best to find excellent sources which explain the pseudoscientific nature of an idea and leave it at that. For the vast majority of ideas, that'll be good enough. Edge cases will exist, however, but it is important not to get distracted by this. It is in the interest of WP:PROFRINGE to argue that their particular idea is at least an edge case, and often that is not a well-supported or good-faith argument. jps (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This is where WP:Parity comes into play. We don't need major scientific sources. Subject matter experts will do. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

So what happens if subject-area experts (or scientific sources) disagree over categorization? Does the benefit of the doubt go towards characterization or non-characterization? (Roughly) what percent of subject-area experts need to characterize a topic as pseudoscientific before it is listed here? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The benefit of the doubt goes to whomever doesn't have their whole reputation riding on the matter and whomever isn't making money off it. It's quality, not quantity. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. But what about genuinely contestable topics, such as the simulation theory or superdeterminism?, or other areas where there's no money? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRIND, in so many words. Independence matters. jps (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Since neither of those topics is listed on this page, I don't see the relevance. These are invented cases. In general, on Wikipedia, we care about actual subjects which are actually implicated, not hypothetical ones. We operate on a case-by-case basis, not generalized logical or theoretical constructs without concrete examples. Wikipedia is not a scientific discipline, or a mathematical theorem. It is a contradictory, imperfect, and ever-changing enterprise which only gets closer to the ideal if and when our sources do.

In other words, any attempts to create hard and fast rules, or logical "gotchas" will inevitably fail. We operate on community consensus. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria / Edit note

Latest comment: 3 years ago33 comments10 people in discussion

This list article does not have a "proper" edit note. It should.

Currently there is some disagreement regarding whether we should require that the entry be described as pseudoscience in the main article. There is a hidden editors note somewhere that states this requirement, but apparently it was added without discussion many years ago.

So, let's try to craft an edit note, and address whether the above requirement should be part of the inclusion criteria.

Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we need one though? Since the early days of this article the WP:PAGs have moved on and WP:FRINGE become well established. We could say material here should be in WP:SYNC with main topic article, but I would oppose anything which implied editing had to be done in a certain sequence of that lack of WP:SYNC'd content was an excuse to delete well-sourced content from anywhere. Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are several reasons why each entry should already be described as pseudoscience in the main article:

WP:POVFORK - "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article"
WP:FRINGE - is this a fact and major point of view? Hard to tell if we (are) showing "broadly supported by scholarship" or just cherry picked sources.
WP:LISTPURP-NAV - list is (or has become) a navigation list, a series of linked articles (topics) that all contain the feature topics characterized as pseudoscience - content needs to be there to be indexed here.
INVISIBLE to editors working on the topic. There can be allot of name calling here and those who know the topic (editors of the topic) will never see it. Best to bring up material at the linked article where it can be evaluated to see if it meets guidelines and policy.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The material should be in sync, but the problem is elevating this into an absolute requirement, so that editors can use the lack of synchronisation as an excuse to delete content, even if it is well-sourced. Also some topics (e.g. Earthing therapy) are so obscure they don't even have a main article, but are worth mentioning here. Bon courage (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No edit note, please. I see no reason why we should require that the primary article A) exist, B) directly claim in the body that it is pseudoscience. It should be enough that we have sources here describing it as such. That is the inherent nature of WP:V. Yes, consistency is good (and should be the goal), but it isn't a mandate, and it isn't about having "first one article say something then the other". There is no hierarchy of list vs content articles on wikipedia. it's all the same jazz. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It should be enough that we have sources here describing it as such. By that standard Climate change and Evolution belong on this list. Anyone could just start a POVFORK here. Hence the note added by Valjean is a pretty good idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those is a particularly fair comparison. I would urge you to please WP:STEELMAN instead of straw-man. The overall weight of sources for both lean towards it being an accepted practice among experts. AA and 12-step do not have that, they are more in the realm of "minority views which are controversial". It is only recently that these have had beneficial evidence published in reliable sources per WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDSCI. Absolutely nothing like evolution or climate change. In this instance, we have accepted experts who are publishing in scholarly sources which are saying 'This is controversial and has been criticized as pseudoscience'. And we do not have a clear scholarly consensus that it is not pseudoscience. We have only some limited sourcing showing some benefit. It's far from academic consensus that these programs are beneficial. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

per WP:STEELMAN, check my edit history at this topic. Like I said above, this article is the wrong place to debate inclusion. You are making augments that belong on the 12-step page, that's where all the sourcing, the UNDUE comparison, and the experts are. With a fluffy title like "characterized as pseudoscience" and a WP:CONTENTIOUS claim we are on a sliding scale somewhere between including everything and deleting this list (it has been proposed). A WP:LSC based on this being a rip-and-read list of already existent (and verified) article content in Wikipedia is a reasonable middle ground. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it absolutely is not. Wikipedia articles are not WP:RSes and should not be treated as such; there is no reason to think that any individual article on Wikipedia has gotten more attention or has more eyes on it than this list, and therefore no reason why a difference between the two should automatically be resolved in favor of other articles. Either the sourcing exists or it doesn't; if it exists, it should be easy to pull it up here. If it doesn't, pointing to the other article is inappropriate, and trying to ignore valid sources because they haven't been added to another article is likewise inappropriate. There is a reason why MOS:COMMENT forbids comments that try to overtly "set rules" the way this one does, and why the process of adding an edit note is so difficult; editors are not supposed to casually create their own sweeping absolute rules for every topic area. Plainly this page is getting plenty of attention and discussion now, and WP:FRINGEN exists if there's a dispute here; that means that you haven't demonstrated even an iota of the level of problems that would be needed for the sorts of sweeping bespoke requirements you're trying to impose here, not when we have detailed and well-established systems for dealing with these exact problems already. If the question of whether something is pseudoscience was already discussed and settled on another page, you should be able to point to the discussion and repeat the arguments from there, and take it to WP:FRINGEN if that fails to settle things. --Aquillion (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Pointing to the other articles that already have verified content (and requiring, or strongly urging, that it be there) is appropriate per: WP:POVFORK (Forks are not permitted on Wikipedia), WP:LISTPURP-NAV (navigating a reader to a list that contains certain content), and WP:SOURCELIST (consider if the list's format allows room for all the details of competing views in the list item or if those details should only be covered in the linked, main article on the topic. Either way, make sure to add them to the main article if they are not already there). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Support adding an editnotice. If the description, characterization, or label of 'pseudoscience' doesn't pass (or isn't included) at the primary article, editors could easily start a WP:POVFORK here, which violates WP:NPOV. For example, consensus at [topic] is that it's not pseudoscience, but a random editor could find a random source or two (meeting WP:RS standards) which describes it as such and then add it to this article, arguing that the sources "characterize it as pseudoscience". I also support keeping the hidden note: Some1 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Err, if a truly reliable source has stated that something is pseudoscience, per WP:NPOV we are obliged to reflect that, and prominently, per WP:PSCI. NPOV is not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
See the example given above by Fountains of Bryn Mawr on Climate change and Evolution. A random editor could cherry pick some random RS to say that a topic is pseudoscience and add it to this article, when there's consensus on the primary article against labeling it as such. That's one of the reasons why the articles should be in sync, to prevent WP:POVFORKS. Some1 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
A random editor could cherry pick some random RS to say that a topic is pseudoscience and add it to this article, when there's consensus on the primary article against labeling it as such
Our existing policies of WP:RSUW, WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia:Scientific consensus handle that situation pretty well already. This is also probably the most watched article on the site by subscribers of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard! Any addition of material like that to this page would be removed pretty quickly, citing the aforementioned policies. This is a solution looking for a problem, imo. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
List articles are based on existing articles. (On topics that are notable enough to deserve their own article, hence we required they prove it by being created and surviving the usual AFDs. THEN they can be listed in a list article.) That's been standard practice for eons. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
That's not always true. Sometimes topics are obscure enough not to deserve a standalone article, but per WP:NOPAGE are worth mentioning in the list. And while of course having everything lined up is best practice, making it an absolute requirement on a par with things in WP:BLP seems like asking for gaming trouble. Bon courage (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Fringe theories noticeboard.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

However much I wish that were true, it's not. WP:NLIST says Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable .... As long as you have a few sources that mention the the idea of the items as a group, you can have a list of anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That would mean this entire group or set would have to have appeared en masse in a few reliable sources... that exists? Per the Arbitration Ruling noted at the top of this talk page, this is not a list of anything, it has limits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That would mean this entire group or set would have to have appeared en masse in a few reliable sources
That's not what NLIST means. It means "things characterized as pseudoscience" as a concept has appeared in RS. And we have entire encyclopedias about pseudoscience, so that sourcing is very robust.

The alternative (the entire list would have to have appeared all together in RSes) is such a high burden, extremely few (if any) lists would ever meet it, and we would probably not have any lists on wikipedia. It also is not a logical conclusion from the phrasing at NLIST which says: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Because if that were the bar, then we wouldn't need this sentence at all, as the source showing each member would also show notability for each individual. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No edit note per Shibbolethink. Having RS that call a topic pseudoscience explicitly (or something obviously equivalent) is enough. However we should not be including ideas that are simply based on dubious methodologies or alternative theoretical foundations in this list. Or topics that are primarily legitimate but have some fringe elements, like say Hair analysis or Psychometrics. The key difference is in how the RS describe these topics broadly. Generalrelative (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I honestly don't know enough about Hair analysis to say anything about it. But psychometrics, I would tell you, has a lot of RSes which describe a long history of pseudoscience even if there are parts of it that are valid. E.g. And things like personality testing (Myers-Briggs, OCEAN, et al) are explicitly pseudoscience:
So this is an example of a field with a lot of pseudoscience within it, but also some elements of real science. I think in such instances, we should include it but accurately describe the state of the field, that there are some valid things, and also some invalid things. And that would be compliant with FRINGE imo. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm mostly in agreement with this, and where we disagree essentially comes down to a judgment call. I'd suggest that a topics like psychometrics is a great limit case for discussing the boundary of what belongs in this list precisely because so much of it is bunk. My own view is that because the entire topic is not usually described as pseudoscience, it doesn't belong in this list. This essentially comes down to an intuition about how readers are mostly likely going to use and understand the list. But reasonable minds may certainly disagree here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We wouldn't want to exclude topics just because they're not notable enough for their own WP article. A lot of pseudoscience is not notable, but people coming here after hearing about them deserve at least a little guidance. I'd say that if we have no article, we should have an RS (best an accessible RS) here describing it as pseudoscience for those who wish to follow up on it. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Support adding an editnotice with requirement that each listing has a main article and has a description as pseudoscience in that main article per WP:LSC/broad subject and WP:NPOV/WP:RSUW/WP:FRINGE. WP:LSC notes "notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject" and WP:NPOV/WP:RSUW/WP:FRINGE is the icing on the cake - you need an article on the topic where all RS, policy, and guidelines have been hashed out re:whether a topic can be, or can not be, tagged with pseudoscience. It has the added bonus of preventing long talk pages here full of arguments and long reference text walls (scroll up for example). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Support adding an editnotice per Bryn Mawr and this comment. This prevents gaming the system, because anyone can find a few sources about any topic claiming it's PS. That won't do. It should only be here because it's described as PS because it actually is PS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Do not add edit note at least until there's some actual wording to consider. I understand the motivation, and it's true that best practice is that knowledge will be synchronized across articles. However, there are some edge cases where this doesn't work (where the topic doesn't have a standalone article), and there's a danger in effect of making a new POLICY with such a note, especially if it adopts "you are required" or "you must" wording. Ultimately, article content is governed by the WP:PAGs and not by the content of other articles. Is there any evidence in recent years that there's a problem here that needs fixing? I could get on board with something milder (something like "Where a main article exists on a topic in the list, content here should reflect content there with regard to pseudoscience" ?) Bon courage (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The existing note has served just fine for years. It was removed without any consensus or need. Keep it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  - Does anybody see it? Using the visual editor or editing a section, users won't. And (ironically) it's out-of-sync with the FAQ here. The HTML comment was modified by Valjean in 2013 to include the provision under discussion. Bon courage (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    - It's not for readers, just editors, and I see no reason why a version shouldn't be an edit note that appears to anyone before they can make an edit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

For reference, the text of the current edit note is below. It resides inside an html comment near the top of the article.

NOTE ON SOURCES AND INCLUSION:

WP:RS states that sources must be generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

WP:V states that [t]he appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.

Please note that due to the controversial nature of the label "Pseudoscience", we must demand a reliable source from an appropriate source in order to include it. If something seems to be obviously pseudoscience, then either such a source likely exists somewhere or it isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion.

The inclusion criteria must necessarily be strict enough that notability should be established at the main article first, using RS. So ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here.

UNSOURCED entries WILL BE REMOVED in order to keep this list clear of original research and possible NPOV violations.
For more clarification, see the top of the talk page.

It is my strong preference that we should either:

a) Move it (with perhaps some revisions) to a "proper" edit note so that it is visible to anyone who edits the page before the do so.

OR

b) Remove it since it makes no sense to have inclusion criteria that nobody can see.

I do not have a strong opinion on which is preferable. But we need to do one or the other. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd add that everything in that note is already covered by standard wikipedia policies, except for:

"The inclusion criteria must necessarily be strict enough that notability should be established at the main article first, using RS. So ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here."

So the note is mostly redundant. Those two sentences seem to be the sticking point. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose both the proposed content of this edit note and any edit note or comment that directly instructs editors to do or not do something. First, articles and lists are ultimately edited independently; their content doesn't, and shouldn't, depend on what's stated elsewhere on the wiki. A hard requirement that the main article for something on a list say X or Y is totally inappropriate and should never have been suggested, let alone written by an inappropriate inline comment (see MOS:COMMENT; such comments are directly contrary to the MOS.) Inclusion or exclusion here depends on sourcing, consensus, and WP:FRINGE; a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on another page cannot become a binding one wiki-wide in the way that this edit note would try to enforce. It does not, and should not, matter one iota whether our article on a topic says something or not - only WP:RSes matter, and the article is not an RS. Finally, none of the discussions above have actually demonstrated the level of problems that would require a detailed edit note (but even if it were, the focus should be on sourcing, only on sourcing. I would never support even the suggestion that editors should consider what another Wikipedia article says before adding it here, let alone trying to make it a requirement; it is utterly inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

CENTRALIZED TO TALK:HOLOCAUST DENIAL

This discussion is stalling, so lets form a consensus at the appropriate talk page.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I tried adding holocaust denial to the list, and the edit was reverted. If Holocause is not a pseudoscience, then many topics here would need to be removed as well. DTMGO (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You'd need a good source saying "holocaust denial" was pseudoscience. I'd be surprised if one existed, though certain element of HD are pseudoscientific (e.g. analysis of gas chamber walls to "prove" no gas was there - see Leuchter report). Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, if Holocaust is not a pseudoscience, then many topics here would need to be removed as well. Because many topics here don't have a good source saying that they are a pseudoscience. DTMGO (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage There you go. Here you have a reputable source backing up the statement that Holocaust denialism is a pseudoscience: "There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences." DTMGO (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not that great, and also says "The misrepresentations of history presented by Holocaust deniers and other pseudo-historians are very similar in nature to the misrepresentations of natural science promoted by creationists and homeopaths", making a distinction between science and other fields of misrepresentation. Other (published) sources say HD is pseudohistory.. Let's see what others think ... Bon courage (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a mention is warranted, if we focus it on the elements of pseudoscience that are perpetrated in support of HD. The focus should be on these things, not the pseudohistory elements. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Since that one is just a passing mention, I think we should try and find more sources, especially to give us better guidance as to how to cover it. I think pseudohistory and pseudoscience are usually categorized differently. By my reading that entry is mostly discussing some of the pseudoscience holocaust deniers use, which may be worth covering here but which we'd probably need more sources going into detail on. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
There may be enough to say something about pseudoscientific aspects of Holocaust denial. The term has definitely been applied: In the 1970s, Holocaust denial took up more sophisticated pseudoscientific methods . Holocaust deniers, and the media they use, are changing as a consequence of international political developments. [...] New forms of this propaganda encompassed pseudoscientific books and papers [...] Many of the pseudoscientific publications available internationally were published under cover of fictitious academic publishing houses. [...] The very public destruction of David Irving's already tarnished reputation, as a result of his libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, effectively undermined the position of the pseudoscientific deniers, as did the more recent conviction of Germar Rudolf. Some years ago Fred Leuchter attempted to prove technically that Zyklon B was not used in the gas chambers. His lack of any engineering qualification was the subject of a successful criminal action in the American courts and his capacity to comment was curtailed. It is possible that the terms "pseudoscience" and "pseudohistory" have been used in overlapping ways, to an extent, which would then raise the question of whether it is our job to disentangle them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the entry again with the following edit summary: "You need to do more than mention the source on the talk page. You need to add multiple RS to the main Holocaust denial article, and if they are accepted there, then return here and restore the entry here." We have strict standards here to prevent this page from becoming a massive hit piece backed by very limited sourcing. List articles require that each listing is notable, and that is proven to us by the creation of an article. Then, to be listed at THIS list, that article must document, using multiple RS, that the subject is considered pseudoscientific. There may be certain aspects of HD that are pseudoscientific, so document that at the article. Otherwise, the whole subject is not considered pseudoscientific. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that this topic has been forumshopped by DTMGO on several articles. We need to limit it to one place. Right now I have commented at Talk:Pseudoscience#Holocaust_denial_is_a_pseudoscience. Can we keep all discussion there? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

By several articles you mean just two articles, right? DTMGO (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought I saw three: Pseudoscience, List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, and Holocaust denial, but I now see that you apparently didn't comment at the last one, so it's only the first two. Sorry for causing confusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

DTMGO Why don't you try discussing at the Holocaust denial article itself first on whether that's considered pseudoscience or not? Per the hidden notice on this article: ...ensure that the main article first contains proper information documenting that the subject is labeled as pseudoscience before entering the item here. UNSOURCED entries WILL BE REMOVED in order to keep this list clear of original research and possible NPOV violations. Some1 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Though of course, and leaving aside the pros and cons of this particular question, the "hidden notice" has zero WP:PAG force, so feel free to ignore. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but that hidden notice needs to be removed or reworded. Per MOS:COMMENT it is not appropriate to use a hidden notice to directly instruct an editor not do something - you can say "there's an established consensus for X, see [link]" if there's a clear, definitive consensus for something that you can link to, and can remind them of policy or suggest that they also update X if they update Y, but a hidden notice saying "do not add anything here that is not called a pseudoscience in its own article" (or words to that effect) is not acceptable. At best you could point editors towards a discussion establishing that consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion about the hidden note at Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Inclusion_criteria_/_Edit_note if you'd like to add your thoughts and/or proposal for re-wording it. Some1 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eugenics

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The eugenics entry mentions that eugenics was a pseudoscience, with journals publishing articles in USA and many other countries, for example.

I will prepare an edit draft for your consideration. DTMGO (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the sociology section of the article i want to add Mises' praxeology as a pseudocience. Numerous arguments show it's incapacity to make predictions for the invalidity of it's axioms. An example of it's invalidity is it's view around macro-economics, which ignores how complex systems work, like society itself.

I'm going to put some sources... which are NOT all that i'm going to use in the article....

Philophical point of view: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-019-02150-8

Here is talked about Bunge's work around the philosophy of science and it's view around praxeology : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-021-09553-7 Rodrigo IB (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Illusion Flame (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Phantom time hypothesis

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i have prepared the phantom time hypothesis in the history section any problem are there then you can edit it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Politics

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is it required to create a page for political science in social science section since they are more pseudoscience theories like 2020 us election fraud theory conducted by Donald Trump Ppppphgtygd (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

do we have secondary sources which describe that theory as pseudoscience? I would just call it "misinformation." — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

like JFKs assassination conspiracy theories Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with Shibbolethink here. If this list becomes too bloated with tangential topics better classified as misinformation, its usefulness to our readers will be compromised. Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship questions

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Whether is it necessary to add Shakespeare authorship question in pseudoscience or its is better to create a new article on the list of pseudohistory Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove "History" section?

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I would argue that the entire "History" section should be removed, and any non-repetitive content should be added to the "Categories and examples" section of Pseudohistory. We could then include a link to that article in the "See also" here.

My argument for this is rather pragmatic and straightforward: There is simply so much pseudohistory out there that I imagine the scope could creep on and on and on. If this proposal is rejected, I strongly encourage a pruning of the section to include only those pseudohistorical narratives that RS have described as involving pseudoscientific arguments, e.g. Holocaust denial (as discussed here). Generalrelative (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

yes you are right but some of them like Adolf Hitler's death theory, holocaust denial, Armenian genocide denial and holodomor and myth of christ is should be included as pseudoscience since science concepts like genetics and dna are used. Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We have Pseudohistory, which includes its own list and identifies Historical negationism and Pseudoarchaeology as articles with further information (each having their own lists). Maybe we just list a few, highly noteworthy examples while identifying the articles that have further lists and information. --Hipal (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this, especially if they are examples with notable pseudoscientific aspects, like Holocaust denial.

And in reply to the previous comment: there is nothing even remotely pseudohistorical about the Holodomor. Presumably you are talking about Holodomor denial? Generalrelative (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

ok it was a mistake.sorry Ppppphgtygd (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries :) Generalrelative (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Misleading image

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The top Image of the Big Bang according to WMAP/Planck does not belong in this article. It could cause casual readers to misunderstand that it is part of pseudoscience instead of the well-confirmed cosmological model that it is. Unfortunately, I have not yet found a way in the mobile app to remove it, so someone else please do it (and replace it with a more fitting image if possible). PointedEars (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That image, the only one in the article, represents the broader topic of "Science" - of which this topic is a small part.

It is an excellent image to do that. - Roxy the dog 06:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Clunky Wording

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The technology subsection has this phrase describing 5G conspiracy theories:

"theory proposing that 5G causes health issues and also causes COVID-19."

This wording seems quite clunky and poor-written. I propose it should be changed to:

"a theory proposing that 5G causes health issues, including COVID-19."

I would change it myself, but article is semi-protected (and for good reason).

Wikisincerely, 2601:600:9080:A4B0:C5F6:3A3F:38B1:6B3 (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

EMDR does not claim to be a science

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Collins dictionary defines pseudoscience as "a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science". . EMDR practioners do not claim a scientific base for it. Thus EMDR is not a pseudoscience. . (It just empirically works for some people (and is thus recommended by WHO, NICE, etc).) 5.66.63.86 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, we don't care about what Collins defines as pseudoscience. We care about what things our sources say have been characterized as pseudoscience. Hence the name of the article.

And, additionally, EMDR practitioners do indeed claim a scientific basis: — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

ridiculous. I'm sure somebody somewhere, to use an example from the EMDR talk page, thinks thinks that "Steaming your vagina" has a science basis. That does not mean that is the consensus view. 5.66.63.86 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Follow the sources and all will be well. Suggest we're done here. Bon courage (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hypnosis and hypnotherapy are not pseudoscience. There are many solid studies showing strong evidence, especially in the areas of pain and depression. The American Psychological Association (APA), specifically division 30, recognizes hypnosis as a science and provides definitions for each term involving hypnosis.

Here is an article showing evidence of how hypnosis is as effective as cognitive-behavioral therapy for mild to moderate depression in a randomized controlled rater-blind clinical trial (strong evidence):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032721002032

Here are some additional articles that provide evidence of the effects of hypnosis:

Pain: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465776/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10801169/

Hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7751482/

If you need more information, please contact me.

Thanks. Meltbreak (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Note that the top of the page says: This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers (emphasis added). So, regardless if you want to litigate whether it's actually pseudoscience or not (I don't!), I feel like it's a good fit for this page, because the in-line reliable sources do classify it as such. Bestagon ⬡ 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Any entries not linked to existing articles?

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

Please list any you find right here so we can examine them. If they are notable enough for their own article, or are mentioned in an article, they may qualify for this list. Otherwise not. Individual entries in lists must be notable, in contrast to content in other articles. When they qualify for mention as a subtopic in an existing article, that article is often enough to justify their mention here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Individual entries in lists must be notable, in contrast to content in other articles This entire comment appears to be exercising your subjective opinion as a requirement for this article. It is certainly not the consensus in the section above or at WP:LISTN or WP:FTN, not by my reading.

WP:LISTN says: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

All seem to be linked articles. Found one MOS:EASTEREGG but fixed it, topic seems to be extensive. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

'pseudoscience' not mentioned in the article

Here's a list of topics that do not include any variations of the word "pseudoscience" in the body of their respective articles, but are listed in this article. ~~So far I've gotten to Hexagonal water, so the list below isn't complete yet.~~

Some1 (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. This presents an obvious problem. Their connection to pseudoscience should all be mentioned in their articles. If we are so weak that they are only mentioned here, but not in their articles, then the case is very weak for connecting them to pseudoscience at all, and I suspect that most here know that's not the case. It just needs to be done. If attempts to document them as pseudoscience in their parent articles fails (and that's an acid test), then they should not be mentioned here, unless we're going to endorse gaming the system here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think you have a valid concern. But I will also say, going through this list, an extremely high proportion of these are WP:SKYBLUE pseudoscience.

I think, looking at these, it will be possible to find sources for many of these which are of very high quality, reliable, verifiable, and describe the topic as one of: "alternative medicine", "discounted science", "dismissed science", "using flawed methodology", or some version of "(very/extremely/highly) implausible", if not outright "pseudoscientific", "falsely using the trappings of science" or "not employing the scientific method". I would say WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY tells us that such sources, in the absence of reliable sources saying the contrary, that we should include them on this list. I am willing to post a boilerplate message about such sources on each talk page. If we could demonstrate that, and yet there develops a local consensus on the page against inclusion, then I would want to take it to WP:FTN to be a more final consensus arbiter. Because my guess is that these each very likely had "pseudoscience" in their text at some point, and then removed with an imperfect or narrow consensus. And overall, We need some time to evaluate them before removing en masse.

I mean really, consider Vaccines and autism, 5G conspiracies, 5G causes coronavirus, Time Cube, Geocentric model. These are extremely well-known pseudoscience.

I'd like to add sources to your list for consideration @Some1. Would that be alright? — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Amusingly, Time cube was mentioned by arbcom as an example of obvious pseudoscience in that old ruling ... Bon courage (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add sources in a new comment below; that way the list above is more readable (with just bare article links instead of references following them) and it'll be easier for items to be striken off the list later. Also, thanks for working on finding sources for these topics; since you've found some already, maybe you could add these to the parent articles? It doesn't need to be long, just a sentence or couple of sentences saying the topic has been characterized as pseudoscience/pseudo-scientific, etc. (provided that the sources actually do explicitly say the topic is pseudoscience). Some1 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources for each list item

Each of the following is an item from the above list, with sources following which describe it as one of: "alternative medicine", "discounted science", "dismissed science", "using flawed methodology", (very/extremely/highly) implausible", "pseudoscientific", "falsely using the trappings of science" or "not employing the scientific method". Most just say "pseudoscience" and I'll put in the source a quote when it does not.

The Face on Mars^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]
Lunar effect^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]
Geocentric model^[9]^[10]
Moon landing conspiracy theories^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]
Bermuda Triangle^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]
Autodynamics^[20]^[21]^[22]
Energy Catalyzer (newest example of cold fusion. to which this entry should be merged)^[23]^[24]^[25]
Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory^[26]
Electrogravitics^[27]^[28]^[29]
Free energy suppression conspiracy theory^[30]^[31]^[11]^[27]
Brilliant Light Power^[32]^[33]^[34] (Page also says: "The claims lack corroborating scientific evidence despite claims of experimental verification, and the proposed hydrino states are unphysical and incompatible with key equations of quantum mechanics.")
Dry needling^[35]^[36] (The page is also in Category:Pseudoscience as a term essentially synonymous with Acupuncture)
Acupressure^[37]^[38]
Twelve-step program^[39]
Alexander Technique^[40]^[41]^[42]^[43]^[44]^[45]
Alternative cancer treatments^[46]^[47]^[48]^[49]^[50]
Animal magnetism^[51]^[52]^[53] (described in wikitext as protoscientific, which would mean its current use is, via SKYBLUE, pseudoscientific. Also in short descriptor.)
Apitherapy^[54]^[55]^[56]^[57] (short descriptor lists pseudoscience)
Aromatherapy^[58]^[59]^[60] (short descriptor lists pseudoscience)
Lancet MMR autism fraud^[61]^[62]^[63]^[64] (I already added a mention of "pseudoscience" here)
Balneotherapy^[65]^[66]^[67]
Bates method^[68]^[69]^[70]
Biological terrain assessment^[71]^[72] (also in Category:Pseudoscience)
Chronic Lyme disease^[73]^[74]^[75]^[76]
Colon cleansing^[77]^[78]^[79]^[80]^[81] (included in Category:Pseudoscience)

Medical uses of silver^[82]^[83]^[84]^[85]^[86]^[87] (included in Category:Pseudoscience)
COVID-19 misinformation^[88]^[89]^[90]^[91]^[92]^[93]^[94] (included in Category:Pseudoscience)
Fasting^[95]^[96]
Hair analysis (alternative medicine)^[97]
Hexagonal water
Bach flower remedies
Leaky gut syndrome
The Lightning Process
Macrobiotic diet
Morgellons
Moxibustion
Oil pulling
Orthomolecular medicine
Pulse diagnosis
Tin foil hat
Urine therapy
Vaccines and autism
Vaccine hesitancy
Wilson's temperature syndrome
5G conspiracies and 5G causes coronavirus theories
Christ myth theory
Coding (therapy)
Feldenkrais Method
Hypnosis
Hypnotherapy

I could definitely use help with this, so anyone who wants to add sources, quotations, or challenge one of these sources, should feel free to do so!— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the citations on fasting are adequate. They say that various authors have made pseudoscientific claims about fasting; but they don't say that fasting itself is pseudoscience. Most fasting (religious and secular) isn't done for any claimed health benefits, so it's not a topic the label "pseudoscience" could be applied to. Nor have all the health benefits been debunked.

The article paragraph suffers from the same issue, since the sources just show that cure-all claims by quacks are pseudoscience. The underlying fasting practice is irrelevant; I've seen authors promote a whole foods diet as a cancer cure, but it's the "cancer cure" that's pseudoscience, not the whole foods diet. DFlhb (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

They say that various authors have made pseudoscientific claims about fasting; but they don't say that fasting itself is pseudoscience.
This article is about topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience. Various forms/types of fasting have been characterized as pseudoscience. That's what the sourcing shows.

Similar to medical uses of silver and aromatherapy, this does not mean all uses of it are pseudoscience. I love the way some essential oils smell, and I'll even use them to block out other smells under my mask during surgery, but I'm not going to use them to cure my patients' cancer. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Various forms/types of fasting have been characterized as pseudoscience. If that's the case, shouldn't this article be more specific and list these various forms of fasting, instead of fasting itself? Similar to how colloidal silver and aromatherapy are both listed on this article, but medical uses of silver and essential oils are not. Some1 (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, shouldn't this article be more specific and list these various forms of fasting
Sure. It should say something akin to "Some fasting diets have been connected to pseudoscientific claims" or similar. That's what we have the ability to verify. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why exorcism is included in this article. Exorcism is not claimed to be a scientific way of treating supernatural events. Exorcism, by definition, is a practice related to supernatural and non science related beliefs and ideas. To say that exorcism is 'pseudo science', one must first prove that Demonology is a pseudoscientific claim. MattJ7 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, since this is a list of topics that someone once called pseudoscience, rather than a list of topics that actually are pseudoscience, then that's probably not necessary. All we need is a source in which someone made the rather silly implicit claim that religion is a branch of science.

I wonder, though, whether the WP:List selection criteria for this list is actually restricted to pseudoscience? The sources for the Bates method above, for example, say that it's "fringe" and has "little or no scientific basis" and is "fallacious", but I don't see a characterization as pseudoscience in the quotations. Is this perhaps a List of some topics characterized as pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, or non-science? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Historically, people who believes in exorcism doesn't claim that it's has anything to do with natural philosophy/science. It has always been seen as a supernatural practice. So by definition, not scientific. It shouldn't matter if some random person claimed that exorcism is scientific. But if you really want to include exorcism in it, then you should atleast differentiate between that person's version of exorcism and all the other versions of exorcism. One of the most famous examples of exorcisms is Catholic exorcism. But the Catholic Church doesn't claim that exorcism is a part of science. So Catholic exorcisms cannot be called pseudoscience. There are numerous other examples like this. MattJ7 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this list is excluding things that have been called pseudoscience by a tiny minority of sources. The list section criteria are unclear to me.

When we're working on a list such as List of common misconceptions, we're usually pretty strict about what gets included. For that list, I believe the usual standard, for anything, is to cite a source that either uses the exact phrase "common misconception" or something very similar. But it's not obvious to me that strict requirements are being used here. @Shibbolethink, @Valjean, what do you think? Do you expect the sources to actually use the word pseudoscience? Do you expect them to be a majority POV, or at least a significant minority POV? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit times

01:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
17:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
16:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
23:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
22:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
19:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
11:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

↑ Fraknoi, Andrew (28 October 2003). "Dealing with Astrology, UFOs, and Faces on Other Worlds: A Guide to Addressing Astronomical Pseudoscience in the Classroom" (PDF). Astronomy Education Review. 2 (2): 150–160. Retrieved 31 January 2023.
↑ Craddock, Robert A. (2005). "Keeping pseudoscience out of AGU meetings". Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 86 (26): 246. doi:10.1029/2005EO260004. ISSN 0096-3941. How many posters or presentations have been made at AGU meetings in the last 10-20 years that support creationism, intelligent design, or other forms of pseudo-science, such as the so-called "face" on Mars?
↑ Pasachoff, Jay; Percy, John (2005). Teaching and learning astronomy : effective strategies for educators worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 172–173. ISBN 9780521842624. Retrieved 31 January 2023.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: miscellaneous url (link)
↑ Regal, Brian (2009). Pseudoscience : a critical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press. p. 63. ISBN 9780313355080. Retrieved 31 January 2023.
↑ Carroll, Robert Todd. "lunar effects (full moon) The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com". skepdic.com. Retrieved 31 January 2023. When such an analysis is done, says Nienhuys, one discovers that the study is "pompous pseudoscience.
↑ Kelly, I.W.; Rotton, James; Culver, Roger (1985). "The Moon Was Full and Nothing Happened: A Review of Studies on the Moon and Human Behavior and Lunar Beliefs" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer (Winter): 129–143. Retrieved 31 January 2023. Of the 23 studies we checked, nearly one-half contained one or more statistical errors. Some of these were serious enough to prompt us to publish interim reports (Kelly and Rotton 1983; Rotton, Kelly, and Frey 1983) to correct errors that had crept into the literature. For example, we found that Lieber and Sherin (1972) had employed inappropriate and misleading statistical procedures in their often-cited study of homicides in Dade County, Florida. On the basis of binominal tests of significance, they claimed that a disproportionate number of homicides occurred during the 24-hour period before and after full moons. We found that this claim was based upon 48 tests of significance, which are not reported in their article.
↑ Mayoral, Olga; Solbes, Jordi; Cantó, José; Pina, Tatiana (2 July 2020). "What Has Been Thought and Taught on the Lunar Influence on Plants in Agriculture? Perspective from Physics and Biology". Agronomy. 10 (7): 955. doi:10.3390/agronomy10070955. eISSN 2073-4395. More specifically, it focuses on some pseudo-scientific questions and beliefs that impregnate a large part of agricultural traditions and agronomic practices according to which certain lunar phases encourage plant growth while others compromise their development.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
↑ Bensley, D. Alan; Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Rowan, Krystal A.; Masciocchi, Christopher M.; Grain, Florent (July 2019). "The generality of belief in unsubstantiated claims". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 34 (1): 16–28. doi:10.1002/acp.3581. eISSN 1099-0720. ISSN 0888-4080. Their survey included "science" items, with the false science items overlapping substantially with pseudoscientific claims, poorly supported practices, and psychological misconceptions. For instance, they labeled the misconception that the full moon causes people to behave abnormally a paranormal item.
↑ WIESNER, MATTHEW P. (2015). "Modern Geocentrism: A Case Study of Pseudoscience in Astronomy" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. 39 (1): 50–53. Retrieved 31 January 2023. A small group of pseudoscience practitioners called modern geocentrists still suggest that the Earth is in fact the center of the universe. An astronomer examines their ideas and uses them to suggest common properties of pseudoscience purveyors.
↑ Daempfle, Peter (2013). Good science, bad science, pseudoscience, and just plain bunk : how to tell the difference. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 23, 26. ISBN 9781442217263. Retrieved 31 January 2023.
1 2 WIESNER, MATTHEW P. (2015). "Modern Geocentrism: A Case Study of Pseudoscience in Astronomy" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. 39 (1): 50–53. Retrieved 31 January 2023. One hears this claim a great deal from pseudoscientists around the world. It might be a free energy machine that utility companies don't want known, or it might be the dangers of vaccinations that medical doctors and drug companies want hidden, or it might be the "fabrication" of the Moon landings that the government wants hidden. The reason that conspiracy theory is so prevalent in pseudoscience is there is always a pressing question: If this idea is so good, why don't physics professors, or medical doctors, or energy companies talk about it?
↑ Mechler, G.E. (May 2002). "Turning a problem into an opportunity using the Fox Network's ``Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the moon?" as a tool to improve student thinking on science and pseudoscience". Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. 34: 782. Retrieved 31 January 2023. Fox Network's ``Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the moon?" offers educators a rich example of televised pseudoscience that 1) can be rebutted in ways readily understandable by nonscience students and 2) will not result in throngs of offended students as this is not a particularly popular pseudoscience and few students will have an emotional investment in it.
↑ Bensley, D. Alan; Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Rowan, Krystal A.; Masciocchi, Christopher M.; Grain, Florent (July 2019). "The generality of belief in unsubstantiated claims". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 34 (1): 16–28. doi:10.1002/acp.3581. eISSN 1099-0720. ISSN 0888-4080. Although labels for different unsubstantiated claims such as "conspiracy theory" and "pseudoscience" may imply that they are qualitatively different, these unsubstantiated claims often share overlapping features. For instance, people who endorse the conspiracy theory that the 1969 moon landing was a hoax are also endorsing a pseudoscientific claim that has been refuted by robust scientific evidence from moon rocks and verified photographs of the earth from the moon (Bensley, 2018). Moreover, pseudoscientists sometimes invoke conspiracy theories to explain skeptics' resistance to their claims.
↑ Bensley, D. Alan; Lilienfeld, Scott O. (September 2020). "Assessing belief in unsubstantiated claims". Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. 6 (3): 198–211. doi:10.1037/stl0000218. eISSN 2332-211X. ISSN 2332-2101.
↑ Regal, Brian (2009). Pseudoscience : a critical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press. p. 119. ISBN 9780313355080. Retrieved 31 January 2023.
↑ Losh, Susan Carol; Nzekwe, Brandon (19 April 2011). "The Influence of Education Major: How Diverse Preservice Teachers View Pseudoscience Topics". Journal of Science Education and Technology. 20 (5): 579–591. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9297-0. eISSN 1573-1839. ISSN 1059-0145. The omitted seven items either had ignorance rates of at least 20 percent among these students (King Tut's curse; the lost continent of Atlantis; or the Shroud of Turin); resembled none of the other pseudoscience general topics (reincarnation; communication with the dead; or the Bermuda Triangle) or were so highly skewed that the item was basically a constant (time travel).
↑ Martin, Michael (October 1994). "Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education". Science and Education. 3 (4): 357–371. doi:10.1007/BF00488452. eISSN 1573-1901. ISSN 0926-7220.
↑ PRATKANIS, ANTHONY R. (August 1995). "How to Sell a Pseudoscience" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer: 19–25. Retrieved 31 January 2023.
↑ Kusche, Larry (November 2015). "The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Delusion: Looking Back after Forty Years". Skeptical Inquirer. 39 (6). Retrieved 31 January 2023. At the end of The Bermuda Triangle Mystery—Solved, I stated that the Triangle was a "manufactured" mystery. That was a polite way to say it was a fraud. The "mystery" of the Bermuda Triangle is one of the most widespread frauds that has ever been perpetrated. It was based on poor research and distorted, untrue, inaccurate information that was uncritically copied, embellished, and sensationalized.
↑ Philipkoski, Kristen (13 July 1999). "Shedding Light in the Dark". Wired. Retrieved 31 January 2023. Mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics a crackpot theory for decades, and most agree that an experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1984 proved the theory wrong. "As far as I was concerned autodynamics was disproved. Special relativity is correct," said Pierre Noyes, professor in the theoretical physics section at SLAC, and lead researcher of the 1984 experiment.
↑ "List of Good Pseudoscience Topics". Eduzenith. 3 January 2015. Retrieved 31 January 2023.
↑ "New York Times unskeptically presents discredited physics theory". Physics Today. 18 June 2015. doi:10.1063/PT.5.8122. eISSN 1945-0699. The Times commissioned Overbye to insert his intellect between readers and scientists in reporting on this noble astrophysics investigation that probes and tests Einstein's work. The Times also accepted and unskeptically ran a somewhat rambling screed about a discredited physics theory purporting to expose Einstein's alleged "misconceptions."
↑ Ritter, Stephen K. (7 November 2016). "Cold fusion died 25 years ago, but the research lives on". cen.acs.org. Retrieved 1 February 2023. The excitement quickly died when the scientific community came to a consensus that the findings weren't real—"cold fusion" became a synonym for junk science.
↑ Novella, Steven (11 April 2016). "More Cold Fusion Claims - NeuroLogica Blog". NeuroLogica Blog - Your Daily Fix of Neuroscience, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking. Retrieved 1 February 2023. Unfortunately the cold fusion community has fallen, in my opinion, into a cesspit of pseudoscience
↑ BENNETT, JAY (21 December 2015). "Can Cold Fusion Come Back From the Dead?". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 1 February 2023. "Cold fusion is dismissed as pseudoscience, the kind of thing that respectable scientists and science journalists simply don't talk about (unless to remind us of its disgrace).
↑ Collins, HM; Bartlett, A; Reyes-Galindo, LI (2016). "The Ecology of Fringe Science and its Bearing on Policy" (PDF). doi:10.48550/arXiv.1606.05786. Retrieved 1 February 2023. a large proportion of the fringe has characteristics of a distinctive community. Members will often meet at the same conferences and organisers are interconnected....Myron Evans, who heads the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies (AIAS), helped establish the Vigier Symposia, which are now sponsored by NASI, while NASI founding director Richard Amoroso is also listed as member of the AIAS. The NPA's Sagnac Award has been given to Halton Arp (late editor of Apeiron) and Donald Scott, both luminaries among 'Electric Universe' theorists, while the TGA has awarded Gold Medals to, for example, Myron Evans and Wallace Thornhill, who is one of the founders of The Thunderbolts Project. The sense of community, fragile though it may be, is also indicated by certain common characteristics not shared by mainstream science {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
1 2 Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten (2013). Philosophy of pseudoscience : reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 35. ISBN 9780226051826. Why physics rather than the pseudophysics of free-energy machines or antigravitation devices? Why standard history rather than von Daniken's ancient astronaut archeology? In general, why should we teach sciences rather than pseudosciences?
↑ Echoes of an Alien Sky. Publishers Weekly. 2006;253(49):50. Accessed February 1, 2023. "Meanwhile, scientist Kyal Reen is trying to figure out whether Terrans managed to develop electrogravitic propulsion in time for some of them to escape Earth's death throes. The plot--a mix of exposition, polemics and pseudoscience."
↑ Siegel, Ethan (21 November 2018). "This Is The One Key Difference Separating Good Science From Junk Science". Forbes. Retrieved 1 February 2023. (This is a WP:FORBES Contributor, which are typically not considered reliable, but this gentleman is an extremely well-regarded astrophysicist who writes prolifically about junk science in astronomy and physics.
↑ Lancaster, Don (March 1998). "How to Bash Pseudoscience". The Blatant Opportunist. 49 (1). Pennsylvania State University: 1–4. Retrieved 1 February 2023. Pseudoscience Obviously, there are a lot of others who disagree. The web is full of people who are out there mightily striving towards developing perpetual motion machines, building "overunity" generators, running cars on water, abducting themselves to Alderon, traveling or communicating faster than light, performing miracles with magnets, expressing psychic powers, or extracting "zero point energy". I quite strongly believe that these pseudoscience subjects certainly do serve as useful adjuncts to porcine whole body cleanliness. But otherwise are total hogwash.
↑ Point, Sebastien (January 2018). "Free Energy: When the Web Is Freewheeling" (PDF). Skeptical Inqurer. 42 (1): 51–55. Retrieved 1 February 2023. Claims about "free energy" are all over the Internet. What's it all about? Not real science...it is fortunately possible (but for how long, you will ask) to consult on the Internet many videos or descriptions of free energy machines that are presented as so much proof … mostly unverifiable....This type of reasoning comes from a misunderstanding of the very concept of energy: it is often imagined as an exchangeable fluid present in us and around us. But energy is an inherent property of matter, and it has no existence of its own...
↑ Orzel, Chad (26 January 2018). "Scientific Failure as a Public Good: Illustrating the Process of Science and Its Contrast with Pseudoscience". Pseudoscience. The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262037426.003.0010. I illustrate this contrast with three examples: the 2011 superluminal neutrino anomaly reported by the OPERA collaboration, the 2014 claim of primordial gravitational waves by the BICEP2 collaboration, and the pseudoscientific field of "hydrino" physics.
↑ Sukharev, Maxim (June 2019). "A quick how-to user-guide to debunking pseudoscientific claims" (PDF). doi:10.48550/arXiv.1906.06165. Retrieved 1 February 2023. In what follows I will try to do my best to provide a simple how-to user's guide to debunking pseudoscientific claims...Now with a little bit of quantum background we can turn to our last example – hydrino (a curious reader may wish to google this word). Claim: hydrogen atoms can be brought to a new state called hydrino, which has an energy lower than the ground state...But remember – extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence. Most importantly, the experimental evidence must be independently verified. It did not take too long for the scientific community to jump into this. Firstly, the experiments were scrutinized [7] and the experimental procedure was questioned. The scientists questioned the validity of the hydrino experiments. Secondly, the very theory of hydrino was checked for consistency [8] and it was clearly shown that the hydrino model is inconsistent and is in contradiction with the well experimentally tested quantum theory...To our biggest surprise the hydrino is still very well alive [10] with its author being interviewed by CNN, who seems to be constantly triggered by buzz words such as "clean energy". Moreover, some people even invest their money into this "hydrino clean energy" endeavor. It certainly is very clean in a sense that it does not exist. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
↑ Rathke, A (19 May 2005). "A critical analysis of the hydrino model". New Journal of Physics. 7: 127–127. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127. eISSN 1367-2630. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis.
↑ Dommerholt, Jan; Fernández-de-las-Peñas, César; Petersen, Shannon Mbravo (27 May 2019). "Needling: is there a point?". Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. 27 (3): 125–127. doi:10.1080/10669817.2019.1620049. eISSN 2042-6186. ISSN 1066-9817. PMC 6600071. PMID 31230588. According to Nada, 'trigger point dry needling is a money grabbing marketing ploy hiding behind a veil of tooth-fairy and pseudoscience. No matter how well presented, this takes the profession further away from our roots and closer to fringe CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) professions' [35]. Others opined that 'DN is an utter fool's errand wrought with placebo ... induced by maximal ritual effect, novel and exciting stimulus as well as an injection of hope for those desperate enough to allow someone to stab them with a needle'
↑ Bohr, Thomas. Problems with myofascial pain syndrome and fibromyalgia syndrome. Neurology. 1996;46(3):593-597. Accessed February 01, 2023. "However, we can at least be intellectually honest and admit that the trigger point injection is an unproven technique. Doubtless, it helps many patients, but given that dry needling has a similar effect, it is likely due to placebo effect...With FS, theory has traditionally outpaced science. Martin Gardner once said, "In no other field have pseudoscientists flourished as prominently as in the field of medicine." For years, muscle was pursued as the responsible site for the pain, with apparently ``positive biopsies described. Later, when investigators got around to using control subjects, it was decided some of the ``abnormal findings previously described were actually nonspecific. Other investigators found no consistent microscopic abnormalities in FS....Thus, the traditional foundation of FS is breaking down, that is, the notion that specific tender points exist in muscle and fibrous tissue. Given this fact, it is no surprise that the diagnosis is quite fungible. FS is whatever one wants it to be, and this includes either party in the physicianpatient duo. To officially diagnose a tender point, the examiner does not necessarily have to note a grimace, flinch, or withdrawal; he need only ask the patient if the palpation is painful, which constitutes virtual self-diagnosis."
↑ Kreidler, Marc; Hall, Harriet (4 May 2020). "Dubious Claims in Psychotherapy for Youth Part III: Externalizing Issues and Daily Routines". Skeptical Inquirer. 44 (3). Retrieved 1 February 2023. Acupressure is a variant of acupuncture, a prescientific treatment system based on myths. Acupuncture has been extensively studied and found to be a theatrical placebo (Colquhoun and Novella 2013).
↑ Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Lohr, Jeffrey M.; Tavris, Carol (2015). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (Second ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. p. 234. ISBN 1462517897. Currently, conventional science has yet to validate the core principles of New Age psychotherapies—the idea that thoughts can influence one's external environment, the existence of subtle energies and fields—or of meridians, acupressure points, chakras, auras, or of the ability of some psychotherapists to reliably detect these constructs.
↑ Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Lohr, Jeffrey M.; Tavris, Carol (2015). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (Second ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. p. 234. ISBN 1462517897. ...these findings suggest that AA is indeed a pseudoscientific treatment, persisting by virtue of intuitive appeal and strident adherents despite weak empirical support...To conclude, the role of AA in the science-based AUD treatment enterprise has been highly controversial....from a scientific standpoint, there are reasons to be critical of AA's outmoded etiological model and to question the strong identification of formal treatment programs with AA principles (Kelly, 2013). Participation in community mutual-help groups like AA will not be for all patients, but, for some, AA may very well enhance formal treatment efforts.
↑ Williams, William F. (2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience : From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. pp. 7, 303. ISBN 9781135955229.
↑ Regal, Brian (2009). Pseudoscience : a critical encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press. pp. 12, 13. ISBN 9780313355080. Retrieved 31 January 2023.
↑ Ernst, Edzard (11 November 2014). "Alexander technique: some evidence and plenty of wishful thinking". edzardernst.com. Retrieved 4 February 2023.
↑ Burley, Richard Ford (11 April 2016). "Borderline Woo: The Alexander Technique Vol. 3 / No. 24.1". This Week in Tomorrow. No. 3.24.1. Retrieved 4 February 2023. The Alexander Technique appears from the websites of its proponents to be totally nuts. It has all the signs: HTML from 1995, a pay-for lessons system, unreliable health claims (like that it cures asthma), and naturalistic fallacies ("we show our students precisely what they are inadvertently doing to themselves that gets in the way of their natural functioning" [emphasis mine])...The Alexander Technique. A little pseudosciencey, and probably not covered by your insurance the way PT is, but maybe not total bunk if you want to relieve muscular-based back pain through better posture and need someone to tell you how to pay attention to the way you use your body. The chances of it curing your asthma are rather less positive.
↑ Čavojová, Vladimíra; Ersoy, Selin (7 October 2019). "The role of scientific reasoning and religious beliefs in use of complementary and alternative medicine". Journal of Public Health. 42 (3): e239–e248. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdz120. eISSN 1741-3850. ISSN 1741-3842. PMID 31588497. Fries classifies CAM according to its effectiveness ratings of family physicians into two broad categories: 'accepted' (acupuncture for pain management, massage therapy for muskuloskeletal indications, chiropractic care for muskuloskeletal indications, relaxation therapy, biofeedback and somewhat surprisingly also spiritual or religious healing) and 'rejected' (homeopathy or naturopathy, Feldenkrais or Alexander technique, Rolfing, herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and reflexology).
↑ Austin, John (3 December 2022). "Dark Hidden Origins of the Alexander Technique". Connecting Up the Dots. Retrieved 4 February 2023. Alexander's ideas related to eugenics boil down to: if you help people change their habits, they can have better children...In Man's Supreme Inheritance, Alexander asserted that modern man had evolved beyond 'the savage' whom Alexander described as being driven by instinctual reaction rather than conscious control...In light of Alexander's philosophy of mind-body unity he saw, 'conscious control of the self' (or 'good use of the self' etc.) as a moral issue and someone with 'bad use' was behaving immorally (unconsciously). Because Alexander's thoughts on evolution of conscious control (essentially a racist ego development theory) he and Saleeby saw the AT as applied eugenics.In 1944, a scathing critique of the AT, 'Quackery Versus Physical Education' was published in the South African Fitness Journal, Manpower. It insisted that research cited as supportive did not provide any evidence in support of Alexander. It also referred to Alexander's 'followers' as a 'head balancing cult' and put their 'belief' down to 'group hystero-neurosis typical of a new faith.' The article contained a section, 'The misquoted Sherrington' which claimed Alexander had mischaracterized Sir Charles Sherrington's research as being supportive to his work.
↑ Green S (1997). "Pseudoscience in Alternative Medicine: Chelation Therapy, Antineoplastons, The Gerson Diet and Coffee Enemas". Skeptical Inquirer. 21 (5): 39.
↑ Vickers, AJ; Cassileth, BR (2008). "Living proof and the pseudoscience of alternative cancer treatments". Journal of the Society for Integrative Oncology. 6 (1): 37–40. PMID 18302909.
↑ Grimes, David Robert (14 July 2019). "How to survive the fake news about cancer". The Observer. Retrieved 4 February 2023. "That pseudoscience is being hawked to vulnerable patients isn't a new problem – cancer scams have existed for decades, and combating them was the impetus behind the 1939 Cancer Act. The substantial difference now is the ease with which falsehoods can be disseminated. Cancer surgeon David Gorski, professor of surgery and oncology at the Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan and managing editor of the online journal Science-Based Medicine, notes that cancer misinformation is "way more prevalent now for the same reason other misinformation and conspiracy theories are so prevalent – because they're so easily spread on social media."
↑ Grimes, David Robert (1 January 2022). "The Struggle against Cancer Misinformation". Cancer Discovery. 12 (1): 26–30. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1468. eISSN 2159-8290. ISSN 2159-8274. PMID 34930788. This dubious amplification of pseudoscience diminishes trust in the medico-scientific sphere. Cancer misinformation is harmful even when it is not fully embraced or believed, precisely because it creates a lingering impression that no medical consensus exists on the topic or that official sources of information lack credibility.
↑ Ernst, E (August 2001). "Alternative cancer cures". British Journal of Cancer. 85 (5): 781–782. doi:10.1054/bjoc.2001.1989. eISSN 1532-1827. ISSN 0007-0920. PMC 2364136. PMID 11531268. Alternative cancer cures (ACCs) typically have a common life cycle (Ernst, 2000). At the origin of almost every ACC is a charismatic individual who claims to have found the answer to cancer. He (the male sex seems to dominate) often supports his claims with pseudoscientific evidence referring to (but rarely presenting) many cured patients. Thus he soon gathers ardent supporters who lobby for a wider acceptance of this ACC. The pressure on the medical establishment increases to a point where the treatment is finally submitted to adequate testing. When the results turn out to be negative, the ACC's proponents argue that the investigations were not done properly. In fact, they were set up to generate a negative result so that the commercial interests of orthodoxy would not be threatened. A conspiracy theory is thus born, and the ACC lives on in the 'alternative underground'.
↑ Shermer, Michael; Linse, Pat (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience (First ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. pp. 125, 819, 820. ISBN 9781576076538.
↑ Leach, Nathaniel (November 2014). "Gendering Pseudo-Science: Inchbald's Animal Magnetism". Literature Compass. 11 (11): 715–723. doi:10.1111/lic3.12198. ISSN 1741-4113. A commission appointed by the King of France determined that the effects claimed to be produced by animal magnetism were merely theatrical and imaginative, qualities that were feminized in an attempt to denigrate animal magnetism as pseudo-science. Inchbald's play follows this attack by satirizing animal magnetism through the absurd character of an old doctor who wishes to learn this pseudo-science in order to manipulate the affections of his young ward. Inchbald's satire, however, encompasses not only the fraudulent pseudo-science but also the official patriarchal power that the doctor also represents. Inchbald thus demonstrates the proximity between official structures of power and the supposedly fraudulent pseudo-science...
↑ Coale, Samuel Chase. "Mesmerism and Other Pseudo-Sciences". Nathaniel Hawthorne In Context. Cambridge University Press. pp. 126–135. doi:10.1017/9781316271537.013.
↑ Novella, Steven (20 June 2012). "Bee Venom Therapy Update". sciencebasedmedicine.org. Retrieved 4 February 2023. There are no published clinical studies of BVT and stroke recovery (however I did find a case report of a stroke following bee stings). There is also no legitimate scientific reason to suspect that BVT would be effective in stroke recover. Magsaysay gives his own explanation for how he thinks it works. His description is pure pseudoscience, just made up science-sounding nonsense.
↑ Novella, Steven (25 April 2018). "Bee Venom is Snake Oil". sciencebasedmedicine.org. Retrieved 4 February 2023. What about the scientific research? Here we find the typical results anyone familiar with alternative pseudoscience should expect...Let's look at so-called bee-venom acupuncture (BVA) – which conveniently combines two pseudosciences into one treatment.
↑ Stukus, David R. (November 2019). "How Dr Google Is Impacting Parental Medical Decision Making". Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America. 39 (4): 583–591. doi:10.1016/j.iac.2019.07.011. ISSN 0889-8561. PMID 31563191.
↑ Burnett, Dean (6 April 2016). "Gwyneth Paltrow's bee sting beauty treatment just won't fly". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 February 2023. It's apparently a very old idea going back thousands of years, and we know that in pseudoscience circles age is a perfectly valid substitute for "evidence that is actually works". You can sort of see some rationale behind it; bee stings obviously have a definite physical effect on the body, they're 100% natural (another substitute for effectiveness), and a localised swelling certainly would remove wrinkles, albeit temporarily and painfully.
↑ Barrett, S. "Aromatherapy: Making Dollars out of Scents". Science & Pseudoscience Review in Mental Health. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Retrieved 21 February 2013.
↑ Hodson, Derek (1 January 2009). "Further Thoughts on Demarcation". Teaching and Learning about Science. BRILL. pp. 113–150. doi:10.1163/9789460910531_006. An interesting feature of life in the late 20th century and early 21st century has been the upsurge of interest in "New Age" and pseudoscientific beliefs such as the healing power of crystals, reflexology, aromatherapy, iridology, qigong, feng shui, Tarot, and the like.
↑ MacLennan, Alastair H; Morrison, Robert G B (March 2012). "Tertiary education institutions should not offer pseudoscientific medical courses". Medical Journal of Australia. 196 (4): 225–226. doi:10.5694/mja12.10128. eISSN 1326-5377. ISSN 0025-729X. PMID 22409674. "The international scientific credibility of Australian tertiary education institutions is being undermined by the increasing number of pseudoscientific health courses that they offer. Many universities teach therapies without a scientific basis to their students within their health care curricula, including homeopathy, iridology, reflexology, kinesiology, healing touch therapy, aromatherapy and "energy medicine".
↑ "The Ockhams 2018". The Skeptic Magazine. 18 October 2018. Archived from the original on 18 December 2019. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
↑ Hale, Tom. "This Year's Award For The Worst Pseudoscience Is Especially Deserved". IFL Science. Retrieved 11 March 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
↑ Jha, Alok (23 December 2012). "Struck off MMR doctor handed award for 'lifetime achievement in quackery'". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 February 2023. Andrew Wakefield 'supported or practised pseudoscience in the most ludicrous, dangerous, irrational or irresponsible manner', according to campaign group Good Thinking Society
↑ Swire-Thompson, Briony; Lazer, David (March 2022). "Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms". The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 700 (1): 124–135. doi:10.1177/00027162221087686. eISSN 1552-3349. ISSN 0002-7162. The most infamous example of scientific disinformation is when The Lancet published an article suggesting a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism (Wakefield et al. 1998). A substantial vested interest existed for the lead author, Andrew Wakefield, whose research was funded by lawyers in legal battles against MMR manufacturers, and who had lodged a patent for a new vaccine (Eggertson 2010).
↑ Pierce, Daniel E.; Farace, Anthony P.; Lewis, Dana M. (19 April 2021). "America's Haven of Health: Hydrotherapy and tourism at Excelsior Springs, Missouri, USA". History and Anthropology: 1–28. doi:10.1080/02757206.2021.1901286. eISSN 1477-2612. ISSN 0275-7206. Over the years, mineral water's use as a hydrotherapy was increasingly viewed by the public as pseudoscience and unreliable. This scepticism culminated in two U.S. Senate hearings on 'Health Frauds', 'Quackery', and 'Misrepresentations'. This bought much negative attention to the already declining heath tourism industry.
↑ Wrobel, Arthur (2015). Pseudo-science and society in 19th-century America. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. pp. 74–78. ISBN 9780813165035.
↑ Aramesh, K (1 July 2018). "Science and Pseudoscience in Traditional Iranian Medicine". Archives of Iranian medicine. 21 (7): 315–323. PMID 30041531. There are many reports of the treacherous, injurious, and pointless treatments imposed by the practitioners of TIM to their patients. In his book, Public Health in Qajar Iran, Willem Floor portrays some of the practices of these TIM practitioners. For example, at the time of the Cholera outbreak, believing that Cholera has a warm temperament, they prescribed immersion and plummeting the patients into the chilling cold water. This treatment killed some patients who could have survived the disease itself.20 In the contemporary TIM, also, various kinds of purging, venesection, leech therapy, wet-cupping, etc. are being performed, mostly without any scientific supporting evidences and based on the medieval understandings of human physiology and pathophysiology
↑ May, Andrew (2016). Pseudoscience and science fiction. Cham: Springer. pp. 103, 104. ISBN 9783319426044. Another fringe therapy that interested van Vogt was the "Bates method" for improving eyesight. Devised early in the 20th century by Dr William Bates, it was described by SF writer and sceptic John Sladek
↑ Deery, June (1996). "Huxley and the New Age". Aldous Huxley and the Mysticism of Science: 146–169. doi:10.1057/9780230375055_8. The Bates method has little or no scientific basis and there is no evidence that it improved Huxley's eyesight
↑ Kreidler, Marc (8 July 2000). "Fallacies of the Bates System". Quackwatch. Retrieved 9 February 2023. The Bates theory of accommodation is not only fallacious; it is not even a new theory-as claimed by his supporters. The idea that the eyeball elongates when it accommodates was held by Sturm, Listing, and other scientists in the early nineteenth century. They abandoned it, however, when studies of the lens image proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that accommodation is produced by changes in the curvature of the lens. Dr. Bates is regarded as a discoverer of new truths by his disciples [6]. Yet all he did was to resuscitate a discredited, early-nineteenth-century theory, moving not forward to the future but backward to the past.
↑ Ravindranath, Prasad (21 February 2018). "Oncologists step aside, here comes medical astrologers". Science Chronicle. Retrieved 11 February 2023.
↑ Jones, Clay (23 October 2015). "The Time a Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist Got Manipulated by a Chiropractor | Science-Based Medicine". sciencebasedmedicine.org. Retrieved 11 February 2023.
↑ GIRARD, J. MARC (14 August 2018). "An example of pseudoscience: Chronic Lyme disease" (PDF). Le Spécialiste. Retrieved 11 February 2023.
↑ Brown, Carolyn (17 November 2014). "Lyme law uses "junk science" says expert". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 186 (18): 1354–1354. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-4936. eISSN 1488-2329. ISSN 0820-3946. PMC 4259767. PMID 25404395.
↑ Auwaerter, Paul G; Bakken, Johan S; Dattwyler, Raymond J; Dumler, J Stephen; Halperin, John J; McSweegan, Edward; Nadelman, Robert B; O'Connell, Susan; Shapiro, Eugene D; Sood, Sunil K; Steere, Allen C; Weinstein, Arthur; Wormser, Gary P (September 2011). "Antiscience and ethical concerns associated with advocacy of Lyme disease". The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 11 (9): 713–719. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70034-2. ISSN 1473-3099. PMID 21867956. Similar to other antiscience groups, these advocates have created a pseudoscientific and alternative selection of practitioners, research, and publications and have coordinated public protests, accused opponents of both corruption and conspiracy, and spurred legislative efforts to subvert evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed science. The relations and actions of some activists, medical practitioners, and commercial bodies involved in Lyme disease advocacy pose a threat to public health.
↑ Melanson, Vanessa R., et al. "The Epistemic Fallacy: Unintended Consequences of Empirically Treating (Clinically Diagnosed) Chronic Lyme Disease in a Soldier." Medical Journal, US Army Medical Center of Excellence (MEDCoE) (2022). "This case illustrates that an inappropriate clinical diagnosis and empirical treatment can be inherently detrimental to the health, safety, and well-being of the patient. Additionally, the amalgamation of perceived mistrust and limitations in LD testing combined with an eagerness to diagnose LD based on what may be considered “pseudoscience” is potentially harming patients with undiagnosed chronic illness."
↑ Gorski, David (7 April 2008). "Colon "cleanses": A load of you know what… | Science-Based Medicine". sciencebasedmedicine.org. Retrieved 17 February 2023. This is, of course, utter nonsense.
↑ Caulfeld T. From Kim Kardashian to Dr. Oz: The future relevance of popular culture to our health and health policy. Ottawa L. Rev. 2015;47:371. "In the past year alone, Gwyneth Paltrow, my favourite purveyor of pseudoscience,' has suggested that women should steam their vaginas, that infrared saunas are a good way to treat the flu, that we should all get regular colonics, and that wearing a bra increases your risk of getting breast cancer s Not only are all of these recommendations completely science-free, but they are also potentially harmful."
↑ Dedmon, Robert E. (1 December 2011). "The urge to purge: colonic 'hydrotherapy', unproven but widely practiced, potentially dangerous, and unsupported by scientific evidence". Asian Biomedicine. 5 (6): 731–734. doi:10.5372/1905-7415.0506.099. ISSN 1905-7415. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
↑ Atwood KC, 4th (25 March 2004). "Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine: myths and fallacies vs truth". MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine. 6 (1): 33. PMID 15208545. ...others are highly implausible and easily explained by ordinary mechanisms (applied kinesiology by ideomotor action, colonic "cleansing" by the norm of reciprocity, etc.); and still others are barely plausible but highly unlikely and dangerous and, unlike aspirin, are without any empirical support (eg, St. John's wort as an anti-HIV drug). None of these claims should be studied in human trials...These points are irrelevant to the greater issue, however: the field of naturopathic medicine, as a whole and at its highest levels, promotes fanciful, pseudoscientific, dangerous, and unethical practices.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
↑ Caulfield, Timothy A. (2015). Is Gwyneth Paltrow wrong about everything? : how the famous sell us elixirs of health, beauty & happiness. Boston: Beacon Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780807057483. The idea that a colon cleanse removes toxins and promotes health is so ridiculous that it is a pretty good test for quacks.
↑ Teovanović, Predrag; Lukić, Petar; Zupan, Zorana; Lazić, Aleksandra; Ninković, Milica; Žeželj, Iris (7 December 2020). "Irrational beliefs differentially predict adherence to guidelines and pseudoscientific practices during the COVID‐19 pandemic". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 35 (2): 486–496. doi:10.1002/acp.3770. eISSN 1099-0720. ISSN 0888-4080. PMC 7753549. PMID 33362344. Participants (N = 407) reported (1) how often they followed guidelines (e.g., handwashing, physical distancing), how often they engaged in pseudoscientific practices (e.g., consuming garlic, colloidal silver), and their intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine
↑ Giuffre, Maureen (December 1997). "Science, bad science, and pseudoscience". Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing. 12 (6): 434–438. doi:10.1016/S1089-9472(97)90007-1. ISSN 1089-9472. PMID 9464033.
↑ Naeem, Salman Bin; Bhatti, Rubina; Khan, Aqsa (12 July 2020). "An exploration of how fake news is taking over social media and putting public health at risk". Health Information & Libraries Journal. 38 (2): 143–149. doi:10.1111/hir.12320. eISSN 1471-1842. ISSN 1471-1834. PMC 7404621. PMID 32657000. There are a range of other therapies promoted by those who subscribe to various pseudoscientific claims: The colloidal silver solution can help with coronavirus.
↑ Pickett, Mallory (5 October 2017). "Colloidal Silver Turns You Blue—But Can It Save Your Life?". Wired. Retrieved 25 February 2023.
↑ Gavura, Scott (28 May 2020). "An incomplete list of COVID-19 quackery | Science-Based Medicine". sciencebasedmedicine.org.
↑ Khazan, Olga (22 June 2020). "A Common Snake Oil Reemerges for the Coronavirus". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 February 2023.
↑ Chavda, Vivek P.; Sonak, Shreya S.; Munshi, Nafesa K.; Dhamade, Pooja N. (14 July 2022). "Pseudoscience and fraudulent products for COVID-19 management". Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 29 (42): 62887–62912. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-21967-4. eISSN 1614-7499. ISSN 0944-1344. PMC 9282830. PMID 35836045. {{cite journal}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 18 (help)
↑ Caulfield, Timothy (27 April 2020). "Pseudoscience and COVID-19 — we've had enough already". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01266-z. eISSN 1476-4687. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 32341556.
↑ Chinnu Sugavanam, Senthilkumar; Natarajan, Balakrishnan (22 July 2020). "Pseudoscientific beliefs and practices in the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review of unwanted experiments attributed to social media-based misinformation afflicting the public health". Journal of Health & Biological Sciences. 8 (1): 1. doi:10.12662/2317-3076jhbs.v8i1.3394.p1-9.2020. eISSN 2317-3076. ISSN 2317-3084.
↑ Boutros, Alexandra (December 2020). "The Edges of a Pandemic: Pseudoscience, Alternative Medicine, and Belief in the Age of COVID". TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies. 41: 42–49. doi:10.3138/topia-006. eISSN 1916-0194. ISSN 1206-0143.
↑ Wang, Yuxi; Bye, John; Bales, Karam; Gurdasani, Deepti; Mehta, Adityavarman; Abba-Aji, Mohammed; Stuckler, David; McKee,, Martin (22 November 2022). "Understanding and neutralising covid-19 misinformation and disinformation". BMJ: e070331. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-070331. eISSN 1756-1833. PMID 36414251.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
↑ Mostajo-Radji, Mohammed A. (12 April 2021). "Pseudoscience in the Times of Crisis: How and Why Chlorine Dioxide Consumption Became Popular in Latin America During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Frontiers in Political Science. 3. doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.621370. eISSN 2673-3145.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
↑ Hotez, Peter J. (28 January 2021). "Anti-science kills: From Soviet embrace of pseudoscience to accelerated attacks on US biomedicine". PLOS Biology. 19 (1): e3001068. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001068. eISSN 1545-7885. PMC 7842901. PMID 33507935.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
↑ Chrzan, Janet (2022). Anxious eaters : why we fall for fad diets. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 6–7, 37–38. ISBN 9780231549806. "There is no single definition of a fad diet, but we generally understand a fad diet to be a novelty diet that makes big promises and often has little scientific evidence supporting it or in many cases is supported by debunked science or pseudoscientific claims.... For example, adherents of calorie-restricting (CR) longevity diets often practice a grueling 40 percent daily calorie reduction for years, believing that such restriction yields a longer life span and lower rates of cancer, diabetes, and other diseases, in spite of mixed scientific evidence in both humans and nonhumans.49 Like so many religions, a great many fad diets often feature fasting, asceticism, conversion, and renewal as their central tenets.
↑ Schwarcz, Joe (2019). A grain of salt : the science and pseudoscience of what we eat. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ECW press. ISBN 9781773053851.
↑ Banks, Peter; Lunney, Daniel; Dickman, Chris (2012). Science under siege : zoology under threat. Mosman, N.S.W.: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. p. 93. ISBN 9780980327274. Retrieved 12 March 2023.

Genetic ancestry testing entry

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Not my field of expertise, but a quick skim of the topic articles and the cited sources don't seem to establish that this is pseudoscience. The first cited source reads more like an opinion piece, and the other two are far more nuanced to the point where I don't see either as supporting the claim that genetic ancestry testing is pseudoscience.

I'm going to remove the entry pending review here. Granted, the commercial enterprises providing this service may overstate it's reliability or applicability, but that doesn't seem like enough, or if it is we should probably be more specific about which claims are non-scientific rather than describing the entire field as bogus.

Happy to hear other opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Genetic ancestry testing services misleadingly conflate genetic ancestry with ethnic or geographical ancestry, which contradicts mainstream science, as scientists regard genetic ancestry to be distinct from ethnic or geographical ancestry. It has been described as the genetic equivalent of astrology multiple times . The assumptions made by genetic ancestry testing services are criticized by subject-matter experts , and you only need the opinions of subject-matter experts.Helioz9 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there is an entry to be had here, but I'm not sure that the current language accurately reflects the sources. Let's see what other editors think. I'm not going to edit-war here, but the preferred approach is to reach consensus on the talk page before re-reverting an edit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war According to WP:BRD, User:Helioz9 is the one who is misbehaving here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverting per WP:BRD and edit note/general consensus, if this is a notability pseudo scientific claim it should be all over Genealogical DNA testing. We can't just name-call here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The topic article says the following:

The reliability of this type of test is dependent on comparative population size, the number of markers tested, the ancestry informative value of the SNPs tested, and the degree of admixture in the person tested. Earlier ethnicity estimates were often wildly inaccurate, but as companies receive more samples over time, ethnicity estimates have become more accurate.

If that contradicts the reliable sources, the place to fix it is there, not create a WP:POVFORK here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources seem to point to a misconception, not pseudo-scientific research, fanned by claims made by an industry re:genetic connection is far more complicated than the industry lets on. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This whole thing started over reverting User:Helioz9 edits on Drake's DNA test results, the edit war has been going since October 24 2023. The user's comments have included:

"WP:PROFRINGE there is no scientific consensus that someone's ethnicity can be determined by a DNA test", "That doesn't resolve the problems with the WP:FRINGE source that claims DNA tests can pinpoint the ancestral lineage of an individual person" "while the tests may not inherently be pseudoscience, they are typically falsely misinterpreted as being able to determine ancestry or ethnicity, making them unreliable sources for making statements about ancestry or ethnicity."

and because there was "no talk page consensus" the user feels it is ok to repeatedly remove the information again on said page. The only source the user cited originally was a journal from 2007, but the technology for DNA testing has advanced greatly in 17 years. Would prefer to see journal sources from the last 2-3 years making similar claims and less dated view points. The user went on to add a 'Ancestry and ethnicity' section in Common misunderstandings of genetics. There should be quality recent sources and a general consensus instead of adding/removing information at will.

The overarching umbrella of genetics and genetic genealogy are not pseudosciences. From what it seems there are two topics of contention to focus on, the one being genealogical DNA tests and the other being race and genetics. Important to have distinction between debating on both, or which one of the two to focus on. Are there merely limitations and nuances in these fields? Or do they actually have no basis with the scientific method? I think the main issue here are misconceptions and laypeople who over-interpret commercial DNA testing services they buy.^[1]^[2] I also think part of the confusion here is how datasets from DNA tests change as reference databases grow and improve,^[3] but are initially based more on probability, may have inaccuracies and give ancestral trivia.^[4]

References

↑ Hercher, Laura (2018-09-15). "23andMe Said He Would Lose His Mind. Ancestry Said the Opposite. Which Was Right?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2024-01-05.
↑ Farzan, Antonia Noori (2018-09-25). "A DNA test said a man was 4% black. Now he wants to qualify as a minority business owner". Washington Post. Retrieved 2024-01-05.
↑ Garde, Damian (2019-05-22). "'What's my real identity?': As DNA ancestry sites gather more data, the answer for consumers often changes". STAT. Retrieved 2024-01-05.
↑ Rutherford, Adam (2018-10-15). "How Accurate Are Online DNA Tests?". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-01-05.

What are the "criteria" for inclusion?

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

I recently added an entry to this page, but it was reverted as "not meeting the criteria". Unlike many list pages, I do not see any list of criteria for inclusion. Please elaborate on what the criteria is for inclusion and what specific criteria would be violated by including the proposed entry. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

On the face of it, this looks like a List of common misconceptions entry. The criteria is for inclusion in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is in the title - an area of scientific study that someone else has labeled pseudoscience. The area would be "Lift"? and somebody called it a pseudoscience? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I see upthread that specific criteria for inclusion is either absent or is undergoing discussion. Over at List of common misconceptions there is specific criteria and I think it would be useful to have something similar here.

(As for my reverted entry, I can't find a reliable source that labels it as pseudoscience so my objection to it being reverted is easily dismissed. So, let's agree not to argue about it.)

A couple of places to start would be MOS:LABEL which states:

For the term pseudoscience: per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term pseudoscience, if supported by reliable sources, may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science.

and WP:FRINGE/PS, which like MOS:LABEL establishes a minimum criteria of when something may be described as pseudoscience. I suppose we could just refer new editors to those policies, but I think it would be helpful to have some synopsis of that here.

While not part of the manual of style or other Wikipedia policy, the article on Pseudoscience provides a definition of the term and perhaps we could incorporate that here. My opinion is that Wikipedia should be internally consistent, so the definition provided by the topic article (Pseudoscience) should be applied to this article's inclusion criteria.

On the subject of topic articles, reading previous discussions here, there seems to be disagreement on whether the topic article must treat the item as pseudoscience should be an inclusion criteria. My take is that since

1) Wikipedia should be internally consistent and

2) editors at the topic article are likely to be more familiar with the subject than editors here so we should defer to their judgment

that should be an inclusion criteria.

Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that Wikipedia should be internally consistent Your opinion is not consistent with WP:RS. If an RS says that something is pseudoscience, but uses a different definition from Wikipedia's, and Wikipedia's definition does not fit, then WP:RS demands that we should include it while your internally consistency criterion demands that we should exclude it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Restored "unwarranted"

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@JeffSpaceman and Hob Gadling:

Discussed at User talk:Hob Gadling#"Unwarranted". Should be held here. - DVdm (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

My comments on the matter can be found in my edit summaries, but I will recapitulate -- stating that the doubt is unwarranted is unnecessary. Given that the name of this page is topics characterized as pseudoscience, and the other forms of denialism (i.e., Germ theory denialism, Holocaust denial) discussed here do not have that description attached to them, I don't see why "unwarranted" is a necessary description. The fact that the doubt is unwarranted is proven by the description of the article name. "Unwarranted" just seems extraneous. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Subjective?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The climate change denial thing feels subjective, yes, the climate has changed over the billions of years, but when the earth cooled down rapidly 3.8 billion years ago, why can't it warm up again? 82.168.190.109 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

How is skepticism a (pseudo-)science?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please remove 'GMO skepticism' from the list. Skepticism of a theory does not qualify as a science, so it cannot possibly pose as one.

Thanks in advance! 2A01:C22:AC2F:F900:2805:68CE:2EB3:10CA (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Skepticism is a not a pseudo-science. For the reason why GMO skepticism is —and likely will remain— on the list, see Genetically modified food controversies. - DVdm (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Entire article in need of an overhaul?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Visitors to this page have devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to arguing whether individual entries on this enormous list belong there, and sometimes to whether or not a single word should stay or go. But since the basic premise of the whole article is so flawed as to render it both useless and embarrassing, does it really matter what is or isn't included?

Most dictionaries (including Wikipedia) define pseudoscience as that which wrongly claims to be science. Therefore concepts such as exorcism or faith healing are not pseudoscience because they aren't any kind of science and never claimed to be. Whether or not they work is beside the point. If it wasn't, every religious, magical, or superstitious belief ever held to be true by anyone would belong on this list, and it would be a very, very long list indeed!

Except that this isn't a list of things which are pseudoscience according to any definition other than the one at the beginning of this article, which appears to be "anything described using the word 'pseudoscience' in any context by the authors of any books we choose to define as our source material". Using similar logic, I could write an equally useful article proving just as conclusively that almost everything listed here is real science because I can cite a published (or at least self-published) source chosen by me which says so.

Of course, most if not all of my sources would be cranks or outright nutters, but so what? It states quite clearly at the start of this article that whether or not the authors of the designated source material have any relevant qualifications, or indeed any qualifications at all, is unimportant, as are all other considerations, so long as they've used the word 'pseudoscience' in connection with a topic on the list.

Consider a simiarly compiled list of Nazis. I think most historians would define a Nazi as a member of a German political and ideological movement called the National Socialist Party which ceased to exist in 1945. Therefore if my list included Volodymyr Zelenskyy they'd raise a few objections, such as the fact that he wasn't even born until 1978. Ah, but this is a list of people characterised as Nazis! And Vladimir Putin has repeatedly characterised Zelenskyy as a Nazi, so he belongs on the list, even if he isn't a Nazi in any meaningful sense.

Putting it another way, what the authors of this dismal listicle appear to be saying is that whether or not something is pseudoscience is simply a matter of opinion. In fact, not even that. It's all down to name-calling. Claiming that something is pseudoscience because somebody who in their own opinion and yours, though not necessarily anybody else's, wrote a book in which they used that word to describe it is the reasoning behind religious dogma, and indeed a great deal of pseudoscience. And as I've already pointed out, the same argument can be turned on its head to prove its own exact opposite.

Seriously, this reads like something written by little boys who would be better suited to compiling one of those articles you have listing every appearance ever of obscure comic-book characters, including that time they popped up in the background of one panel of somebody else's comic by mistake after they were supposed to be dead. What you really need to do is flush the whole mess and start again, ideally with a title such as "List of major pseudoscientific topics" rather than a clumsily worded get-out clause allowing people too thick to write the article you ought to have here to cobble together a lazy, ramshackle approximation of it then pat themselves on the back and self-identify as clever.

Before you ask, no, I'm not going to write it. I've got better things to do than spend the next few years arguing with the kind of people who can write gibberish like this without a trace of irony, let alone self-awareness. All things considered, I'm pretty sure I'd get sick of edit-warring long before they did.

Oh, by the way, since many of you appear to enjoy having long discussions about whether or not individual words should stay or go, perhaps you should apply your mighty intellects to paragraph 1, line 4, because I strongly suspect "practices-efforts" isn't a proper word at all. Have fun! 86.130.66.52 (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleted Section on EMDR as pseudoscience.

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I deleted the section on Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy. The section was written with very old sources. EMDR now has good empirical support and an impressive research base from the APA and Cleveland Clinic and is a notable treatment for PTSD.

https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments/eye-movement-reprocessing

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22641-emdr-therapy#:~:text=Eye%20movement%20desensitization%20and%20reprocessing%20(EMDR)%20therapy%20is%20a%20mental,or%20other%20distressing%20life%20experiences. Malfesto (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverted this since its better to bring this up in talk first. This entry literally has a section called "Pseudoscience", so it meets the criteria for this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Falsifiability in lead

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We need a statement about this in the lead. Let's try to formulate something. Here are a few thoughts to work with (and correct if necessary):

If a claim is not falsifiable, it is not a pseudoscientific claim. All scientific claims are falsifiable, and if a belief makes no falsifiable claims, in other words no claim to be scientific, it is not pseudoscientific, but may be classed as a religious belief. The moment a religion makes falsifiable claims, those claims are subject to examination and, if they are falsified, they are then classed as pseudoscientific claims, and many pseudoscientific claims have been falsified.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead word "pseudoscience" takes the reader to the definition. Do we need to duplicate part of another article here? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You have a point. This isn't the main article. I just thought a mention would be appropriate here, but maybe not. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

History

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The impact of pseudoscientific ideas 41.115.108.76 (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's a legitimate topic. Have you checked the History of pseudoscience article? That's where we cover that topic. This is just a list article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Popper's views on historical materialism

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wonder if the mention of Popper's views having been criticized is unwarranted. Almost all of these things being classified as pseudoscience are criticized by their proponents, and it'd be one thing if scientific publications were publishing these complaints, but it's entirely philosophy outlets or an "in-universe" so to speak communist journal. I'm going to remove them because as detailed in WP:FRINGE those aren't really the sources Wikipedia should be using on if something is considered pseudoscientific or not. XeCyranium (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Lunar effect on humans anb living beings have several scientific studies to avail, it makes no sense to mark it as pseudoscience would be like tampering science itself 2806:106E:1C:3032:940D:9B46:3679:2CC6 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think what the editor is trying to say is that there is some evidence that some human behavior is affected by the lunar cycle e.g. increased epileptic episodes, motorcycle accidents, and sleep disorders. (per the Lunar effect article.)

Of course that doesn't mean there's not a whole bunch of pseudoscience attached to the topic so simply removing the entry would seem to be an overreaction. Perhaps we could be more circumspect in our synopsis, something similar to the wording at the List of common misconceptions:

The phase of the Moon does not influence fertility, cause a fluctuation in crime, or affect the stock market. There is no correlation between the lunar cycle and human biology or behavior. However, the increased amount of illumination during the full moon may account for increased epileptic episodes, motorcycle accidents, or sleep disorders.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the Khazar hypothesis be added to the psuedohistory section?

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

From what I have read about the Khazar hypothesis, the theory appears to be widely discredited, with (as quoted from the article) genetic studies finding no real evidence of a Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews.

Give that the theory has been used by some groups Aum Shinrikyo and Black Hebrew Israelites to support their antisemitic views, I think that placing the hypothesis on this list is important. JooneBug37 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The criteria is "notability".. (that this has been called a pseudoscience)..."should be established at the main article". Is that present? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The main article's categories include "pseudohistory" and its See Also section includes a link to this article. The article also emphasized that the hypothesis was not taken seriously by geneticists anymore. However, the article's main body does not include the word "pseudoscience."

Would this still count as "being established at the main article?" JooneBug37 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles topics do not need the word "pseudoscience" to appear in the body to be listed here. It just needs to be described as such. Khazar hypothesis seems to have that description. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sweet! I will add the Khazar hypothesis to the article. JooneBug37 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Update the lead/summary to include pseudo historical claims and so forth?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The list includes psuedo-acadmeic claims that are not pseudoscience but obviously other forms of it. Should the lead be updated to fit that given that they already exist in the list? Question169 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have some specific examples in mind? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I'm talking about the article itself. There is a section involving history and that is more pseudo history than pseudoscience. Maybe a short disclaimer at the start to say that the article isn't talking strictly about science? Question169 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Fact verification required and requested

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have doubts when it comes to the validity of this article. Why? For single example: the author is basing their argument about Body Memory on the research that is 30 & 20 years old, therefore when it comes to science it is completely OUT OF DATE!

This is ridiculous!

The list includes the subjects that used to be considered as pseudoscience, as well as those that are still considered so!

At the very least, this creates confusion: are they/are they not?

At the very worst, Chiropractic practitioners are put in the same brackets as a person believes in healing energy.

Is there a NEUTRAL (with no invested interest) person who can check the resources and make sure they are accurate and UP TO DATE, relevant and from ACADEMIC resources , not web articles for folks!

AggieTe (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Done Verified. Sources are good. If no newer sources on this question exist, likely this is just settled knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add expanding Earth, now considered to be pseudoscience as per this source. 132.181.47.1 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Done Lova Falk (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The list is nice, but too terse.

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For example, "The symptoms of "chronic Lyme" are generic and non-specific "symptoms of life".", which includes arthritis, swollen knees, swollen lymph nodes on neck or armpits, nail pitting and most importantly raised borrelial antibody levels in both IgM and IgG years after the original infection, treated with a very short low dose antibiotics course. Not to mention fungal and spirochaetal DNA in PCR of brain lysate of the deceased. Does the article claim that 1-day antibiotics course of two 100-miligram doxycycline treatment such was had been recommended in Texas in 2006 is a guaranteed course to clear the infection? A similar, weaker spirochaete that doesn't even have the heat shock proteins, that causes syphillis, does have a chronic stage that is long recognized. Also known to cause birth defects and abortions. Are we going to claim that it is all bogus now, that spirochaetes can not cause long lasting infections, ever?

The section on Technical Analysis tries to disprove the whole Dow Theory and Benoit Mandelbrots studies on different types of noise and random walk with tendencies. His note on the coin toss experiments is also of note, those too have exhibited trends. Or also, why does anyone try to disprove the formation of movement channels that are easily shown to be within exactly 0.5-sigma or 1-sigma levels. It is pure statistics, and yet it forms again and again. And what about the whole "return to previous levels" memory of price movements. Dead cat bounce doesn't exist or something? Disproving Technical Analysis means disproving Jesse Livermore had existed. 90.64.64.68 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove Lysenkoism, the entire paragraph is psuedohistorical. Gosos67 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Not done It looks pretty historical to me, and supported by RS. If you think otherwise please provide RS. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 17:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

archaeology

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a lot of pseudo-science in archaeology. Lets 'put the most prominent, clearly pseudo ones into the list. Kdammers (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Historical Materialism

Latest comment: 6 months ago21 comments7 people in discussion

From a brief read on the Historical Materialism section, two points stand out.

First, I do not believe the categorisation of Historical Materialism as a pseudoscience is made with the same weight of evidence as the majority of the other points on this list. Whilst there are a few sources the reference in writing is primarily around the statements of Popper. Effectively, this renders the argument that Historical Materialism is a pseudoscience down to an argument from authority.

Second, Historical Materialism is too broad a term. Does this refer to mechanistic/mechanical/vulgar historical materialism (itself rejected by Marxist theory), chemistic(?)/chemical historical materialism (a development more in line with Marxist theory which is occasionally used as a comparison), dialectical historical materialism (AKA the Marxist method of analysis), or even some kind of metaphysical historical materialism (whatever that might look like)? At the amount of breadth the article currently possesses, what remains is to claim that changes and developments in society come from elsewhere than the material world, in some way. Given how much of the article rejects a dualism of a vital force, and rightly so, it seems strange to reject monoist materialism so broadly.

If it must be included at all, these things must be taken into consideration. However, I would suggest it should be removed altogether, due to the political nature of calling historical materialism pseudoscience in a broad stroke, and with such limited basis. 2A0A:EF40:E03:2E01:D1AB:2A94:3B8C:3422 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you claiming that historical materialism is a science? EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 08:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@EntropyReducingGuy My position should be clear enough from my previous statements without going into further detail, no? 81.78.242.100 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really. This list includes topics that (1) some people have presented as science, but (2) have been described as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. Which of these two points do you disagree with here? EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 09:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It is also not correct that Popper is the only source of this characterization. The article here also mentions Imre Lakatos and Ernest van den Haag. The article about Historical Materialism itself also mentions Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem. The article Criticism of Marxism also mentions Bertrand Russell and Murray Rothbard. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 09:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

This article is a list of topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. User:Chimera1917, can you please stop deleting the well-sourced item Historical Materialism from this list? Whatever you may feel about this philosophy's value, it clearly fits under the article's rubric. I am a Leftie, I am not hostile to Marxist thought. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Well-sourced does not equal to correct, it’s still fundamentally incorrect and doesn’t fit.

> Though some of the listed topics continue to be investigated scientifically, others were only subject to scientific research in the past and today are considered refuted, but resurrected in a pseudoscientific fashion.

Except historical materialism isn’t considered refuted on a grandiose scale nor was it resurrected in a pseudoscientific fashion either, it’s plain wrong. My earlier comment to you can literally be backed by other scholars and answers online, so in my case it works. Chimera1917 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I had made sure, on the other hand that criticisms from Popper and other scholars against historical materialism remain in the Marxism page, which is correct as it has been subjected to that criticism as mentioned earlier, but that does not make it pseudoscience, and if it does, then the same applies to many other theories. Chimera1917 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of this article. It is not a list of topics that you personally consider pseudoscience at this point in time. It lists topics that have been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair point, I concede. I added a sentence for clarification regarding their understanding of historical materialism (These critiques generally stemmed from an understanding of historical materialism as a rigid and deterministic doctrine, which, in their view, encouraged dogmatic reinterpretation rather than empirical falsification and thus justified its classification as pseudoscience.), but made sure it doesn't get any worse. Chimera1917 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, what? It has been characterized as a science by academics and researchers as well within stronger retaliation. Chimera1917 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Is the Hegelian dialectic pseudoscience then because the same thing was said about it? These scholars are within a minority opinion that has been largely discredited. Chimera1917 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The fact that Historical Materialism had been characterized as a science by a minority of academics and researchers is what makes it a pseudoscience. If it had been universally regarded only as a philosophical theory then it wouldn't be a pseudoscience, but rather just a controversial philosophical theory. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 18:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It wasn’t characterized as a science by only a minority, what? And its characterization as a pseudoscience comes from a maligned and dogmatic reading that fundamentally goes against what Marx and Engels both upheld, not even mentioning that falsifiability is no longer seen as the primary criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudoscience.

However, given the article says that popper labeled it as pseudoscientific on the grounds of it being unfalsifiable, then it would be correct in that regard, though otherwise it’s wrong. However, I’m not making any changes, as I’m content with how it’s worded out. Chimera1917 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

My final take on this is that being described as a science by only a minority of scholars does not make a theory a pseudoscience, since pseudoscience is defined by methodological problems such as unfalsifiability, resistance to counter-evidence, or ad hoc explanations rather than by how many academics endorse it. Historical materialism is generally understood as a theoretical or methodological framework in social theory and historiography, not a natural science, and while critics argue that it can be unfalsifiable, others treat it as a legitimate research program. At most, it is controversial and debated, not pseudoscientific simply because of limited scholarly consensus. Goodbye. Chimera1917 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@EntropyReducingGuy “only regarded as a science by a minority” damn you cannot read can you? otherwise I understand why it’s here Szechian66 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Greetings,

please address article content rather than making disparaging attacks other collaborative editors.

Augmented Seventh (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Szechian66 It appears that you disagree with my statements, but I’m not sure what your objection is. As far as I know, both of the following claims are true. Which one do you believe is incorrect?

There are some scholars who think that Historical Materialism is a science.
The vast majority of scholars don't think that Historical Materialism is a science.

EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 06:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m already over it not even going to lie to you but my point is clear. Szechian66 (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@EntropyReducingGuy “While many modern, mainstream scholars in Western academia often argue that historical materialism is not a hard science due to its lack of empirical falsifiability and predictive certainty, it is not necessarily true that a "vast majority" dismiss it entirely. Many scholars, especially in sociology and history, view it as a crucial theoretical framework, a method of analysis, or a social science tool, rather than a natural science.”

Notice the words “natural” and “social.” There is an entire peer-reviewed academic journal named after it that’s widely credited as a highly-regarded publication. One of the world’s most prestigious and oldest publications (Brill, they just so happen to own the Historical Materialism journal!) known to use it is also there along with EBSCO Information Services whom are very well-received within academic circles. And, of course, you have a multitude of contemporary scholars with strong regard in sociology and philosophy like David Harvey, John Bellamy Foster, Gillian Heart, Judith Butler, Slavoj Zizek, and Robert Brenner, and if you recognize any of those names then surely you’d know how much of a big deal that is. I didn’t even mention 20th century sociologists and philosophers either, because that would be overkill at that point.

Also, historical materialism is a method of analysis much like the scientific method, not a conclusion. There are historically many predictions made that didn’t come out to be accurate and thus falsified those conclusions that it had come to establish. It’s fairly common for many scientific theories to also do this only to then fix their theory later on (see: Newtonian physics), but I wouldn’t expect you to know that. I agree in Popper’s reading that it would be pseudoscience for post-Marx variations (he wasn’t against Marx and Engels’s conception), and his reading has been a subject of criticism just like Murray Rothbard’s, but I’m not against putting it in the list because they specifically stated that some of the topics here continue to be scientifically examined and are up for debate. That is all. Szechian66 (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@EntropyReducingGuy I forgot to tag properly, have a nice day. Szechian66 (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion above, I'm not seeing a consensus to remove this material, which has been in the article for several years prior to the recent back-and-forth removal and restoration. The most recent removal came with the edit note

Take it to talk page. The sources or the article must define it as pseudoscience. period.

while the discussion above shows that it has already been taken to the talk page and failed to achieve consensus to remove the material. My reading of Wikipedia policy is that the material should be restored, and further edit-warring ceased pending consensus here on the talk page. So, I'm restoring it, and let's hear the arguments for removal.

Regarding the second sentence in the edit note, one of the cites says:

Popper also considers that contemporary Marxism also lacks scientific status. Unlike psychoanalysis, he argues, Marxism had been initially scientific, in that it was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserts, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

That's just one instance of it being called pseudoscience, which is hardly dispositive. But it seems to refute the criticism in the edit note.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but let's follow the process instead of edit warring. Thanks.

raw foodism

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fad Diet is already listed, but so is carnivore diet. Carnivore diet is a type of Fad Diet, so either it should be removed for being present twice, or other extreme fad diets should be included. Raw Foodism already has a wikipedia page and would be a nice addition in the health section Auspip (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

facilitated communication is on here twice

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

health and psychology section. the psychology section entry is more informative. Auspip (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup

Latest comment: 3 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion

@Bon courage and Altenmann:

So the hidden comment at the top of the article says UNSOURCED entries WILL BE REMOVED in order to keep this list clear of original research and possible NPOV violations.

I don't see a citation for Welteislehre or Germ theory denialism or 5G nonsense or Sun Language Theory. Timewave zero does have 2 refs, but neither is reliable.

Exorcism even supplies a quote: a 50% increase in the number of exorcisms performed between the early 1960s and the mid-1970s which has been repeated several times online but doesn't have a source, and is obvious nonsense (no one is keeping accurate statistics on the exorcisms performed worldwide in various cultures and religious traditions).

So maybe this article isn't great and someone should work on it a bit? What do y'all think? AfD? Rewrite tag? Polygnotus (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

It's been to AfD a couple of times, with "Speedy Keep" the result. Seems like a waste of time.

Another waste of time is the AfD above, which asks the wrong question. I'd suggest withdrawing it and posting a new one that addresses whether it meets the inclusion criteria, rather than soliciting opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

the ~~AfD~~ RfC above.

Two of the AfDs, on sequential days, were by someone who made 9 edits before getting indeffed. Polygnotus (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

To reply to the substance of the post, there are some entries without cites. The easy way to address that is to go to the topic article and see if any of the cites are sufficient to support whatever is stated here. If so, copy them over. If not, remove the entry. I don't think it's necessary to look farther for a summary list article like this one - if it's not sufficiently cited in the topic article it probably doesn't belong here.

As per WP:BURDENWAIT, "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it." I'll take a look at the items you pointed out and see what I can do. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The first one is Welteislehre.

Robert Bowen explicitly calls it pseudoscience. Hörbiger’s World Ice Theory is one of many pseudo-sciences which have attained varying degrees of prominence, especially during the twentieth century.

As seen in Nature, Science.org and OUP. Christina Wessely does too in various places. I have added a ref. Polygnotus (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and Koranic scientific foreknowledge doesn't even have an article written about it. Polygnotus (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The material here about Koranic scientific foreknowledge is basically cribbed from the final paragraph at Islamic_attitudes_towards_science#Science_and_the_Quran. I don't see a list selection criterion that says each entry must have it's own page, so this entry seems to satisfy the LSC. I've updated the wikilink to point to the relevant section.

OTOH, the pseudoscience designation is attributed to only one author, so it might fail the inclusion criteria if we change it as I suggested above. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria were always governed by the PaGs, but we should make that more explicit.

I think the more common name is Bucailleism, named after this dude. Polygnotus (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Should Minimum Parking Requirements be on this list?

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This sounds more like bad public policy than a pseudoscience. ~2026-17086-45 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

No, of course it should not be on the list. I'll get rid of it. Polygnotus (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I have not (yet) reverted your edit, but I'm not sure, after reading the sources, that your edit was so unambiguously correct. Both sources do call the system pseudoscientific, and while I agree parking minimums (etc) are nowhere claimed to be 'a science', that is also not necessarily the inclusion criterium for this list (characterised as pseudoscience =/= pseudoscience). I would urge a further discussion of this, perhaps after the RfC concludes. Otherwise, I would characterise your edit as bold. Slomo666 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Slomo666 Where is the consensus for inclusion? Polygnotus (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying there's a consensus for inclusion, just that an RfC to establish a consensus is still ongoing. I am also not necessarily disagreeing with your edit. I just think you were a bit bold and it would have been better to wait out the RfC. Slomo666 (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Reverts by Shlomo

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Shlomo: The text you restored: "These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning." are wikipedian's editorializing that have nothing to do neither with policy nor inclusion criteria. Idle talk has no place in Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, added text mentions policies to be consulted, hence helpful. --Altenmann >talk 14:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Your edit summary " I am merely removing it until the RfC concludes" is irrelevant, because the content you restores in not discussed in RfC. --Altenmann >talk 14:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

My edit summary "yes it is" was misguided, because I erroneouly thought you were restoring deleted items. --Altenmann >talk 14:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh oops. I did not see these messages at all (You did not ping me). My apologies, you must have thought I was very rude. Slomo666 (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

List items

Latest comment: 3 months ago27 comments4 people in discussion

The items in the list must be defined as pseudoscience in sources. Otherwise it is Wikipedians' opinion disallowable in Wikipedia.--Altenmann >talk 16:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Dear Altenmann, I have reverted your edit, as you removed a list criterium which had been stable for years, while an RfC is ongoing which should either use this criterium or lead to a consensus to remove it. The same is true for @Polygnotus's addition, which is also premature: the consensus of the RfC would determine the way we interpret, for the purpose of this list, the guidelines. ~~Adding a note that may prejudice people participating in the RfC is improper as it may lead people to believe the note represents a previous consensus being used/challenged in the RfC.~~ Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC) edited 15:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Slomo666 Please do not revert based on what you feel like the rules could/should be, but actually read them. Polygnotus (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I am reading the rules, but how those rules are applied is what we are discussing in the RfC, isn't it? You added a note on your own, before the RfC was over. Slomo666 (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I reverted your revert again, as I described in my edit summary. Your edit is part of the ongoing RfC, and while that dispute is ongoing, ~~we should refrain from making edits that prejudice the dispute.~~ Since you opened the RfC, I would assume that you also want it to be handled properly.

Happy editing,

Slomo666 (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC) edited 15:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Slomo666 You are now editwarring in a WP:CTOP area. Probably best you revert yourself before someone complains. Polygnotus (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I would honestly rather not, for the reasons I stated, but I also have no intention of being in an edit war and that isn't worth my time. I regret even responding to the RfC now. Should I interpret your comment as such a complaint? If so, I'll self-revert. Slomo666 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what the list selection criteria for this article is. This misunderstanding manifests itself in the discussion above, and in the RfC below (which asks the wrong question). A number of years ago, we discussed restricting the inclusion article to change the selection criteria to only include topics that are actually pseudoscience (as per WP:PSCI) as opposed to topics that some academic or researcher claimed to be pseudoscience. That suggestion failed to reach consensus so the selection criteria remained. See Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience/Archive_12#Using_WP:PSCI_as_the_inclusion_criteria for the full discussion.

Now, consensus may change, and I'd welcome an RfC that moots that question. But, the current list selection criteria is what it is, and pretending that it is what you would like it to be, or ignoring it, is not a valid argument. And this question is not what the current RfC is about. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish Pretending this article does not have to follow the PaGs is why we got into this mess in the first place. pretending that it is what you would like it to be, or ignoring it, is not a valid argument. Exactly. Which side of the debate do you think is doing that? Polygnotus (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone say that we don't have to follow the policies and guidelines. Perhaps you could give an example.

What I have seen is a number of editors who seem to assume that this is a "list of pseudoscience topics" as opposed to a list of "topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers".

For instance, the RfC asks "Should the historical materialism be listed as pseudoscience?" - but that's not the inclusion criteria. Others have weighed in with "No. It's not pseudoscience" without addressing whether it has been characterized that way and would meet the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

number of editors who seem to assume - maybe it is a problem not with the editors, but with the selection criterion? So maybe it is time to make a quick poll to close the RFC as irrelevant and start a new RFC on inclusion criteria? (I will !vote 'ay'.) "Characterized as pseudoscience" is a very opinionated non-defining criterion. Oldtimers may remember "List of sex symbols", see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of sex symbols for the ripples it left. People seriously argued at lengths that if someone was called a sex symbol by someone then this person must be listed as sex symbol. --Altenmann >talk 19:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I am having trouble resisting the urge to reply, so here: the bit you removed did the opposite from what causes issues like the one you mention: It actually narrows the scope of the list by requiring the characterisation(s) were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning. and not merely some idiot (or even an expert) calling something a pseudoscience. --Slomo666 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

...maybe it is a problem not with the editors, but with the selection criterion? So maybe it is time to make a quick poll to close the RFC as irrelevant and start a new RFC on inclusion criteria?

I think this is basically correct, and would support the actions you suggest. I think you can withdraw the RfC yourself as the proposer. A question for a a new RfC might be:

Should the selection criteria and title to be changed to only list topics that may be labeled or categorized as pseudoscience in accordance with WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:FRINGE/QS?

Cheers. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish But that wouldn't work per CONLEVEL; a local consensus here can not override the much wider consensus behind the guidelines.

So even those who dislike the fact that the guidelines exist have to follow them.

Any answers to that hypothetical RfC would be discarded as irrelevant, because there is no choice presented. Polygnotus (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

How, exactly, would that selection criteria "override" the guidelines? I'm not following you. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think Polygnotus is responding based on something I said: that application and interpretation of the rules and guidelines is something determined through RfCs (by which I meant: rather than by a single editor. They'd placed a hidden comment which I asserted was premature and prejudiced the RfC, and reverted.) Slomo666 (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish and Slomo666: The "Characterized as" thing was always a silly workaround. The fact that 2 or 3(?) people may have agreed that that was a good idea at some point in history is irrelevant.

If you have a RfC that asks the question:

Should the selection criteria and title to be changed to only list topics that may be labeled or categorized as pseudoscience in accordance with WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:FRINGE/QS?

then that is a weird question in the context that the selection criteria have always been limited by what is allowed by the PAGs. Or at least as long as those PAGs have existed.

And since the title and lead section cause a bit of confusion we should indeed change them, but we don't need an RfC for that. Anyone can just do it.

Note that WP:CONLEVEL is part of a policy. Guidelines generally contain good advice and you should probably just follow them, except in rare circumstances, and not following policy is basically always a bad idea.

Compare:

If I and 2 of my neighbours agree that there is no speed limit on the stretch of highway nearest to my house because we want to have a race, then our opinions are irrelevant, because we live in a country which has made rules and those rules are more important than what my neighbours and me decide. Asking the local community if our handdrawn "no speedlimit here" signs should be changed is silly. Polygnotus (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think "characterised as" is just a different, and in some way, narrower, criterium separate from what I think many in the discussion seem to think the topic of this article is. This article is not a list of pseudosciences, but a list of things (erroneously or correctly) characterised as pseudoscience through history, with a specific context.

If your neighbour and you happened to be highly notable (non-)government officials without legislative prerogative, and made a list of streets that you think should have, for reasons xyz, a speed limit of 130km/h instead of 100km/h (current practical maximum everywhere) then this very well may be notable within that context as "list of streets that Polygnotus and his bestie think should be 130 streets" or "...can be 130 streets".

You would be right if this article were about what we/RS consider to be pseudosciences, but it is not. We do not allege the listed items are actually pseudoscience. If that were the case, I think we should have a move discussion instead of the present discussion + rfc below.

Slomo666 (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sidenote: that may actually be a better idea anyways, since many of the entries in the list currently do not abide by the lede's mandate that their pseudoscientific aspects be laid out in the body. Slomo666 (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Slomo666 It is, unfortunately, not possible to disagree with facts. You can dislike them tho. If your neighbour and you happened to be highly notable (non-)government officials We are not; we are just some random dudes.

And our "no speed limit here" signs are made of cardboard. then this very well may be notable That is irrelevant, since the PaGs overrule that. The bits I quoted are not about notability. Polygnotus (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You are random dudes, but the criteria we are discussing very clearly say/said it cannot just be random dudes making that characterisation. To call the article a list of cardboard signs is a strawman (or rather: a cardboard man). I never claimed that the criteria or article itself in any way pretend the characterisations would imply some sort of factual equivalence (speed signs). It is a fundamentally different subject. Again: perhaps better to move to the subject "list of pseudosciences" (in the continued analogy: list of speed limits) then. Slomo666 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

To call the article a list of cardboard signs is a strawman I didn't. I compared the "characterized as"-framing to handmade cardboard signs proclaiming that there is no speed limit on a bit of highway.

Sure, we can change the title to "List of pseudosciences" and then adjust the lead section a bit, that is an improvement. Polygnotus (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, so that is calling the article (in your analogy) a list of cardboard signs, which is different from what it actually is, but I digress, because this is becoming too semantic.

I support the move either way because I don't care enough about this article to defend the "characterised as" status aparte, but I do not think we can leave the title and description "characterised as" and still change the inclusion criteria to include only, and *all*, (so not a narrower subset) actual pseudosciences. Slomo666 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it is comparing the "characterized as"-framing to a cardboard sign. Not the article. Nor its contents.

Swordfish also supports the move so feel free to implement that consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

To me, "does this meet the inclusion criteria some guy made up" is irrelevant when those criteria are overruled by PAGs with a higher CONLEVEL. Most PAGs are widely supported, and WP:FRINGE is pretty battle-tested (26 talkpage archives). So if we wanna ignore it we need a good reason to. Whether something has been "characterized by one guy" as pseudo-science is irrelevant when we have a guideline stating that Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

One guy != widely used. See here for more quotes from guidelines. Polygnotus (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria have been discussed at length on the talk page here, so your characterization of it as something that "one guy made up" is at variance with the record. I haven't slogged through the 19 pages of archives, but I've seen enough to think the current selection criteria is the product of consensus. I disagree with those inclusion criteria, as do several others who have weighed in, and we can change it if there is consensus to do so. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Two guys? Three people some of whom may be guys? It doesn't really matter.

The guidelines I quoted are the product of way more consensus, see WP:CONLEVEL.

we can change it if there is consensus to do so. Anyone can change them. You don't need to get consensus first to make improvements. Polygnotus (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2026

Latest comment: 2 months ago32 comments13 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I find strong consensus to move here; no policy-based arguments have been made against the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 07:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience → List of pseudoscience topics – There appears to be confusion among the editors of this page, and presumably the readers too, about the list selection criteria as implied by the current title. Currently, inclusion on the list only requires that some "academic or researcher" has labeled the topic as pseudoscience, instead of the more stringent requirements at WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE/PS about when a topic may be described as pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice. Renaming, and adjusting the list selection criteria accordingly would resolve that confusion. Of course, there would be more to it than just changing the title - the lead would need to be rewritten, and each entry examined to determine if it met the more stringent inclusion criteria.

BTW, WP:RFCNOT stipulates that the RfC process should not be used for renaming requests, hence this process vs an RfC. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

(ping @Martin Rundkvist @EntropyReducingGuy @[[User:Chimera1917}]] @Szechian66 Augmented Seventh User:Slomo666 @Polygnotus @User:Bon courage @296cherry @Maltazarian @Fountains of Bryn Mawr @ApLundell @Valjean ) Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Support Updating a comment I made previously:

A) There are times when we say in Wikipedia's voice that something is pseudoscience. Examples include Creation science, Acupuncture, and Lysenkoism.

B) There are other times when we attribute that description to someone else. Examples include Feng_shui, Psychoanalysis, and Eugenics.

There are clear policies at WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:FRINGE/QS regarding when we can do A; for B we only have to follow the general P&Gs, so it's a much looser standard.

The problem as I see it is that our readers may think that inclusion on this list implies A and not just B. Yes, if you carefully parse the current title and the introduction, inclusion implies only B and not necessarily A, but it seems quite likely that out readers may not parse it that narrowly and come away with the wrong impression.

Agree that many of the items in this list are "edge cases". And when we list them here, we run the risk of implying that they are not edge cases. Hence the suggestion above to remedy that by only including entries where the topic article clearly states that it is in category A. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Support - thoroughly dislike vague criteria. --Altenmann >talk 02:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
BTW, when the dust settles, we have to figure out what to do with numerous "snake oil" entries in the list, leaving only the ones that claim some scientific background/researh. --Altenmann >talk 02:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
I still don’t have a strong opinion on what should happen with the page, but I imagine if this proposal passes, the entire page will be reworked, (as would the templates atop this talk page) to align with the new purpose of the article and its new inclusion criteria. Slomo666 (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Regarding A and B of Mr swordfish, our "pseudoscience" article mentions strong criteria, like here and elsewhere. Therefore IMO we can use Wikipedia voice, provided consensus. --Altenmann >talk 02:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Support. I will just quote my reasoning from the RfC as to why I want this done.
The list shies away from stating that the entries are pseudoscience instead of just being called pseudoscience, and I don't see that as beneficial at all. Sure, it makes it easier to add stuff to the list without massive RfC arguments in a contentious topic area is a pseudo but what matters is not what is beneficial to us editors but rather what is beneficial to readers. The list doesn't clarify for each individual entry if it's nearly universally agreed to be pseudoscience or not, and the result of this is that we open the door to reader speculation. They might think "Okay this is an entry on the list, but that doesn't mean it is pseudoscience, it just means some naysayers claim it is!" and that would perhaps be fine for an entry like historical materialism, if it were to be added, but it's a terrible thing to let readers have as the takeaway for something like climate change denial. On the other hand they might think "Okay, the list saying it's topics "characterized" as pseudoscience is clearly just being diplomatic/appeasing towards pseudoscience believers, the entries on this list are clearly going to all be obvious pseudoscience!" and the reverse goes here: fine for climate change denial, not so much for something like historical materialism.
The TL:DR is that if we are confident enough to say in wikivoice that there is scientific consensus that a topic is a pseudoscience on that topic's article then we should be doing so on this list, and if we don't do that on that topic's article it shouldn't be on the list. We shouldn't be creating the impression of a false equivalence between, for example, historical materialism and climate change denial. ^{Just to be extra clear: although "climate change denial" isn't a pseudoscience in its own right per se, it usually takes the form of pseudoscientific theories that purport to refute the claim that humans are the cause of ongoing climate change, and that's what I'm referring to here.} ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 13:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Support anything other than the current title. Maybe just "list of pseudosciences"? Polygnotus (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a guideline, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which says:

Y Pseudoscience (Non-scientific statement claiming to be scientific): String theory proves that running water emits electricity when the quarks are aligned with the stars.
N Not pseudoscience (no claim that it's scientific): Santa Claus has magic reindeer that can fly.

It also says:

Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists.

And MOS:LABEL, which is part of the Words to watch guideline, says Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

So it looks like the PAGs are on the side of "only describe something as pseudoscientific if the academic debate has been settled" and "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources" and not "if one academic/researcher claims something is pseudoscience then list it on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience"...

The title and first sentence of the article and the hidden comment are just some editor's opinion of what it should be. You can edit 'em if you want. They do not override the PaGs. A topic is not automatically suitable for inclusion on this list just because one source has called it pseudoscience. Polygnotus (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

oppose I think that the word "characterised" hold the key to this. I dont think that this proposal will help us write decent articles on the subject, when the bar has been raised from "characterised" to just "pseudoscience" without the qualification. True believers will jump for joy, knowing they can insert a knife into this seafood and winkle out that there is no absoluteness to this pseudoscience thing, but the article with its proposed new title demands absolute hard definition. woosters will have a field day on talk pages throughout the project. Think of the children people. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 14:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
The standard would be the same as what the rest of the project already uses. It would go off WP:FRINGE#Spectrum of fringe theories. That allows us to call blatant cases of pseudoscience as such, and for other ones we would go off WP:RS. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 14:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

woosters will have a field day on talk pages throughout the project.

I fail to see how changes to this page would affect talk pages throughout the project. Is there some mechanism you have in mind? My assumption is that editors at the various topic articles referenced by this list are capable of holding their own in the presence of "woosters". If not, we have larger problems than the title of this article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Think of the readers Walter, ignore the childish editors who cannot take onboard both the title and the first sentence. What's up with 'topics' anyway? Wouldn't that make this content more appropriate in an Outline of pseudoscience rather than a list? Would that spare the children's feelings? fiveby(zero) 16:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. In part because of the cringe factor of apparently trying to use "pseudoscience" as an adjective. And then wouldn't this just be a mirror of category:pseudoscience anyway? AfD it or keep it as is; yet more fudge / redundancy is not the answer. Bon courage (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
I agree that we should avoid "pseudoscience topics"; if we do want to go with a construction like the one proposed it should be List of pseudoscentific topics. Ham II (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
pseudoscience or pseudoscientific makes no difference to me. Thinking and reading about this for a bit, the use of "List of __NOUN__ topics" is perfectly normal everyday English, despite the objection that an adjective needs to appear before the word "topics".

For instance we have the List of mathematics topics, which includes several dozen examples as sub-lists such as List of calculus topics, List of trigonometry topics, and List of algebraic geometry topics. There are many more.

I'd prefer not to get hung up on some schoolmarmish grammer non-issue here. Remember "The English language drinks prescriptivist tears like fine wine."

BTW, The redirect from list of pseudoscience topics has been in operation for a dozen years without comment, for what that's worth.

I don't understand the "more fudge / redundancy" comment. More fudge? No idea what that is supposed to mean. Redundancy? The current basically reproduces what's here, without regard to WP:FRINGE/PS, so it's already redundant. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

We can go with pseudoscientific topics, that'd be fine. I don't understand the complaint that something is based on the same inclusion criteria as a category though. That can be said for many lists, and categories are very hidden to the average reader. In addition to this the list obviously includes more than just links to each topic which alone justifies the overlapping scope. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 16:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If this does end up at AfD, may I ask in advance that the page history be saved somewhere? I think the development of this article (and particularly the lede) are very interesting and may be of use in future meta posts or analysis of the history of Wikipedia. Slomo666 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Support. “Characterized” is incredibly vague; it could imply that anyone calling something pseudoscience makes that topic suitable to be listed, which is simply ridiculous. 296cherry (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, not just anyone calling something pseudoscience, the lead restricts it to "academics or researchers" which is a bit better than anyone, but not by much. Is the person living in their parents' basement watching YouTube videos all day a "researcher"? Probably not, but who knows?

WP:STANDALONE requires that stand alone lists like this one "have clear selection criteria", and as you accurately point out, the current wording is vague.

Also, WP:CRITERIA has this to say about the goal of an article title:
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.

So, the current title and selection criteria seem to fall short of the policies and guidelines. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

* Comment The policy on article titles has a section on how to choose an article title. One criterion is

Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

Looking at the numerous articles at the list of lists, I find vanishingly few that have an obfuscatory or equivocal construction like "List of things that are characterized as X".

To highlight a few examples:

List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes not List of American federal politicians accused of crimes

Where the third-third party construction does appear, it's in articles such as List of music considered the worst or List of roller coaster rankings. For the former, there is no policy or guideline that allows us to state that some song is "the worst" in wikipedia's voice; instead the selection criteria for that page is fairly explicit about which sources can be used to establish inclusion. In the second case, the rankings are by things easily measurable like height, length, speed, etc.

So, this article title is an outlier from "the pattern of similar articles' titles". Now, we don't have to follow that goal if we have a good reason not to. But so far I haven't heard a good reason to treat this list so differently than the thousands of others on wikipedia. Perhaps those who oppose the proposal can explain why that would be desirable in this case. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry but, that list you made is hilarious 😂. Think that just hits the point home that the current title is unsuitable. 296cherry (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

<hehe>The last one is ha-ha only serious, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people accused of bribery in Russia. --Altenmann >talk 01:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ [EDIT: Neutral, per discussion below] as stating this list in Wikipedia's voice judges some good topics along with the vast majority being nonsense. Better to say 'characterized' as that lays the judgement at the feet of others. Example, long ago I had very good experiences with both the Alexander Technique and Feldenkrais Method, and decades later had one session where the person knew immediately, from my bodies response, that I had previous experience. Other examples of questionable entries exist on this list, so let's keep it to individual criticism and not a full-on Wikipedia denial. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
This move would lead to any topics that it would be inappropriate to call pseudoscientific in wikivoice being removed due to not meeting the inclusion criteria. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 15:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Maybe, but disagreements would leave some topics still on the list which are arguably mislabeled. In any case, interesting discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn Have you read this. Polygnotus (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

In particular, neither the Alexander Technique nor the Feldenkrais Method would survive the cut. Moreover, neither entry even meets the current criteria since the topic articles and this list fail to contain a cite where some "academic or researcher" calls either of them pseudoscience.

I'm not sure I understand the opposition, since to use the language above the "good topics" would not appear on the list, leaving only "nonsense". . Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Good points, have changed to neutral and will watch the discussions, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Support - the current title and LSC is vague and looks to the reader like it's being applied subjectively, eg, Evolution and Climate change are not on this list even though they meet the written LSC. Those items are not on this list for very good policy reasons but that is not apparent to the reader. WP:LSC advises there be an explicit criteria. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Next steps after move

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Since the move was successful, we now have a bunch of entries that are not necessarily pseudoscience, or at least we can't call them that as per the policies and guidelines.

I'll make a first pass at removing those entries today, since as it stands the implication of a topic appearing on this list is that we are calling it pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice instead of it merely being "characterized" as pseudoscience by some "academic or researcher". The criteria will of necessity be quick and dirty - i.e. if the topic article clearly states it is pseudoscience, the entry will remain, if the language in topic article falls short of clearly declaring it to be pseudoscience it will be removed. There is plenty of time to restore anything that is removed.

The lead and the FAQ will need to be reworked too. Thanks for everyone who participated in the discussions above. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I've now made a first pass at modifying the lead and culling the entries that are not described as pseudoscience in their topic articles. Each removal was its own edit so you can review what I removed. I probably missed a few, and there are very likely some that could be restored via discussion. I don't claim that this quick process was perfect, but hopefully there aren't any entries left that would fall afoul of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE or WP:FRINGE/PS. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

... and it starts. I'm not sure I'm on board with this. Obviously there was a consensus driven change, but nevertheless. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 15:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There will likely be spirited discussions of the inclusion or non-inclusion of various individual topics. That's probably a good thing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's for the better, and I have confidence that the editors involved in the previous discussions have the ability to deal with this without it turning into a circus. I'm going to go look over the changes now. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 19:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Historical Materialism

Latest comment: 2 months ago24 comments9 people in discussion