Knowledge:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 3

1129:- this is not POV nor is it pejorative. This is a term that is generally delineated and covered in the scientific community; that being what is claimed to be science, but is inherently not science. At my school, we will even discuss pseudoscience (using that term) and what makes these "fields" different from true science. I must also take exception with the original reasons for deletion: there have been many contentious debates here at wikipedia between the pseudoscientific and the scientific communities which has led to the deletion of virtually any information in the leadins to articles that cite the subject as being pseudoscience. The nominator also claims it is not in widespread use. This is again mostly due to what I would call a POV push to avoid having a particular label in place that is universally accepted in the mainstream scientific community. I think the infobox needs to be cleaned up, but that is hardly a reason to delete. DGG claims that the opening paragraph will automatically delineate the article as being "pseudoscientific" without that tag. I only wish that were true. As an educator, I see far too many people who cannot tell the difference between the scientific and the pretenders to science. Knowledge is missing out on a true opportunity to clearly and unambiguously educate by putting this simple tag on articles. Otherwise, a great many articles descend into constant edit warring and end up as poorly written, ambiguous articles which only serve to further confuse an important issue. 609:"Professor Michael Baum, a famous old bruiser and opponent of complementary medicine. He is a surgeon, and surgery is the branch of medicine that has the weakest evidence base.The history of surgery is a history of mutilating operations that did far more harm than good - including hemicorporectomy (removing the lower half of the body in patients with bladder cancer). Baum is a breast surgeon, and his colleagues were until very recently performing radical mastectomies (removing the breast, the chest muscles, clearing the armpit, and more) despite evidence that a lumpectomy (simply removing the cancer) was just as effective." There are very few double-blind placebo controlled trials in surgery. 389:] How many "pseudosciences" have this body of basic science and clinical research? Further, according to the BMJ, it has been shown that 37% of British and 40% of Dutch physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines (and there is separate evidence that approximately 30-40% of French physicians and 20% of German physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines...I can provide these references later if requested). Also, homeopathy plays a major role in the care of a large number of Europeans. This article from the BMJ shows that between 16-56% of people in European countries use homeopathic medicines. 761:) it makes it look like that has been proposed inside that scientific field, and that's original research. The next line is "Core tenets", and because many topics where this box might be on are complicated and disputed, that is likely to lead to simplifications, unclear text, and probably new disputes. It's better to describe basic things in the lead. And the box doesn't relate to the topics of the articles in a way that the only thing they may have in common is that someone thinks they are scientific, but they are not generally accepted to be. Best regards 387:]. According to the Annals in Internal Medicine, three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. 1000:. There's never a real need for an infobox in any article at all. But since we're not getting rid of them all, there's no reason to come after this one in particular, as it very clearly isn't opinionated or in violation of NPOV. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience, saying so isn't an opinion, and an encyclopedia should label it as such. There's a very good reason that labeling something "pseudoscientific" is often seen as "pejorative." But that doesn't mean we have to portray all rubbish in a positive light. -- 354:. If your intention is to violate Knowledge policy by changing articles on subjects that you do not like into "debunking" articles, then you will love the "Pseudoscience" box. The average Knowledge reader does not interpret such perjorative labels as being there for "navigation" - but as the official view and position of Knowledge regarding the subject matter of the article. 1372:). Proponents from the mobile phone industry would gladly label articles about the health risks from EMF radiation as pseudoscience, the food industry would gladly label the critique against trans fats as pseudoscience etc. Articles about fringe and bizarre viewpoints are best dealt with in the text with a disclaimer in the Lead section. 1317:, and the template may not be necessary. However, for some articles where there are vocal proponents pushing their rubbish junk science (and a relative lack of interest from other, more mainstream quarters), this template is on the first line of defense as a sure warning to readers that the material presented in the article is 1368:: An additional comment. This term is useful and valuable but has sometimes been transformed into an attack term by POV-pushers. If we decide to keep it I can foresee endless future controversies where POV-pushers will try to stretch the term in a maximalistic way. (Just look at the controversies around the article 262:

Per Above. Obvious POV. Too biased even for obvious pseudoscience, and when used completely impossible to have an article consistent with NPOV where it says "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views

450:

You'd be surprised what otherwise intelligent people believe. Astrology is common amongst the general population, including Dr's and scientists. There is also the largely discredited field of "medical astrology", and astrological consultants that work with doctors in some countries. Please be polite

1346:

An infobox conveys a message to the general readers that this is an "Official Knowledge Position" in a much stronger way than the article text itself. The infobox is normally used for neutral facts. The concept pseudoscience is valuable but unfortunatelty it has been hi-jacked by proponents of one

809:

The immediately provoking dispute was the one on homeopathy, but we have had many similar disputes on other articles. I don't see the point of the tag. if the article on homeopathy is properly written, the lack of scientific status will be evident from the first paragraph. All articles to which it

183:

is not to delete a template that is used, uncontroversially, at a variety of other articles. I've been working on placing this infobox in relevant articles for a week or so. While the box could be improved, I do not think it needs to be deleted. NPOV and "punative" objections seem weird. If people

621:

Please stick to the subject at hand, Dana. You have been asked to do this once already. TfD is not the place to debate categories or the relative merits of the individual uses of templates (these may be mentioned, but missuse of a template is not the same as a template of missuse)

554:. This infobox does account only for the tenets and the proponents of the discipline (or whatever it is) but does not account for its opponents and the reasons why it is considered a pseudoscience; hence this infobox is useless because it does not provide useful information. -- 184:

take offense to their pet idea being pseudoscientific, that's not exactly Knowledge's problem. We aren't asserting a point-of-view by pointing out that a topic is pseudoscience any more than we are asserting a point-of-view by asserting a topic is about

1309:) are filled with otherwise extremely technical details which may sound plausible to someone without the required background to reject them as the total lunacy that they are. In a perfect world, such articles would all comply with NPOV, specifically 818:

do not need such a template. It will either be obvious, or debatable. We have wasted too much time debating these. Debates on such tags are essentially lame--we would do better writing the articles to achieve the provision of sourced information.

192:. This infobox serves the purpose of summarizing the major claims of the topic, showing who proposed it, and framing it historically. Oftentimes, these facts are found in very disparate locations throughout an article (or, in the case of 263:

which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Knowledge at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially." No article with this box can maintain overall neutrality of tone. ——

215:-- yes, you are: you're asserting the point of view that the topic is pseudoscience. "pseudo" is a Greek root meaning to lie. To claim that something is pseudoscience is to claim something about it. -- 385:

The term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative and POV term that is subjectively given to select topics without adequate precision. Here's a review of 67 in vitro trials (1/3 of which were replication trials)

233:. It has a straightforward definition if not straightfoward connotations/etymology. Sure, people don't like the term because they don't like their pet ideas being called "pseudo-" anything, but that's 976: 1288:

We already have a category for this. The template just seems to be an attempt to make this insult more prominent. The template doesn't actually seem to provide useful summary content.

1393:

But it could probably do with a 'core flaws' part to match the tenets, to present the relevant information at a glance without having to get too in-depth in the introductory paragraphs.

602:

I have already stated my opinion on delete, but if there is consensus that we should keep, I assume that we should also add to the category of pseudoscience all of the articles on

42: 37: 161:

As previously stated, the above may or may not be my personal opinion. I figured that an effective answer regarding the template would best be gained through TfD assessment —

137:

This is mostly a procedural nomination, to resolve differences in opinions over the general suitability of the infobox. As such, the reasons expressed here may not be my own:

237:

Knowledge's problem. As I said, indicating that a topic is pseudoscience with this infobox is no more a POV than indicating a topic is about intelligent design with the

1151:

We are writing for the general public. The term may -or may not- be in general use within the scientific community, but it is jargon to the general public. And it is

424:

Dana, please address the issues with the template in general only, not issues with a specific application of the template (which is a debate for the article itself).

606:

and its various sub-articles in the light of the words of Robert Smith, former editor of BMJ, says that much conventional medicine, especially surgery, is unproven:

1076:

although I disagree with nearly all the tenuous and WP:POINTy reasons given for delete, such as Dana Ullman's, except for the good reasons given by the nominator --

350:. The "Pseudoscience" box placed on an article distorts and compromises efforts to present the subject with a neutral tone as required by the NPOV policy on 519:

tags can work inside templates if a variable is added for that purpose, so inability to provide references shouldn't be part of the reason for deletion. --

753:. The box is confusing and I don't think it improves the quality of the articles. When it first states "pseudoscience" and then "discipline" (for example 410:

Dana asks: "how many "pseudosciences" have this amount of support from the medical community as well as the general public?" Astrology, for one --

144:

Contents summarised by an infobox typically contain content that would be in an article or section lead anyhow - hence little need for an infobox

1155:

pejorative. Thus, using it in the article creates bias without information. The information is what should create the bias in the reader. ——

21: 738:, I thought this was the navigation box. Looking at the articles it is used in it seems redundant with the text. Agree with jossi here. 514: 112: 924:, per DGG and Jossi above. Opinions, especially pejorative ones such as "pseudoscience" should be detailed in the body of articles. 647: 1543: 661: 613: 442: 395: 17: 607: 391:] Once again, how many "pseudosciences" have this amount of support from the medical community as well as the general public? 1624: 1167: 275: 774: 103: 60: 1632: 1615: 1572: 582: 494:

It is not Knowledge's job to decide what is pseudoscience. We let the sources speak and present all significant views. —

1679: 541: 238: 185: 1713: 1696: 1667: 1608: 1548: 1492: 1423: 1402: 1381: 1356: 1338: 1297: 1280: 1247: 1230: 1198: 1173: 1138: 1119: 1104: 1085: 1068: 1050: 1031: 1006: 992: 947: 935: 916: 893: 868: 847: 830: 801: 781: 745: 722: 701: 677: 631: 616: 594: 563: 546: 527: 505: 486: 460: 445: 398: 363: 342: 303: 299: 281: 250: 246: 224: 205: 201: 170: 120: 96: 1014:. What on earth? What the hell does "inherently POV" mean? Is there a point of view that some of these things are 959:

clutters articles to have a series box for every characterization of a topic. If kept, use strictly according to

880:. Other than the name the template has other problems. The current proponents section becomes very subjective, on 1728: 1588: 1562: 1464: 1438: 1046: 76: 1727: