Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Pseudoscience/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Brad Patrick said what?

User:Brad Patrick, apparently acting in his capacity as General Counsel for the WikiMedia Foundation, left a very odd message, which I quote in full:

Representatives on behalf of the company have sent a cease and desist letter to the Wikimedia Foundation office after unsuccessful attempts by its lawyer Kent Forbes to change the content of the article. Please do not comment on legal threats either in the article or talk space. Thanks.

— Brad Patrick 16:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC) in Talk:Water fuel cell

Several users have requested clarification:

  1. What company precisely?
  2. Did he really mean the talk page?
  3. Just where are we supposed to discuss specific legal threats, if not on talk pages? Should we infer that leaving a message in the user talk page of user U who has just made legal threat T, warning U not to make legal threats, is now "illegal"? What about discussion of specific legal threats at places like WP:AN/I? Or does he mean just this one threat (does he mean the letter which we wouldn't even have known about had he not left his message?), and not other threats?
  4. And is Kentforbes (talk · contribs) the Kent Forbes who sent the letter, or is that a vandalism account by some troll looking to cause trouble?

It's all very strange.---CH 07:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Brad is just saying that we shouldn't discuss this particular legal threat as it is a meta-issue to the article and will only complicate matters for Wikimedia foundation since Brad is now involved (it has escalated beyond what administrators, the arbitration committee, etc. will deal with). Also, Brad is instructing the editors not to cite the legal threats made by Kent Forbes in the article itself. Just ignore the legal threats and go about doing the work of editing neutrally and verifiably. Brad is simply saying he's handling the situation and will work to resolve the issue. You can wash your hands of worrying about the legal issues surrounding Kent Forbes' posts.
Of course, this only applies to this particular issue, and not other issues in other articles or with other users. If other legal issues come up surrounding this user or article, just refer them directly to Brad Patrick at his user page (as though he was the uber-administrator). Legal issues not involving them can be handled as you normally would.
--ScienceApologist 08:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, SA, can I copy this to Talk:Water fuel cell? Do you know anything about the other questions I raised? ---CH 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that you don't copy this to Talk:Water fuel cell since it may only aggravate the situation. If other users are curious, refer them directly to this page on their user talks or via e-mail. I don't know what company it is, but presumably it is the company that Kent Forbes works for. As per usual, any other Legal threats not pertaining to this issue that are made on Wikipedia should immediately be reported to admins and blocks should be immediate. AN/I, talkpage discussion, user talk discussions all can and should continue as normal. Guidelines and policies about warning users for making legal threats are all still applicable. However, you should not warn Kent Forbes or discuss any legal threats he made/makes or alluded/alludes to on Wikipedia with respect to this issue and instead refer these things directly to Brad as they arise just so that you aren't unwittingly pulled into a legal battle you probably don't need. From what I can understand from Brad's letter, User:Kentforbes is very likely the same Kent Forbes who sent the letter, however, that's not really our concern anymore. Brad will deal with what to do with this user. --ScienceApologist 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

RfArb

User:Iantresman has started a request for arbitration you may wish to comment on WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience__vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another set of pages to watch?

Yeah, I know. In theory PNA should be used for this, but actually pages listed there don't get much expert's attention.

I've recently stumbled over the contributions of Viriathus (talk · contribs), especially Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev and Harold Aspden. Comments? ---—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjacobi (talk • contribs) 07:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(Rolls virtual eyes): "Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroeder’s groundbreaking 1970 book, Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain"? Good grief! Where oh where do they all come from? ---CH 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Good grief. aspden.org is the domain of his website, which is registered in Southampton (but with webhost apparently headquartered in London); see this page search for ample evidence of his anti-relativity campaign. Now see this linksearch for ample evidence of the problem for WP quality control.
A quick dig suggests that Viriathus (talk · contribs) may be no other than Aspden himself, suggesting that these edits may represent yet another incident of wikishilling, another WP:VAIN vio, etc. Note that Viriathus says this figure "led the Lusitanian guerrilla fighters to several victories over the Romans" which certainly seems consistent with the mood of Aspden's "struggle for acceptance" of his views, which he describes at his website. Of course, we know the fate after the ship named after the province of Lusitania, so some might say this seems to be a rather defeatist choice of "heroic" handle! Perhaps he'll give up easily if challenged?
Note that aspden.org is the domain of Harold Aspden's website, which is registered in Southampton (but with webhost apparently headquartered in London); see this page search for ample evidence of his anti-relativity campaign. Now see this linksearch for ample evidence of the problem for WP quality control.
Finally, note that the btcentralplus.com anon may also be Aspden:
He seems to be a fairly isolated anti-relativity crank.---CH 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I happen to agree that the PNA notice at the top of this page should be removed for the reasons stated by Peter.---CH 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Chris, please be aware that it is technically impossible to violate a guideline, and there is no obligation to follow guidelines (that's why they are called guidelines). Moreover, I like to put your attention to the fact that your above comments appear to be a strong violation of WP:CIVIL. This is not the first time. Please abstain. Harald88 22:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello dear fellow editors. Nice deductions about my nick:), thanks anyway for your efforts; but do you really think that Dr. Aspden being an old man with a fine education, strong principles - and who commited his life to pursue truth in science (not dogmas); whose work is known, and avoided, to the highest contemporary and some of the 20th century deceased physicists - would be here editing about his work at Wikipedia (a lovely free encyclopedia, but still filled with materialist-reducionist science editors, like the fanatic bishops of religion in the middle ages who refused to look through Galileu's telescope...)?! lol, I see you haven't studied his work... I come from a different field and you are welcome to study my site too, here. Best regards.
"Truly, the achievements of modern science are marvelous. The best way to learn the secrets of nature, however, is not by inventing instruments, but by improving the investigator himself.", 1909 --Viriathus 19:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Monitoring continued problematic activity by permabanned users

As most of you probably already know, I have been maintaining (as quietly as possible, i.e. not very quietly at all, as it turned out!) several pages monitoring sockpuppets and anons used by several permanbanned problem users well known :-( to this project:

Keeping such notes is permissible according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun#Keeping_notes.

I might add a fifth page to this list:

after hearing comments here. This particular individual has announced that he intends to violate an ArbCom ban on his disruptive edits of Depleted uranium and related articles, by creating a sock and continuing the very activities which resulted in the ban on DU edits from his first user account! He has in fact been done just that, with (I feel) no effective response from the Wikipedia community. IMO, this phenomenon raises serious questions about whether ArbCom findings have any real meaning.

Note well: I have also created similar pages studying edits by some other users. The other pages seem to be substantially more controversial than keeping notes on permabanned users suspected of posing a continuing problem, and I am currently engaged in negotation with User:David.Mestel regarding the eventual disposition of one of these other pages. Therefore, I stress that in this proposal, I am discussing the possible eventual disposition only of my four (five?) user subpages specifically listed above, which suggest how to monitor recent activity by four specific permabanned users, via socks and/or anons, in violation of their ban, plus one additional user subpage studying edits by a specific user who is openly defying an ArbCom finding.

These pages seem to have acquired a dual purpose:

  1. illustrations for User:Hillman/Digging and my other user page essays on cruft control (the purpose I originally envisaged),
  2. actively maintained pages for real-time monitoring of these users, who in some cases IMO clearly pose a continuing problem.

With regard to the fairly uncontroversial set of pages dealing with permabanned users, and perhaps also the Salsman page, I'd like to separate these two functions.

First version of my proposal: I might propose in Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse or some other such "administrative" page (suggestions?) that the four (five?) pages listed above be moved to some centralized "administrative" location, protected, and thereafter be updated only by admins engaged in active anti-vandalism, ArbCom enforcement, and so on. In fact, I think someone should write a template using the format of these pages as a model, to ensure uniformity of appearance in keeping such "enforcement notes" for admins, and to ease creation of similar pages for other problem users who have been banned or appear to be violating ArbCom findings. These pages would then be carefully interlinked with other relevant administrative pages, e.g. the ArbCom page in the case of the Salsman page.

A second version of this proposal: copy these pages to subpages of this WikiProject, whose members would then be responsible for maintaining them. Notice that KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) has frequently vandalized User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc, so without page protection this could be a real headache. The idea here would be that by asking individual WikiProjects to monitor problem users editing articles under their purview, they might be more likely to recieve the regular attention they would require.

A third version: keep protected copies here as examples of problems caused in the past, which could be referred to in future proceedings against new sockpuppets of these users, and similarly for other permabanned users who edit pages relevant to this WikiProject.

A fourth version: keep protected copies of pages modeled after User:Hillman/Dig/Salsman at the associated ArbCom pages, to help the clerks monitor possible violations and to enforce the findings, and keep protected copies of pages modeled after the first four at an administrative sockpupettry site.

On balance I think I myself prefer the first variant of my proposal, to avoid duplication of effort.

Should this come to pass, I propose to request protection of the four pages listed above (as well as my "signed" user page essays), so that my statements of my own views on WP quality control problems will be vandal resistant with little interferenece from myself.

I myself am not very optimistic that the kinds of problems described in the four (five?) pages listed above will ever be adequately controlled at WP, mostly because of the incredibly ineffective and tortuous procedures for creating new policies at WP seem to ensure that WP will never be able to response effectively to new threats to the integrity of "information" presented in its "encyclopedic articles", and there seems to me to have been no recognizable progress whatever since the Boston meeting toward creating an Advisory Board with the mission of reforming the whole administrative policy and enforcement structure of Wikipedia. However, I could be wrong and I certainly would like to give the Wikipedia community maximal opportunity to fix its house. Be this as it may, someone has suggested to me that as per WP:DENY, giving problem users the dubious "honor" of an actively maintained monitoring page might just encourage even more trollery. This is a difficult issue; I don't know what might happen, but on balance I feel that experimenting with "official" pages modeled after the four (five?) pages listed above may be an idea whose time has come for consideration by the Wikipedia community.

Comments? ---CH 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I read WP:DENY and was not impressed. My own feeling, based on long-term but admittedly unsystematic observation, is that anyone who might be "inspired" to become a pest by reading an account of an old troll would cause trouble sooner or later without the extra help. Moreover, a solid mass of documentation on past incidents might convince new cranks and trolls that WP is not the proper soapbox for their claims that relativity is a Zionist conspiracy. Perhaps I've been reading too much David Brin [1], but my inclination is to support the first option. Anville 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think WP:DENY might work for people who aim to get "long term abuse pages" about them: puerile schoolboy vandals. But, for cranks and trolls with ideological agendas they wish to promote, it is important to have a means of identifying and tracking their activities, so that they don't so much as get a foot in the door. So we need to put the pages somewhere, and keep them active and operational (i.e. we should be able to add new sockpuppets/activities etc.); and Hillman shouldn't have to take sole responsibility for their maintenance, either.
However, navigating around Wikipedia's "meta-pages" is a bit of a nightmare. The people who have primarily been involved with the users Hillman has documented are mostly Wikiproject pseudoscience/physics members. So, if the pages are put in the namespace of "Long term abuse", there should definitely be a page with links from this project to those pages. I think that people are more likely to be concerned with trolls operating in their own spheres, but at the same time a centralised method for dealing with them is also important. So I would go for a compromise between the first and second: keep centralised across all Wikiprojects by putting the pages in "Long term abuse", but actively encourage project members to maintain the pages pertaining to their own projects, by making access and monitoringeasy.
Since the specific pages in question here are documenting banned users, who mostly edit using throwaway sockpuppets or IP addresses, semiprotection of the pages could be a help, I think. Byrgenwulf 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea! But I hear it is much harder to get a page semiprotected than protected! Or has that changed? I heard that only a few admins have the power to make a page semiprotected and that they were being very conservative. Does anyone know what the current situation is? ---CH 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Have Christopher Thomas (talk · contribs) and Lethe (talk · contribs) become inactive? If no-one else comments, I propose to be bold and to try copying the pages in question to subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. Two possibilities:

  1. ask an admin to fully protect them so they are protected against vandalism as sockpuppets. They could then be updated only by admins or could be kept as static records establishing the nature and scope of past problems with these users.
  2. ask User:FreakofNuture User:Freakofnurture to semiprotect them so we can experiment with maintaining them for active quality control. How many here would bookmark them? If they are not checked at least daily for "revision" by sockpuppets of the subjects, it would be better not to have them at all expect as static fully protected records establishing the nature and scope of past problems. Comments? Any thoughts on what to call them?---CH 20:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops... User:FreakofNuture was an impostor for the admin User:Freakofnurture. I have approached the latter about the possibility of semiprotection. ---CH 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory"...

...has just been nominated for deletion here. Input appreciated. Byrgenwulf 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you consider AfD-ing Huping Hu, the biography of the inventor? It has the same problems and, coincidentally, was created by the same anon IP, 24.185.23.19 (talk · contribs). According to Hu's article, he attended New York Law School, which that anon IP also edited last April. I suspect a violation of WP:VAIN. Anville 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Update Not resting on my laurels, I nominated Huping Hu for deletion. Anville 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting Heim theory

I'm busy rewriting Heim theory, I'm doing that offline. Within a few days I'm going to upload a version that the pro-Heim lobby probably won't like. So, I need your help to revert to my version. Also you may want to improve my version further.

Also, we need to check out physics articles that mention Heim theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Heim_theory

Count Iblis 17:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

where is User:Hillman?

Where is User:Hillman (better known as CH to some)? linas 05:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh oh! ... Apparently he got so frustrated that he quit, as he announced some time ago that he would. That is regretful, since he made many good contributions to Wikipedia thanks to his great mathematical expertise. Harald88 20:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that seems to be true. Earlier today I wanted to contact him about the pseudoscience arbitration, and he is gone. Bubba73 (talk), 21:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience arbitration

This looks to be like a very important case, in my opinion. You may wish to watch parts of it or comment on talkpages even if you are not directly involved: [2]. --ScienceApologist 12:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Decision criteria

I corrected some non-NPOV suggestions inside the "NPOV" criteria.

In particular, pseudoscience is not to be confused with fringe science; this project shouldn't increase that confusion. Harald88 21:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay to make sure that fringe science isn't given WP:NPOV#Undue weight. A perfectly reasonable extension of this project. --ScienceApologist 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes I also that's OK - but it's not okay to confuse the issues. BTW, you don't own this project either. Disputed (in this case obviously misleading) material goes on the talk page until it's sorted out. A fringe science paragraph may be added, why not! Harald88 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed criteria points in the context of pseudoscience:

  • For NPOV compliance, there are several guidelines that must be respected:
    • No gushing about how wonderful the pseudoscientific theory is. That will be obvious without the gushing if it's true.

-> I already noticed in the past that that is an inherently one-sided presentation: it gives the impression of partisan editors, while this is about NPOV, thus ridiculing WP:NPOV. Without "pseudoscientific" the problem doesn't exist and the essence is the same.

I disagree. This is a project about pseudoscience, not "theories" in general. Otherwise it would be WikiProject Theories. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Clearly and prominently note points of disagreement between the pseudoscientific theory and mainstream science.
    • Cite sources, and clearly acknowledge mainstream reputability or disreputability of sources cited.

-> By adding "mainstream", the above are criteria for singling out fringe science; they are erroneous for singling out pseudoscience, see the articles on pseudoscience and fringe science. I have not checked who added those words, but it appears to be an attempt to deviate the main purpose of this project.

Cheers, Harald88 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

While you choose your own demarcation one way, the rest of us may choose a different way. You don't get to decide whether the fringe is pseudoscience, that's a personal opinion. It is not necessarily wrong to consider people working in the frings to be pseudoscientists. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I notice that your opinion about this matter differs from "mainstream" opinion as expressed in Wikipedia...
Moreover, your reversal of my move of the contested words to this Talk page despite your above acknowledgement that they confuse the subject is against Wikipedia guidelines. Harald88 21:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
They don't confuse any subjects, but even if they did there are no wikipedia guidelines for projects that this would be against. --ScienceApologist 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


I actually don't understand what is meant by fringe science. I don't think that in physics there exists such a thing. Far out ideas such as this one are not treated in a different way by the physics community than more standard theories. Perhaps this is different in biology or medicine because these disciplines are more phenomenological in nature. Perhaps "nanobes" is an example of a fringe biological theory?
Anyway, any article has to be written from a neutral point of view, which means that for scientific topics it has to reflect the scientific point of view. E.g., Clavelli's theory on supernovae is not the standard theory and is speculative, so that should then be mentioned in a wiki article. But the accepted theories have problems with the central engine of supernovae, so that fact should be mentioned in an article about supernovae as well. So, I don't really see that we need to do anything else than just stick to the usual rules. Count Iblis 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree; but SA is afraid that some fringe science enthousiasts try to promote their fringe ideas on Wikipedia, thus misrepresenting it as "mainsteam". Preventing that could be a useful side activity of this project. As long as we don't mix such issues up, as SA and FM now try to do!
One last remark before I leave for the weekend: the last thing I found about this criteria section was: "If you feel the phrasing of that section should be changed, change it :). It's flagged as a work in progress, after all. --Christopher Thomas 17:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)" Harald88 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I found some phrasing that should be changed in what you contributed, so I changed it. Also, I reject your idea that we're somehow "confusing" issues. I think you may be confusing issues, but you don't have to impose your confusion on the rest of us. --ScienceApologist 12:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

New category

There is now a new category for tagging non-mainstream proposals that the scientific community has ignored in the journals. Check out Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation and tag it to appropriate articles. --ScienceApologist 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Hutchison effect

Can someone help me watch John Hutchison and Hutchison effect? It's getting attention again. — Omegatron 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tesla effect

Please look at User:Reddi's Tesla effect article and comment on the deletion page associated with it. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

AfDs

Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercausality. --ScienceApologist 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorce theory

Just a heads up. Links to this are sprouting in the articles. Femto 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Herbicide has been applied to the sprouting links. The Article has also been nominated for deletion. --Philosophus T 20:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I appologise for the ignorace, but why has herbicide been applied? This is a valid field of study which relates to these topics. Gseletko 10:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Appropriate Sources section of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. Since the topic does not satisfy those requirements, the article cannot portray it as a scientific theory. Since it isn't notable enough to portray it as a popular culture topic, like Time Cube, it will most likely be deleted. --Philosophus T 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Comment as you will. --ScienceApologist 13:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

another AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Aspden. Comment please. --ScienceApologist 00:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Alert

Please help support and protect this List of articles related to quackery from the current attacks by those who are attempting to suppress development of this resource. By avoiding any labelling of the items listed, we can avoid NPOV problems. Please read the embedded cautionary notes when editing. They are only visible in the editing mode. -- Fyslee 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Urgent

Urgent attention needed here:

-- Fyslee 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Karl Schappeller

I'm not a physicist but I think, this article deserves not only a cleaning-up but also the category pseudoscience. As I understand it, the article deals with a guy who claimed to have build a perpetuum mobile, resp. a free energy machine. Crypto-ffm 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As an Einstein's Witness, I think it would be better to brutally suppress historical fact by deleting it, in the same way that all the other obscure aether pseudotheories have been deleted. See Articles for deletion/Karl Schappeller. --Philosophus T 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's wait and see Crypto-ffm 09:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

another AfD

Comment please: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Juergens. --ScienceApologist 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

List moved from article space to this project's space

I've moved the article "List of articles related to quackery" from article space into this project, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to quackery, per the AfD close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles related to quackery. Herostratus 16:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Water fuel cell

If you like debating more than reasoning, this one is for you: Talk:Water fuel cell is flaring up again. You'll need to start at about halfway through the page to get into all of the recent stuff… Far as I can follow it, the current line of argument appears to be (presently at the bottom of Talk:Water fuel cell#Finding Verifiable Information) that all reasoning based on established scientific knowledge, if it's used to show why some unverifiable claims about the article subject clearly are in contradiction with it, is POV and un-wiki, because there are no reliable sources for the contradicted claims in the first place. Since facts and reasoning are out, I'll officially slink away now. Femto 12:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Perp

Template:Perp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -Amarkov blahedits 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MfD comment

A user said here that this project is intended to advance anti-pseudoscientific thought. Does someone have an explanation, or is he just wrong? -Amarkov blahedits 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the project is to maintain neutral point of view, verifiability, notability, undue weight, and a variety of other Wikipedia policies in articles that are related to pseudoscience, and also, at least in my opinion, to maintain the respectability of Wikipedia and discuss policies to that end. In practice, this means that all members are sceptics, because supporters of pseudoscience are hardly ever truly interested in upholding policy, and are also usually interested only in their own theories. It can seem, at times, that we are pushing a point of view upon Wikipedia, but this is not the case. We are merely applying the spirit and fundamental policies of Wikipedia to pseudoscientific topics, and it so happens that in nearly all situations, this results in an article closer to the scientific viewpoint, which indeed is nearly always very close to the neutral and verifiable viewpoint. --Philosophus T 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm satisfied, although I'm not sure how far I agree with the "supporters of pseudoscience are hardly ever truly interested in upholding policy" comment. -Amarkov blahedits 03:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be better for me to say that nearly all supporters of pseudoscience I have met have been interested in supporting policy only to the extent that it helped their cause. There are a vast number of examples: Pgio, KraMuc, Richardmalter, Asmodeus, DrL, Lakinekaki/Bios_theory, countless IPs, and many other users: this list was nearly entirely from quick recollection of a few cases. There are many of these types of pseudoscience supporters, and they nearly all end up banned from the appropriate topics eventually. I cannot recall any supporters who have followed policy even when it meant criticising their own theories. --Philosophus T 03:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Carl Sagan FAR

Carl Sagan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in Social Sciences, Economics, Financial Economics

Most of this project seems to deal with the hard sciences, but I think this is the proper place to come regarding pseudoscience in the social sciences. I'm sure that you've run into articles on notable subjects that make pseudoscientific claims such as crystal power, crop circles, parapsychology, and pyramidology. Much of this stuff is more or less related to social sciences. I've checked to see how these articles are handled and most seem to have a fairly clear notice up-front that the scientific community disagrees with the claims. (The notices seem less clear on biorhythms, chiropractic, and alchemy).

My concern is with "theories" which the scientific community generally ignore. Even though every social scientist might know that the "science" behind a given concept is doubtful, if the community ignores it, there is not a clear way to cite a reliable source saying "this is not science." WP:SCI seems to be one way to deal with this, but the "theories" may be notable and thus can't be deleted through using this guideline. Indeed, I think a Wikipedia article written in NPOV is one of the best ways of exposing this type of stuff.

I'm currently involved in an arbitration about Elliott wave principle, the recently deleted Socionomics, and Robert Prechter who pushes both these "theories."[3].

My particular concern is financial economics. There are con-men who can make a great deal of money peddling pseudoscientific theories about how to predict the stock market and some of them like to put infomercials on Wikipedia. Any attempt to edit the articles can be met with furious but nonsensical defenses, reversions, etc. I think the disputed science tag might be one way to deal with these articles, but can anybody suggest other ways? Smallbones 18:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the notice on the top of this talk page, the usual process is to leave a message here about the articles if you have trouble with contentious editors. --Philosophus T 23:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gillian McKeith

The article Gillian McKeith has WP:BLP concerns and quackery concerns as detailed here. WAS 4.250 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Denny Klein AfD

Just a heads up, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein. Femto 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Obvious keep. — Omegatron 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred Alan Wolf - AfD, or does someone know of some independent sources?

I just noticed some activity on the Fred Alan Wolf article, and after looking at it realized that it is quite biased and has no independent sources. I'm considering putting it up for AfD, since his main claim of notability is that of being in that film (WTBDWK), and he is already mentioned in that (particularly bothersome) article. However, I'd like to gauge somewhat the measure of support for deletion here. Alternatively, does anyone know of some independent sources that could be used to make the article comply with the appropriate policies? --Philosophus T 00:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this further, the same argument could apply to many of the articles for people involved in the film. --Philosophus T 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FAW has now been AfD nominated. --Philosophus T 09:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Eliot Tokar

A western practitioner of 'tibetan medicine'. I'm having problems with getting through to some of the other contributors what NPOV is, and all such changes get reverted. He should probably be AfD'ed really. If any of you had a look it'd be much appreciated:)Merkinsmum 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Put it up for AfD then. I'd rather not, since my reputation there is rather shaky. --Philosophus T 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to get any of you to take the flack:) was just looking for some help to get the article knocked into shape a bit and get other's opinions on it. I found the fans of the articles' subject (all one of them, perhaps?) were getting things all their own way and thought some of you could help, if only by having someone else there questioning their POV.:) If more contributors on the talk page say that they think it needs nominating for AfD I will do it.Merkinsmum 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Somehow I expect that DesiDoc's first name could quite possibly be Eliot. I'm used to this sort of article, and have no problem with working on it. It appears borderline on the AfD question, so I'm reluctant to support deletion, especially with my recent failures. --Philosophus T 01:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So your feeling is we should just try to keep Himself in check a bit?:)Merkinsmum 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Subject is threatening to remove the page if we edit further. I suspect because his claims won't stand up to scrutiny? Do these sort of articles often end up being pulled by the writer if they don't end up being an advert?Merkinsmum 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The subject doesn't have the right to remove the page except in certain circumstances (usually WP:OFFICE. --Philosophus T 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

project userbox

I said someone might like to look at the project as she's in to this sort of thing. But she wished that you had a userbox people can add to their user page. Is there one, and if not, would anyone like to make one?:)Merkinsmum 09:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Soft tissue therapy

I suspect a high degree of POV. Any help appreciated:)Merkinsmum 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Help on Multiple chemical sensitivity

Although my field is chemistry, I started an attempt to overhaul this article today. It reflects the POV of clinical ecologics—those who believe MCS is a strictly physical disease, who are in an extreme minority. I began with what I believed were modest changes. Anyhow, it seems that User:Dr. Meggs has taken ownership of the article. I don't want to get near three reverts myself, but any attention you could give this article would be greatly appreciated. Cool Hand Luke 07:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal arbitration

I think that very soon an arbitration will go on regarding paranormal topics at Wikipedia, especially with regards to Electronic voice phenomenon. You can find discussion about this impending litigation here. Please advise. --ScienceApologist 18:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation: Go the RfC route first. Arbitration cases are only accepted if there's a large stack of evidence for failed attempts at working things out prior to arbitration. It'll draw things out by a month or two before any arbitration case, but it'll reduce the arbitration timeline by a more than comparable amount. And who knows, arbitration might end up not being necessary (stranger things have happened). --Christopher Thomas 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Park on pseudoscience and Wikipedia

Robert L. Park had something interesting to say about pseudoscience and Wikipedia a few days ago. I added it to his page. Bubba73 (talk), 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the reference, a paragraph in Park's "What's New" issue dated March 23rd alleged that Wikipedia had become a target of "purveyors of pseudoscience".--Chrisbak 18:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Familar name returns.

It looks like Tmayes1999 (talk • contribs)/Tmayes1965 (talk • contribs) is active again. Vetting of additions is probably a Good Idea, based on previous problems. I'm thinking seriously about going on sabbatical again, so don't count on me doing it. --Christopher Thomas 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Eidetic memory

The article Eidetic memory is painfully full of opinion and original research with a potentially endless list of characters people think could have eidetic memory. Doczilla 05:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Make this project a "daughter" project of Rational Skepticism?

The Project Rational Skepticism deals with the same principles as pseudo-science, as well as WP:NPOV which is a very broad area. Therefore I wonder if this project shouldn't be defined as a "daughter" project of Rational Skepticism in order to help "break out" pseudo-science from the very broad scope of that project?

I'll respond to this on the WP:SKEPTIC talk page, since I believe there is more activity there. --Philosophus T 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testatika (third nomination)

This AfD of an alleged perpetual motion device should be mentioned here, for those that haven't seen it yet. --Philosophus T 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification theory (2nd nomination) should also be mentioned (stereotypical pseudoscience). --Philosophus T 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD Listings

I recently notice a number of AfD are advertised on this page. IMHO this method of notification is open to NPOV statements and can be seen as vote stacking. I suggest that project look to something like Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/AfD Gnangarra 13:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a simple listing of AfD's on the project page is better - then people can find them all in one place. Totnesmartin 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The traditional way of notifying this particular project's members about AfDs is to advertise them here. --Philosophus T 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't take this personally but if everyone said "we've always done it this way" we'd still be living in caves... Totnesmartin 08:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm just responding to Gnangarra's vote stacking accusations; this way certainly isn't the best - we've just been doing it because we're quite disorganized and a rather informal project. The project is also somewhat dead now, and WP:SKEPTIC is taking over. We do have a better way of listing AfDs there, and will have an even better framework in the near future. It is quite possible that this project will merge into SKEPTIC. --Philosophus T 09:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added a section for addind AfD's and RfC's (requests for comment)Totnesmartin 09:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks --Philosophus T 10:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Photon Belt

I have proposed a deletion review of The Photon Belt if anyone wants to contribute their comments about it. -Eep² 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

HHO gas and Brown's gas

You all might be interested in the deletion debate over these two articles. They are supposedly "promotional" and non-neutral, though I've been working very hard to present them in a neutral way, add notable criticism from reliable sources, etc.

I really think it's important that we have articles about these, as long as they are maintained in a neutral state. A lot of people believe the "water-fuelled car" crap and we need to debunk it.

Considering that promoters of this "technology" have tried to get the article deleted in the past, I think it's going in the right direction.  :-) — Omegatron 13:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, a majority voted to keep the article, but it was deleted by a biased admin. There is a deletion review, but it seems that everyone is ignoring the violation of deletion policy and just repeating the same AfD arguments all over again. — Omegatron 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have given up to worry about deletion policy. AfD is full vabanque anyway and give surprises in both directions. The problem which worries me most, is how WP:NOR is used by now (to prevent debunking nonsense). --Pjacobi 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because Nescio claims that the article is WP:OR and lacks WP:RS and lists a bunch of other WP:CAPITALIZEDGIBBERISH, doesn't mean that his accusations are true. You can debunk nonsense without violating WP:OR, as I was trying to do in the articles before he started garbaging them up with unsourced weasel words.
What you really need to worry about is knee-jerk voters and users who believe other users' claims without doing any research. But I guess believing in things without any evidence or research is the ultimate problem with all this stuff anyway... :-) — Omegatron 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because Nescio says that stating the claims are nonsense is OR is no reason for you to attack his person. You cannot have a NPOV article debunking the hoax without sources supporting that. Saying it is a fantasy without references is by its very definition OR. Unless you can show how it is not your argument is still flawed. As is your technique of endlessly debating the subject (15 times) in the hope fatigue will cause sanity to withdraw.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Does this project cover theories that were once accepted scientific canon but have since been discredited? Katharineamy 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. --ScienceApologist 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Thought some people here might be interested: trying to deal with fringe-theory pushing (amongst other things), new noticeboard, needs some more eyes. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The result of this arbitration hearing is now up. Totnesmartin 12:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why "disputed" when it's really "pseudo"?

Why does the infobox for this project have the title "Disputed science"? All science is the subject of continued "dispute". This project focuses on topics that are essentially outside the scope of true science, and the title of the infobox should say so. The title of the infobox should say "Pseudoscience". — Aldaron • T/C 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not positive about this, but I think that editors who believe in pseudoscience objected to their pet belief being called pseudoscience. As far as dispute in science, the major dispute is over for mainstream science. Bubba73 (talk), 02:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't answer why it should, because it shouldn't. However, it does because, as Bubba73 says, people don't want their pet belief called pseudoscience. And there are an abundance of people with pet beliefs, while those who do not have zero interest in diving into the hellhole that is describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience. -Amarkov moo! 02:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's change it then. — Aldaron • T/C 03:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That would probably make the believers in pseudoscience mad. Not too long ago they tried to get this project removed from Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to spend your time arguing with people who insist that their theory is correct despite an abundance of evidence saying otherwise? If so, bravo for you... but I don't think many others do. -Amarkov moo! 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I suspect you're right. — Aldaron • T/C 04:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Human Design System

This article is still not neutral- can anybody help or tell me where to ask for help? (is this page still alive?) --Nina (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Pseudoscience nominated for deletion

Everywhere I see the template used, people seem to complain that it is cruel and mean and not suitable. So I figured that a TfD would help to determine the community's consensus: Template:Infobox Pseudoscience has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — LinaMishima (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also started a discussion on the template talk page regarding improving the template. Please go look and lend a hand! LinaMishima (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter

May I alert you to the recently created article Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter and related articles. Looks like pseudoscience to me. – gpvos (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience infobox

I added an image box to the top of Template:Infobox Pseudoscience. I've said more about it at Template talk:Infobox Pseudoscience#Image field. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda‎

I am puzzled to see Ayurveda‎ is not considered a pseudoscience in wikiepdia. This branch of alternative medicine relies on the concept of Tridosha system which has no scientific basis. Can anyone add it in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts? One can quickly review these two references [4][5]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Category up for deletion

The category Category:Pseudoskeptic Target has been nominated for deletion. Bubba73 (talk), 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics, race, and "Usko-Mediterranean Languages"

I came across this (Usko-Mediterranean languages) created by User talk:Iberomesornix (his user page redirects to his other article, Iberian-Guanche inscriptions). Both are largely/entirely based on the work of one Spanish Immunologist's theories about some proto Euro-levantine language connected to Basque. This theory, published in one article in an immunology journal, tries to tie DNA, linguistics, etc to make a case for this language group. Understandably, this a big hit in Neo-nazi message boards, who use this to postulate various groups connection to some Aryan master civilization running from Summer to Egypt, to Europe, whom Africans/Asians/and later Arabs overran and destroyed. These are the only places I can find the term "Usko-Mediterranean" used. It has also appeared on wikipedia in articles on Kurdish language and culture, and Origins of the Kurds, with the single reference cited to show how Kurds are not related to Persians and Arabs. These appear sourced from User:Awat from at least 2007. Input, especially from linguistics professionals would be helpful.T L Miles (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article about the alleged Usko-Mediterranean languages and the one about the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions has been removed (with the option for its supporters to expand on the theory in Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's article page). It's probably best if we went about removing all the links to these that have been planted in otherwise serious articles. Trigaranus (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Gongs

One thing thats missing from your project page is one of those tables showing what is FA/GA/stub etc. It's difficult to write a good, encyclopaedic article on a pseudoscience but a ratings board might add a bit of encouragement.Fainites barleyscribs 22:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Natural law...

Or science? Comments and/or action welcome here: Talk:Natural_law#Natural_Law_and_Laws_of_Nature. Jeremy (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "[[WP
Incubation|incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Category tip

Do we have a category for "pseudoscientific and fraudulent devices"? FT2 (Talk | email) 22:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of these are listed at Category:Pseudoscience. Be advised that adding categories like these to articles can be contentious, however. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

Bob Park's "What's New" newsletter of March 5, 2010 has an item on the Newman machine, and has this to say about the above article:

Coverage of the Joe Newman case in Wikipedia is terrible. It's a remarkably useful encyclopedia, but you need to verify.

I'm not at all familiar with this subject, and wouldn't know where to begin in improving the article, nor do I know in what way Park feels the article is faulty. I did want to point this out, though, so that someone who is knowledgable about the subject can do whatever clean-up is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD relevant to this project - Jessica Feshbach

Ongoing AFD deletion discussion for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is this related to pseudoscience? It looks like it belongs over at WikiProject Scientology. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Debate as whether to define how Homeopathy is a pseudoscience in first lead sentence of its article

Resolved

There is a debate as to defining Homeopathy as a pseudoscience in first lead sentence of the article. Is there a method of notifying project members so they can participate here[6]? HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC) See next section for updated link to debate about whether homeopathy is defined as a pseudoscience or not. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Voting to define homeopathy as a pseudoscience placebo treatment

Resolved

There is voting on whether or not to define homeopathy as a pseudoscience placebo treatment here[7]. HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find a {membership} template

I couldn't find a {membership} template on the project mainpage. Did I miss it? PPdd (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one, to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to make one if you like, but this is a very low-traffic WikiProject, so I'm not sure how much use it'd get. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A pseudophysics-article

I am not a member of WikiProject Pseudoscience (yet), but I was just wondering if it would be usefull if I started an article on pseudophysics since the English version of Wikipedia does not currently have one (although they DO have a category about pseudophysics and even fringe physics, which is strange considering that fringe science—in general—is a type of pseudoscience that differs vastly from orthodox science, so all of it, really). LarsJanZeeuwRules (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It will be very difficult to properly source an article about that, as the term is rarely used (compared to "pseudoscience"). Between that and the fact that the Pseudoscience article seems to cover the basics already, I'm not sure it'd be worth the hassle. If you do decide to go ahead with it, find the sources first, because I guarantee it'll be challenged within days of going up. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A pseudoscience end run around WP:MEDRS

There is a pseudoscience end run around WP:MEDRS discussed here[8].

An alternative medicine journal with an authoritative sounding name was quoted in the acupuncture article in a way that misleads readers about "medical" conclusions in a way which meets MEDRS, but is not in the "spirit" of MEDRS -

"The American Academy of Medical Acupuncture (2004) states: 'In the United States, acupuncture has its greatest success and acceptance in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain.' "

This sentence is techincally true and meets MEDRS, but it leaves an ordinary reader with the impression that a national "medical" academy has concluded acupuncture is successful in general, and has "great" success in treating pain. That is how I read it, until I investigated and found that the AAMA is a POV pushing organization that is not peer reviewed by independent medical practitioners.

  • This seems to be an end run around MEDRS prohibitions about using pseudoscience journals as RS for scientific conclusions. Does anyone have a suggested fix of WP:MEDRS regarding scientific conclusoins, or WP:RS regarding science conclusions to handle this subtle problem of "misleading by quoting science/medical conclusions by pseudoscience organizations that have assumed titles of authority "? PPdd (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This comes up from time to time in physics articles as well. The countermeasure is to initiate talk-page discussion pointing out that the sources in question are not reputable. If memory serves there's text somewhere in WP:RS that spells out what "reliable" means in the context of scientific topics (including medicine). If it isn't there, check WP:FRINGE; it's been a while since I read all of these policies in detail, so I may be misremembering the location. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I know this issue is probably long dead and buried but for the future: the intention of the rules always trumps the specific wording. If something is against the spirit of a rule but follows the rule then you can WP:IGNORE the rule. Also, WP:VALID covers this, we should not mislead by unwittingly portraying something as valid as in this case. 21:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
While in theory it's the intention of the rules that matter, and while that is generally how they're interpreted when and if a dispute makes its way to ArbCom, in practice it's generally best to avoid having to apply WP:IAR at lower levels of dispute resolution (it tends to get a very bad response). The existing tools for avoiding promotion of fringe views are almost always sufficient (WP:UNDUE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP for policy, talk page discussions to establish consensus about whether a given source is useful/valid, followed by the WP:RFC process for polarized or contentious issues). It takes a while, but usually produces a reasonable result, and leaves a paper trail that can be used to squash recurrences of the same debate. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism/Pseudoscience/Archive_4&oldid=1137365221"