Talk:Faith healing/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

D/S template

Why we are edit warring over a template[1]? Template says "The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully."

Doesn't matter what will be the outcome of the above RfC, the template will remain. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The current consensus of the community is that this article does not deal with pseudoscience or fringe science. That may or may not change depending on the outcome of the current RfC. Until then the previous one remains in effect. Why are people placing a template claiming that DS applies to an article that it doesn't? -Ad Orientem (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and undone the inappropriate removal of the DS template. Those DS are imposed completely independent of the RfC by ArbCom. Pseudoscience is obviously being discussed on this talk page, and sources are also obviously discussing pseudoscience (even moreso the fringe science aspect) in relation to faith healing. The template informs readers that pseudoscience and fringe science discretionary sanctions are in effect because of that and no more. An article directly described in mainspace as a series on "Alternative and pseudo‑medicine" is also going to be under DS. If someone wants the ArbCom decision reversed, they'll need to take that up there instead. As it stands, the template will remain regardless of the RfC outcome since fringe and pseudoscience has become an area of major discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem is right and you are wrong. If someone on the article talk page calls the Germ theory of disease pseudoscience you would keep re-adding a pseudoscience DS template? That one also has sources discussing pseudoscience; see Germ theory denialism for a list. We do not tag an article with a pseudoscience discretionary sanctions template until there is a consensus that the article is indeed pseudoscience. ---Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If pseudoscience is being legitimately discussed in the context of the article, then it falls under such DS. The DS make no claim that the subject itself is pseudoscience, which is a different situation than the current RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No. You do not get to decide whether an article falls under DS. The consensus of the community decides that, and that decision has been made by RfC -- at least until another RfC demonstrates a new consensus. An exception to the "community decides" rule is when Arbcom specifically puts an article under DS, but Arbcom has never ruled that faith healing is or is not pseudoscience. To be blunt, you are ignoring Wikipedia policy on WP:CONSENSUS here. You are free to argue in favor of ignoring policy, but if you continue to edit the article to reflect your POV you are very likely to end up blocked. Please wait until the current RfC is closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I don't get to decide. That application of the DS was already automatically determined when sources started talking about it an editors brought the topic up for discussion. Again, there is no reason to wait for the RfC to close as it has no bearing on whether the DS apply to this topic. We theoretically can leave this open for awhile in case someone believes they can claim they don't apply, but at this point, no one can realistically claim there isn't discussion of pseudoscience going on at this page or in sources. It's a bit of a WP:SNOW situation in terms of consensus policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You also don't get to decide that "that application of the DS was already automatically determined when sources started talking about it an editors brought the topic up for discussion" No Arbcom ruling says or even implies that. You just made it up. This has been explained to you by multiple people in this discussion. Please stop repeating your unfounded assertions while ignoring calls for evidence that back up your claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have removed it again. If we have consensus to include it, fine - otherwise, it should be taken up with ArbCom. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you do not like that this article falls at least in part under the pseudoscience and fringe DS, it is your burden ask ArbCom to overturn it. However, please undo the your edit warring removing the template notifying editors of those DS. You've made others plenty aware you do not think this subject is pseudoscience, but regardless of the result of the RfC, the DS are still in effect for subjects that involve pseudoscience and fringe discussion to at least some degree. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It does not fall at least in part under pseudo-science etc. because the community expressly rejected that here. Unless/until that is expressly overturned it is the last word on the subject. For now re-adding the DS template is editing against community consensus and is disruptive. This needs to stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in that RfC contradicts ArbCom's DS designation in topics related to fringe and pseudoscience (nor can it really). If anything, it validates that the subject of pseudoscience comes up in this subject more than just currently, and the DS apply when discussing pseudoscience/fringe aspects. You seem to be confusing the category comment in that RfC with pseudoscience/fringe DS (nor does it say pseudoscience does not come up in this topic). People could have RfCs every month saying faith healing is not pseudoscience and the DS would still apply. Besides that, the reality also is that sources still regularly discuss faith healing in a fringe aspect with respect to the empirical claims (i.e., healing), with some of those sources referring to it specifically as pseudoscience. There's no getting around that DS apply in that regard and previous discussions, so the only way to make them not apply is to have ArbCom overturn the case decision. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, the template was never there until you added it a few days ago. AFAIK, ArbCom has never made a decision about this particular article. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No one ever claimed any of that. ArbCom decided that topics where pseudoscience or fringe science come up (something you've been discussing extensively even) are under DS. There's no avoiding that pseudoscience is a topic that falls under discussion in this topic by editors and sources (separate from saying the topic itself is pseudoscience). The only way to remove those DS are to get ArbCom to amend the PS/fringe case. If an editor is making arguments the DS shouldn't be applied because of the separate RfC issue of actually classifying faith healing itself as pseudoscience with the category (an essential WP:WEIGHT issue in the context of WP:FRINGE), that can safety be ignored in order to comply with WP:CON policy for missing the distinction. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Evidence, please. Please cite the exact place where you believe that "ArbCom decided that topics where pseudoscience or fringe science come up (something you've been discussing extensively even) are under DS". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey you know what's really great for answering that question? The template that you're opposed to including. If you click on it, it takes you to the case decision, namely the DS remedy, which states, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. Both pseudoscience and fringe are directly topics of discussion on this talk page and by sources. No claim by ArbCom that the subject itself is pseudoscience, a subject only need have some connection. We arguably wouldn't even need the broadly construed section for this subject, but since it is, there's really no question that discussions about pseduoscientific claims fall under the pseudoscience DS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"All pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". This page isn't related to pseudoscience or fringe science. That was settled by the previous RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Guy, we can't confound processes, which ends up inadvertently misconstruing my comments (hence me continuing to try to clarify here at this point even though it's no molehill I intend to die on). That RfC said nothing of the sort. For one, it only addressed pseudoscience, not fringe to which the DS also apply. Even for pseudoscience, it doesn't matter the outcome of either RfC. Pseudoscience was still the topic of discussion there and in sources, and that makes the page related (in addition to fringe that was untouched by the RfC). The DS simply say fringe or pseudoscience come up in this topic, and for the nth time, it is not a label or category on the topic itself that would contradict the last RfC. We can't go outside the scope of an RfC to essentially make claims pseudoscience or fringe don't come up under this topic by removing the template (as opposed to saying if there was sufficient weight to call the subject itself pseudoscience per the last RfC). Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't write things like "the template will remain regardless of the RfC outcome since fringe and pseudoscience has become an area of major discussion." and "sources still regularly discuss faith healing in a fringe aspect" then complain when you get replies addressing fringe.

You have failed to cite the exact place where "ArbCom decided that topics where pseudoscience or fringe science come up are under DS." All you have done is asserted that they said that, but you have no evidence that they actually did. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is closed. Feel free to ask Arbcom for a ruling at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for clarification and amendment but until you do that please stop trying to apply Arbcom rulings that you made up out of whole cloth. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, please do not misrepresent my comments. I linked you directly to the remedy imposing DS on pages relating to fringe and pseudoscience, broadly construed. If it's still somehow not clear how the fringe/pseudoscience DS apply to discussions of fringe and pseudoscience, you already provided the link for where to do that. Until then, the DS are going to apply regardless of the template being there or not. As Alexbrn mentioned below, we'll just end up notifying editors individually on their talk page when needed instead of giving editors that come to this talk page a heads up about the DS before posting in pseudoscience related discussions (of which the RfC is one). Why anyone wouldn't appreciate prior notice is beyond me though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Guys: You realize that the RfC is heading for a very clear "support" close, right? There's 21 "Supports" and only 12 "Opposes" and the supporters have presented RSes to support their claim, while the best the opposers have done is point out that it's not unanimous among the RSes. Just relax. We're not in a big hurry. We don't need the D/S notice right now. It will end up on there eventually. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAVOTE. If this gets labeled as pseudo-science based on opinions expressed in less than 1% (probably a lot less) of the RS sources that address the subject, then we have a much bigger problem than a misplaced DS template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

See my comments below. I bet you that significantly less than 1% of sources used at red identify it as CMYK(0,99,100,0), yet there's no controversy there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That's because Red's CMYK is actually not controversial, whereas assigning a highly prejudicial descriptor to one of the more widely discussed subjects out there most definitely is. Unfortunately this seems to be rather a good example of the depth of argument thrown out by the supports. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The categorization of FH as pseudoscience as pseudoscience is not controversial. There is literally no decent "contra" voice to the assertion that has been found. The only opposition seems to be from a few Wikipedia editors here, and for consensus purposes that doesn't count as arguments need to be rooted in sources and the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• • I cast one of those support !votes. Nonetheless, until this RfC closes the consensus is, by definition, the result of the previous RfC. This is an important issue. We cannot allow Kingofaces43 to behave as if his actions are supported by consensus prior to the current RfC closing. Until it closes, the result of the previous RfC is the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not here to "disallow" anyone to do anything. I'm just pointing out that the D/S notice is going to end up on this page eventually, so there's no point in arguing about it now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. That template must not be used until the previous consensus is changed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with BullRangifer. One of the basic features of the Wikipedia system -- a feature that stops us from descending into endless bickering -- is that an RfC settles a content dispute. You can challenge the close, and you can wait an appropriate amount of time (usually at least six months) and post a new RfC, but you must accept the result of an RfC until it it overturned. This is how we settle disputes and move on. This is important. That's why I insist that we abide by the previous RfC until the new RfC closes even though I !voted to overturn it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

15 opposes actually, presumably you missed the two opposes that are not bolded and the vote to include content describing it as pseudoscience but meh to the categorisation of it as pseudoscience. It could still go to no consensus because support arguments are poor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the lack of bolding per WP:TPOC. I get 21 supports, 14 opposes, and one Meh. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Good job Guy Macon fixing that. I calculate the same.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You say the support arguments are poor, but the support arguments include "there are RSes asserting it is," and the oppose arguments pointedly do not include "there are RSes asserting it's not." I saw one argument saying "the most-cited source doesn't call it pseudoscience" and when I checked it out, I found a source with 10x as many citations that does. In short, the opposes are arguing for a position that literally no RSes take, and which a number of RSes disagree. How strong of an argument can that possibly be? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The oppose arguments are essentially 50 shades of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On the DS question, regardless of whether FH is pseudoscience or not, it is most certainly fringe medicine, so DS's apply on that basis. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said above: they're going to end up on this page anyways. I don't see a ton of D/S violating edits occurring while this discussion is ongoing, so there's no rush. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. And in actual fact it's not a terribly useful template anyway, since individual editors need to be alerted to DS's before they can be applied to that editor. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question to me above: No sources specifically state that it is a majority academic viewpoint, that faith healing is a pseudoscience; this is what's needed for a strong argument. It is a very heavily written about subject matter, so it is not surprising that a small number of reliable sources are available that sloppily state that it is pseudoscience. A few authors have used that term loosely without thinking carefully about what that actually means. Let me be very clear, there is no opposition from me for the inclusion of the descriptive term pseudoscience in the article body sourced to reliable sources. I am opposed to faith healing being categorised as a pseudoscience because there is no evidence at all of a consensus by experts that this is a pseudoscience and the vast majority of sources are uninterested in whether it is a pseudoscience, probably because most authors know the actual dictionary definition of pseudoscience and know faith healing is not pseudoscience. The support votes probably will win on numbers, but yes, their arguments in my view are weak. I just think it is silly for Wikipedia to state, Jack prayed for a miracle that his beloved Jill would get better and that her chemotherapy would work and help her aggressive cancer go away - and categorise hope, belief or faith as 'pretending to be scientific' or 'resembles but is not science'. I am not opposing the label pseudo-medicine for example, because, although negative, I can at least understand the logic behind it being classed as pseudo-medicine and alternative medicine, because research has not shown a proven benefit from faith healing. At the end of the day, I don't give a big care whether some pseudoscience category wiki link at the bottom of the list exists, most readers won't even see it or think/care about it. I have an opinion and I am enjoying the intellectual debate and mild drama, whatever the outcome. I do think there are some people here who think it is cool to attach an inaccurate negative label to people who believe in prayer, and don't care what the actual definition of pseudoscience is. Pseudoscience is a word, it's definition is straight forward and the oppose votes are heavily influenced by the actual definition of pseudoscience; this is one of several reasons why our arguments are stronger. Dictionary definitions are neutral, no bias and in this instance seriously weaken the support votes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I do think there are some people here who think it is cool to attach an inaccurate negative label to people who believe in prayer I think that's the heart of the matter. See my breakdown of the oppose arguments above regarding this. Yes, you could classify praying for healing as faith healing, and praying for healing is not pseudoscience. But the rest of the activities that fall under this heading do constitute pseudoscience. Acupuncture practitioners sometimes sterilize their needles. Since sterilization of any instrument used in a medical procedure is clearly not pseudo-medicine, does that make acupuncture not pseudo-medicine? No, I don't think so. I think this is a proposal which rankles because (I agree) it implies something derogatory about religious people. But while I agree that's unfortunate (despite being an atheist, I have a great deal of respect for a large number of religious people, and would never argue that religion is necessarily bad, or religious people necessarily stupid or anything like that), that's just an unfortunate effect of having an encyclopedia. I also thin kit's unfortunate that we can't state "Donald Trump is the most racist president in modern history," and that we have to state "Religious people have been found to give more to charity than secular people," in the relevant articles, but I'm not going to change them because, as unfortunate as highlighting those things might be, they're true. Just like the claim that a televangelist can pray really hard and cure someone's cancer is pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No sources specifically state that it is a majority academic viewpoint <- this is the bit where you're making up policy. There is no requirement for sources talking about "a majority academic viewpoint", though that is the requirement for WP:RS/AC. By your argument, literally nothing in Wikipedia would be categorized at pseudoscience. We have impeccable RS which considers the exact question of whether FH is pseudoscience, it says it is, and so Wikipedia shall too. That's neutrality, folks! Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a quick note since this off-shoot is off-topic for this section and more related to the above RfC, but do read WP:PARITY (namely the 3rd paragraph) with respect to sources being "not interested". That fringe subjects tend not to get as much scrutiny in some cases is something already dealt with in the fringe guidelines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Depressingly, the arguments (note plural!) are about several different topics mingled without discrimination. Until that is resolved, this wall of text is largely futile, if it isn't futile anyway. Some say faith healing is not science, therefore it is (or therefore is not) pseudoscience; some say it is not scientific, therefore it is (or therefore is not) pseudoscience. Some say it is prayer, therefore it is not science, therefore it is (or is not) pseudoscience. The fact is that not only do different people have different definitions, both for science and pseudoscience, but they instance different examples with different aspects. Some rightly point out that FH makes factual claims, and that science is concerned with subject matter that is subject to factual (or anyway, to material) investigation, not noting that the fact that it makes testable claims does not make it either science or pseudoscience. (Note that pseudoscience does not have to be some kind of clear, logical item-by-item opposite of science; it commonly is simply incoherent, but with some of the supporters claiming scientific merit or justification for the practice or term in question or aspects thereof.) Some say no, it isn't anything to do with science or pseudoscience; it is just people coming together to pray or do rain dances to heal people who need healing; actually it is both less than that and more: faith healing as she is spoke or practised is incoherent; not only do definitions differ, but the definitions generally are internally inconsistent and individual people are self-inconsistent in the definitions they use from time to time or in the same breath. For example, some say they are just praying, but add that it heals (placebo-schmacebo!) and some accordingly charge for it or for products that promote or support it, which makes it pretty clearly quackery, pseudoscientific or not. If you wish to discriminate definitively between quackery and pseudoscience, then by all means change the term used to "quackery", but no one has usefully made that distinction yet in any practical context. As I said, it is a hoary chestnut and won't go away because it keeps propagating; wishful thinking Trumps other thinking time after time in each generation. JonRichfield (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Here on Wikipedia we have a solution to the "some say this, some say that" problem. We post an RfC, and uninvolved editor writes up a summary, and then we all abide by the result of the RfC until it is superseded by another RfC or a successful RfC challenge. Conflict resolved, everybody moves on. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a good idea. Conflict resolved, they move on do they? Like in the foregoing? Great stuff! Should patent it. JonRichfield (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
      • We allow a bit of leeway for editors who are not willing to abide by an RfC (or in this case not willing to abide by a previous RfC while waiting for the current RfC to close), but if they are too persistent we report them at ANI, with the typical result being a warning, and if they still persist, a series of blocks with escalating durations. The system really does work. Abiding by the result of an RfC is not optional, even if we do allow a bit of complaining. And of course some RfCs do get overturned, so the complaining may very well have merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Either way, this discussion of RfC results is off-topic from this section and belongs in the threaded discussion of the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeing nothing in the above discussion that would exclude the DS applying here even after some time (especially now that the separate RfC is done and should settle things down), I've gone ahead and readded the template. As mentioned above, it doesn't satisfy formal awareness, but reminds editors that DS are in effect for topics related to pseudoscience when they come to this talk page at least in order to hopefully preempt potential issues rather than react to them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding text, per Sandstein's closure summary

My reading of Sandstein's closure and summary of the RfC was that the differing academic viewpoints should be included in a neutral fashion, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. I have created what I believe to be a neutral summary of the evidence. Neither POV side will be entirely happy but that is what WP:NPOV is all about, not taking sides:

An expert described faith healing as a scientifically unproven treatment with cures attributed to it being considered to be scientifically suspect; and suggested that determining whether it can be proven that a person was sick and has been cured in the first instance or whether spontaneous remission has occurred may offer better explanations. There are, in fact, many examples of faith healing fraud and deception. Alleged cures from faith healing are considered to be paranormal phenomena, however the religious beliefs and practices associated with faith healing are not generally considered to be pseudoscientific because they do not usually have any pretensions of science. However, other experts disagree and have asserted faith healing is a form of pseudoscience. Another expert stated that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism. Another expert described faith healing as a form of paranormal belief that is based on fraud and deception. Faith healing has been described as probably the most dangerous type of pseudoscience because it can cause people to reject mainstream medical care with increased pain and suffering and an earlier death being real potential consequences.

Comments are welcome :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - It gives more weight to faith healers and not the actual science. It shows that faith healers are more trusted while scientific community is isolated and probably ignorant of faith healing. The first sentence of the lead must mention it as pseudoscience without any undue rebuttal per my edit from 2016. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain more Raymond. Is this "An expert described faith healing as a scientifically unproven treatment with cures attributed to it being considered to be scientifically suspect; and suggested that determining whether it can be proven that a person was sick and has been cured in the first instance or whether spontaneous remission has occurred may offer better explanations." the part that you are opposing? We already have a section on the actual science, Faith_healing#Scientific_investigation which is effectively completely negative about faith healing. This is about it being pseudoscience and academic opinion on this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it should even be mentioned in the lead because it is a tiny minority WP:FRINGE academic opinion. Just look at the small number of sources found describing it as pseudoscience. Compare that with homeopathy or intelligent design which has hundreds, perhaps thousands of sources asserting they are pseudoscience.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup, the above "draft" can be dismissed as pretty clear WP:PSCI and WP:UNDUE violations (in part due to WP:GEVAL). The diff you mentioned appears to be adequate and simple enough, though we could add in more sources that have come up in the RfC discussion. This source also satisfies WP:RS/AC, so we could add the additional qualifier to phrase the statement "virtually all philosophers and scientists." Better to stay focused for now and flesh things out more later. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Unsoruced rants should not influence our interpretation of the many many sources.--Moxy (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a bit rude and disrespectful to my WP:GOODFAITHed attempt and well sourced attempt at forming consensus.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

?? What you wrote way above looks fine to me. Why would you think its about you in this oppose section someone else started.--Moxy (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, I'm not sure what you're referring to here with respect to unsourced. Were you referring to my specific post or something else (maybe you intended something else with your threading)? We already had a huge RfC discussing these sources, and the introduced text has such major WP:GEVAL issues, so I'm a little confused as to what you're referring to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the statement in that source that you are referencing: "Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, psychokinesis, faith healing, clairvoyance, or ufology are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously" my problem with it is that it lists multiple fields of which one is faith healing, but then says the various fields are "either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously," so the author with the use of the word 'or' does not clearly state which statement he attributes to faith healing and which to the other fields. I believe it can't be pseudoscience because so very few academics/sources attribute that label to faith healing. Therefore, the author must be applying "lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously" to faith healing. The author would need to be quoted in context and I think it is inappropriate, per WP:NPOV, to use/misrepresent that source to allow only one academic viewpoint into the article and goes against the spirit of the closing admin summary of the RfC imho.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This particular comment can be more or less dismissed in terms of WP:PSCI. The RfC is over, so we're not arguing about whether something is pseudoscience anymore. Pretty much all sources discussed so far agree on the fringe/pseudoscience aspect, so it's spurious to claim too few sources or claim the author must be talking about something else. If someone wants to overturn GEVAL, they need to do that at the policy page, not at this talk page. Until then, it's a policy because the very thing it cautions about happens a lot of pseudoscience/fringe topics.

Just to tack on a bit, but you're currently citing Pigliucci and Boundry that talks about pseudoscience or epistemic warrant (i.e., saying everything listed at least falls into WP:FRINGE), which in turn cites Hines that talks about pseudoscience, paranormal, etc. that you've also brought up. It's pretty clear a lot of your discussion about them as well as the draft text about takes them out of context, but when there is confusion (which there reasonably shouldn't be here), we look at sources that cite those in question. Of those citing it and mentioning faith healing, this source flat out calls faith healing pseudoscience while citing Pigliucci. Professors in a society publication are much more reliable than personal editor opinion at least. Nothing in those citations would particularly validate what you are trying to claim about the sources though. Not to mention that Pigliucci and Boundry had another book where they discuss things like faith and having prayers answered within the broader context of pseudoscience without the demarcation of paranormal being something other than pseudoscience. Given that these specific viewpoints of yours were already addressed in the RfC as having PSCI issues, it's time to drop the stick on them.

What we need right now is to at a minimum craft content that faith healing is considered pseudoscience by philosophers and scientists without competing statements in order to comply with PSCI and GEVAL. We could get into how claims that faith healing isn't making scientific claims ironically makes it a pseudoscience or that there have been distinct cases of fraud associated with some claims of faith healing, but better to do one thing at a time considering how text heavy these talk discussions have been getting. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

In my view, I've summarised the sources neutrally. I think you are misrepresenting the closing summary of the RfC, please read above the third paragraph of Sandstein's RfC summary and you will see that the result of the RfC was not to declare faith healing pseudoscience without summarising any academic differing opinions. As far as I'm concerned, it is you who is the one trying to cherry pick and make the references say what you want them to say or make the sources agree with your 'favourite source' and you are doing so by ignoring, dismissing and playing WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT with me and wiki-lawyering. I happen to care about this encyclopedia and neutrality and have taken many articles to good article status, so I know how to interpret and apply sources neutrally.

Given we cannot agree on the interpretation of one particular source, I would not be opposed to simply quoting the entire sentence: there is "remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, psychokinesis, faith healing, clairvoyance, or ufology are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously."

As for the two sources in your comment, one is a newsletter and I would be concerned that better sources are available and the other source does not mention 'faith healing,' so probably not appropriate that we use these sources when we have better or more specific sources.

If you are so convinced that I am not representing the sources or academic opinions properly/fairly, why don't you put forward your suggested text for the article for consideration.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, we currently don't have significant differing academic viewpoints to describe right now. Saying otherwise is a direct violation of WP:GEVAL as already shown. There was no mandate to include such viewpoints from the RfC, just consider it (implied in terms of considering GEVAL). Sources pretty squarely describe it directly as pseudoscience in general (including discussion of the one you were quoting), so that is what we will do until we find adequate sources saying otherwise in terms of GEVAL. The repeated attempts to not characterize faith healing as pseudoscience need to stop as your arguments have been personal opinions in contradiction with what actual secondary sources have to say.

I already mentioned that Raymond's diff they provided was at least a bare minimum for including the text, so I've gone and added essentially that with a few updated sources from the RfC since no one has added anything yet. I'm still open to tweaking wording according to sources while not creating undue weight for making it seem like faith healing is not primarily described as pseudoscience, but we've also reached the point that it's time to start complying with PSCI policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Literaturegeek: See this. I think we are clearly done here. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to dispute the label (pseudoscience) unless it was directly disputed by one or more reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep misrepresenting the source (and other sources throughout the RfC) and added text without consensus. It doesn't say virtually all scientists class it as pseudoscience. The source says virtually all scientists regard it as either pseudoscience or don't take it seriously. The key words are 'either' and 'or'. The problem is you misrepresented the source and then are applying GEVAL. In fact, the source that says "Another expert stated that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism." comes from a source that Raymond posted for the RfC and we all considered before voting. Now you say this text must be excluded. The secondary sources are posted in my first post in this talk section, it is not my opinion, please stop misrepresenting me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It is like finding a source saying in England most left leaning voters vote for either the labour party or the liberal democrats, then chopping the statement up to say most left leaning voters vote for the liberal democrats (which is actually a very small party that gets a small percent of the vote) when actually labour gets the lions share of left leaning votes in England. Chopping statements in half and making an assertion is a gross misrepresentation of a source. But anyway.....--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As already discussed, sources that put Pigliucci & Boudry in context for us instead of relying on editor personal opinion cite that faith healing is put under pseudoscience by Pigliucci & Boudry that use the virutally all scientists and philosophers language. If someone wants to try to support your personal interpretation of the epistemic warrant language (which is often used as a qualifer, not a separate category), they'll need sources to support that. Currently, those citing Pigliucci & Boudry and mentioning faith healing do not support your personal interpretation by either flat out opposing it or just not mentioning such a distinction, so we stick to what the sources have to say.

As for the Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism comment, you were severely changing the context of that source by saying only certain forms of a faith healing are pseudoscience. I even specifically quoted that source in the text I added as Certain approaches to faith healing are also widely considered to be pseudoscientific, including those of Christian Science, voodoo, and Spiritualism. That source is just pointing out some of the more prominent examples, but makes no limitations on what is or not pseudoscience with regards to faith healing. Again, your particular content arguments have been getting into WP:OR territory lately, so it seems like we've about reached a point where the content should be more or less settled at this point based on the plethora of discussion here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"by nearly all scientists and philosphers" may not be an accurate summary. Only "nearly all scientists and philosophers" considers it to be pseudoscience? I don't have an accurate summary right now but we can think about making it better. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That's more or less the language used by Pigliucci & Boudry in the cited ref, Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, psychokinesis, faith healing, clairvoyance, or ufology are either pseudosciences. I went with nearly instead of virtually so as not to run into copyvio problems. I'm open to changing things around a bit if we've got a better way of phrasing it though, but when we get into WP:RS/AC territory, we want to stick pretty close to how the source intends to portray it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Homeopathy: "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific."

Ayurveda: "Ayurveda medicine is considered pseudoscientific."

Chiropractic: "Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas"

Acupuncture: "and acupuncture is a pseudoscience."

It should be easy to remove "nearly all scientists and philosophers". We can engage in very long debates about each of these alternative medicines I have named here, that they are not pseudoscience according to some/many/most (depending on the med) sources. But their articles have made no efforts to marginalize the label (pseudoscience), backed by multiple reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually just want to closely paraphrase what sources say, like any good wikipedian. It is you kingofaces who is engaging in original research and more specifically WP:SYN. Your approach to editing and use of sources has got me concerned about whether this is isolated or whether you misrepresent sources as a matter of routine. We recently had an editor called Barbara doing as such before she was topic banned from medicine orientated articles. But anyway...--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

At this point, please remember this topic is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Please stop casting aspersions about editors. We follow what the sources say, not personal editor opinion. When your personal interpretation of a source is contradicted by a secondary source citing that same source, the source pretty much always wins out against us anonymous editors. As it stands, sources contradict what you are trying to claim about Pigliucci & Boudry, which then becomes both undue weight and original research. Especially due to WP:PSCI, an even harder stance is taken against that in these topics.Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Raymond3023, it seems like you're mistaking the intent, but the nearly all scientists and philosophers language is even a stronger statement that the topic is pseudoscience. Stating academic consensus is about as strong as we can get, which is why we have WP:RS/AC to help editors with that idea. It's basically the opposite of watering down. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

My comments were mostly speaking of general writing style that almost every other alt-med article seems to have used. Whatever you have written here maybe more perfect than what has been written on other articles, so I have no objection with current wording, nor any objection with modification if anyone else is interested. Though I am opposed to any rebuttals on lead. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Faith Healing is an Art

I appreciate all the fair consideration given to faith healing as a science; however, common sense says it an Art (with the patient being the muse). So, when sources appear to justify faith healing as an art, then due weight should be given. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there sources for that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There may be a few. (The search has me wondering when Con artist will have the pseudoscience POV pushed into it). Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As for con artists, the sources that I see say that it isn't pseudoscience unless it makes scientific or science-like claims – so a con artist who claims people can trust him with their money is not making a pseudoscientific claim. And when there is sourcing that classifies something as pseudoscience, then that's not POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)