Historical Materialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“While” is quicker to type than “whilst”. It has fewer letters. ~2026-29362-68 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I won’t harbour a grudge though. ~2026-29362-68 (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but let's follow the process instead of edit warring. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

List items

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

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

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

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

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

Happy editing,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have a RfC that asks the question:

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

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

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

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

Compare:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC on listing historical materialism as pseudoscience

Cleanup

@Bon courage and Altenmann:

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

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

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

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

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

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

the AfD RfC above.

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

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

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

The first one is Welteislehre.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Minimum Parking Requirements be on this list?

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

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

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

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

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

Reverts by Shlomo

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

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

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

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

Requested move 7 May 2026

Next steps after move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

There appears to be conflict here. The redirect above which points here, has different qualification parameters. Why?

Which ones do we use? - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 21:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

By "different qualification parameters" do you mean list selection criteria?

If so, use the current title, not the previous one. Note that the re-direct went the other way until this morning. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

list selection criteria is what I meant yes.

So, when will the redirect with the wrong list selection criteria be deleted? - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 22:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

At this point, there are many wikilinks to the old title. Without the redirect, all these links will break. Perhaps someone will run a bot to change all those links, but that still won't address any links from outside wikipedia, so it's unlikely that the redirect will be deleted any time soon if at all.

There's a process at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for deleting redirects. I doubt that a deletion request would be successful. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It's OK. It is going on my Wikipedia couldn't give a shit list. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 01:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)