I think we should leave the first paragraph as is, but add a sentence about this pseudoscience use of the topic (and the charlatans) within it. I don't know where what's being discussed above is meant to go, but certainly the lead will be balanced (as the above discussion was). From reading the close it seems that this page has not been handed over to the fringe project to do with as it will. I believe that it should contain everything it does now, the already described points of view, but add in some of the naysaying to the mix. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the lead does need to be balanced. We can't really talk about the lead without first figuring out the article text since the lead is meant to be a summary of the article body. Most editors on the FRINGE project are good editors who can and do edit neutrally. I wouldn't tar everyone on that project with the POV brush.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Balance is not needed on lead. After seeing output from dozens of editors, I have not actually observed if there are any direct rebuttals coming from one or multiple reliable sources. Policy is WP:PSCI, which means that we are still good without providing any undue balance whether on lead or section. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the text that has been added is not supported by the references. As has been repeatedly pointed out here, "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" means that FH might merely "lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously" - and so there is no basis for saying "nearly all scientists and philosophers" regard FH as PS. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:OR. We've already discussed how the idea that faith healing "might" only fall under the epistemic merit and not pseudoscience idea is false. As already mentioned, editors do not get to claim a source means X when secondary sources directly say Pigliucci & Boudry treat faith healing as pseudoscience. We can't be claiming that particular source may treat it as something else at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I did this: [1]. Does that help? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I almost had an edit summary together, but it basically creates undue weight and misrepresents in the intent of the source. Part of the problem interspersed in the above talk sections is that some editors have been trying to claim that because the either or language is used, faith healing isn't a pseudoscience or that such Pigliucci & Boudry can't be used to claim it is one. That is in opposition to what we commonly see in descriptions of fringe material where someone will say it's a pseudoscience and also have a qualifying sentence saying it just isn't taken seriously while not considering it waffling.

When you look for secondary sources that cite the source in question, the former viewpoint that it might not be described as a pseudoscience is contradicted since that source explicitly says Pigliucci & Boudry treat faith healing as a pseudoscience. With that in mind, we need to be really careful about what ends up being weasel wording that can make it appear Pigliucci & Boudry don't treat faith healing as pseudoscience. Because it's possible to get lost easily in all the above discussions, I included quotes for those last two citations in question as well as others. Feel free to check them out if something isn't clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I do understand what you are describing. I included "at least" at the beginning of the quote for that reason. That way, it doesn't imply that they don't regard it as pseudoscience, but rather that they regard the epistemic aspect as a sort-of "minimal" reason to regard it as nonscientific. And my reading of the RfC is that it is within due weight to indicate that there is an argument that it does not measure up to being scientifically testable. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of ok with the current version you edited, though sources 12 and 13 in the lead are tied together to basically have a WP:RS/AC type statement without needing the added epistemic language (primarily based on WP:PSCI issues that have been discussed plenty already). I'm still in favor of just keeping it simple without the epistemic language since we have a secondary source that clarifies the intent, but I'd have to think about how the refs would be arranged if we went this route instead.

As for your not being scientifically testable comment, I'm not too sure where you're going with that. A number of editors did make unsourced comments about that in the RfC that can be largely ignored, but in terms of that topic, I did include a source that directly addresses that (ref 7 in the lead). As long as we attribute that someone saying it isn't scientifically testable equates to it being pseudoscience, we should be in line with the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That comment was just my clumsy way of describing the view that there is an alternative to using the word "pseudoscience", so it's not worth parsing. My advice is to not push for the shorter version of the sentence, that just says that it's pseudoscience without including the epistemic part. It really doesn't matter, and it's not worth having a dispute about. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've thought it over a bit while looking over previous talk page discussion, and I've removed the newer text. It's very clear it's been used to by editors to claim FH isn't pseudoscience as part of original research, and since it doesn't change the meaning of the source excluding the latter half with the epistemic language, it's better to be on the safe concise side for now. As it stands now, we shouldn't have any dispute in terms concerns that have legitimate weight under WP:CON. Any concerns has been brought up in quite some time with [this version] or cited sources discussed before that have run afoul of original research and other policies, so I think we should be fine to leave things as is for now and move along to other things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I, for one, won't edit war with you about it, but I think that you were wrong to make that edit. I'll go so far as to urge you to self-revert. And I'm not seeing the consensus that you claim, either here or in the RfC close. I don't care whether or not "it's been used to by editors" to make claims, so long as the actual text on the page doesn't make inaccurate claims, which it didn't. It added further nuance, and I think that made the page better. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Trypto, what exactly are you seeing as out of line with the RfC with the text? There was consensus to include sources describing FH as pseudoscience. The second part was that we avoid doing it in Wikipedia's voice (which we do through an RS/AC type statement). We also don't have sources arguing that FH isn't making a scientific claim (to the contrary rather), so the GEVAL or due weight aspect of Sandstein's close seems to be satisfied too. I'm happy to hammer out details if something is out of line with the RfC close, but I'm not seeing anything obvious at the moment, hence my asking. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted it. How words are used on the talk page is a poor reason for removing them from the article. Kingofaces43, multiple editors have argued for the insertion of those words, and you're the only one opposing. Although they are "newer", the addition of the text without this qualifier has been disputed, so if you're arguing that we should wait for consensus, the whole sentence should stay out. StAnselm (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased that StAnselm reverted it, and I strongly urge all editors to refrain from any more reverting. And I think that paragraph 3 of the closing statement unambiguously says that it is appropriate to include that part of the sentence. There is an element of WP:RGW going on here: Wikipedia should indicate the nuances of opinions in the sources, and should not be trying to force readers to conclude that there is a single "correct" view of the subject. I hope that my editing history leaves no doubt that I am no fan of pseudoscience. I would probably be taking a different position if the disputed material said that faith healing was actually not pseudoscience, but it does not say that, only that faith healing fails the scientific or empirical requirement that a claim must be testable and potentially disprovable. That's entirely true that it fails that; indeed, the opposite (mainstream) view that faith healing lacks medical efficacy is entirely testable, and is supported by overwhelming evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to center things a bit, here's the relevant part of that paragraph from the close and how it breaks out, Many opposing editors are primarily opposed to Wikipedia simply stating in its own voice that this practice is pseudoscience, in part because some cite sources making the argument that it is not scientific to begin with. But there is support by several of those opposing the proposal for describing in the article how reliable sources characterize faith healing in terms of it being pseudoscience or not. This approach is explicitly proposed by some editors, and it does not seem to be clearly incompatible with most of either the "support" or "oppose" opinions. I therefore consider the most "consensual" outcome of this discussion, and recommend that editors work out how exactly best to implement it.

The first main part is not using Wikipedia's voice. That's taken care of by the nearly all scientists language (albeit even stronger than using Wikipedia's voice). The second is how reliable sources characterize it as pseudoscience or not. All sources so far agree on it being pseudoscience or at least do not dispute it. There's no need to include the not taken seriously language bit as it's redundant (though still included in the ref quote).

The rub has been editor claims that the source using the nearly all scientists language wasn't directly claiming FH is pseudoscience because it could have fallen only into the not taken seriously category only and not pseudoscience. That's getting into OR territory or extreme hairsplitting we would normally dismiss in PSCI topics anyways, but I looked for sources citing the original source. Any that do mention FH in the context of the source treat it as pseudoscience explicitly or do not mention this personal alternative viewpoint at all. That means those making this claim are pitting personal editor opinion against sources, and since not being pseudoscience has been a stated intent of including that language, we need to be really careful that such a viewpoint doesn't come across to readers as well.

With that all in mind, what issues do you specifically see with not including the not taken seriously language or why it should be included? If there are legitimate issues in either regard, I'm totally on board with going with crafting different language than my current version, but nothing in these discussions has really approached that level yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Setting aside the debate about the broad definition of pseudoscience, how you misuse academic sources and synthesise conclusions that are not in sources ironically is the very definition of traditional narrowly defined pseudoscience. Synthesising conclusions from multiple sources is original research and going beyond what sources say, like your pattern of editing and talk page soap boxing and wikilawyering, can cause enormous damage to this encyclopedia and is antisocial and disruptive and disrespectful to other editors who waste time and energy dealing with this, especially as you accuse your opponents of engaging in what you yourself are doing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, please do not misrepresent the sources. You already started by trying to claim Pigliucci & Boudry may not be calling FH pseudoscience as part of the virtually all scientists language, and I merely responded to that WP:OR claim by showing that sources that cite them do not give any credence (which you're ironically claiming to be OR) to your personal viewpoint at all. They instead contradict it. Also, please remember to WP:FOC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

My response to that source was to support closely paraphrasing the statement, not chopping it in half to reach your personal POV. Your misrepresentation of my good Wikipedia editing is not very nice, it is abusive.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever made my personal POV known since I've just been following the sources (maybe it would surprise people), but again, WP:FOC is policy. I already paraphrased the core part of the source in question, so I have yet to see a legitimate policy concern brought up yet with my edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

For me, the key question that I now have is what is the exact meaning of the sentence But there is support by several of those opposing the proposal for describing in the article how reliable sources characterize faith healing in terms of it being pseudoscience or not. That is of course something apart from the "Wikipedia's voice" issue. I'm understanding it to refer in part to such things as the "epistemic" portion of the sentence that is in dispute. If I am correct about that, then we need to include it. But perhaps I'm mistaken. So I want to know very precisely: what exactly does that sentence in the close refer to? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What happened during the RfC was a large number of people opposed classifying FH as pseudoscience. That was never substantiated in sources though (in some cases even misattributing sources in the rare case someone mentioned a source), so it looks like Sandstein was just giving an option if such sources were ever found (they commented on lack of sources for that viewpoint in the second paragraph). Basically if new sources come to light, figure it out under due weight and GEVAL. No one's brought anything up that passes muster in terms of weight though, so we're left with sources that either explicitly say pseudoscience or make general comments about the fringe nature of the subject without contradicting that it is pseudoscience. The epistemic warrant text doesn't really come into to play with that particular part of the close. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that I was one of the editors who responded to the RfC. I agree with you that the position that it should not be classified as pseudoscience was argued by some editors, but clearly rejected in the consensus. But I don't think that Sandstein was saying what you think. It's a plain reading of the language that the sentence is about the underlying reasoning behind whether or not it is pseudoscience. That encompasses, in part, the argument that even if one supposes for the sake of argument that faith healing does not unambiguously meet the definition of pseudoscience because it does not claim to be science, it still cannot "be taken seriously" on broader epistemic grounds. And the most "consensual" outcome of this discussion means clearly that it is consensus to do that now, not as waiting for other sources to show up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I missed this reply earlier, but Sanstein's comment can bit a bit ambiguous. One way it can go is that is there are sources of sufficient weight, say how it is or is not classified. When we do dig into the sources that have been used to claim that though, they still generally agree on the overall classification, just tweaking within (see my climate change comment below for a parallel). Without appropriate sources, we are bound to do nothing with respect to that part of the close. If we go the route you're thinking more of basically just describing why it falls under pseudoscience, we can do that while satisfying what seems to be the overall intent of Sandstein's close. It can be a little trickier considering some sources just say FH is pseudoscience without why (and the issue with the demarcation problem), but I'd have to dig through the sources again to see what kind of content we could craft in that regard. That could be a sentence added directly after the propsed FH is considered PS language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether Pigliucci & Boudry regard FH as PS - the issue is the supposed claim that nearly everyone else does. StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces, firstly newsletter sources are poor quality sources, but anyway - the newsletter source that you are referring to actually just cites Pigliucci & Boudry to say "a precise definition of pseudoscience is not possible" and that is all they say about Pigliucci & Boudry source, nothing else. You have then misrepresented the source and synthesised support for the edit you want to make to this article. What they next say is "broadly we assume it (pseudoscience) to include homeopathy, astrology, crystal healing and faith healing..." The 'we' is the authors of the newsletter source assuming that position as two individual people. You have synthesised a position to bizarrely state that this is somehow saying almost all experts blah blah. I remain very concerned about how you interpret and apply sources KoA.

"While a precise definition of pseudoscience is not possible (see Pigliucci & Boudry 2013 for numerous concerns and a discussion of the “Demarcation Problem”), broadly we assume it to include homeopathy, astrology, crystal healing and faith healing, among many others, which have no significant statistical support from studies."--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing poor quality about the source since we're dealing with an academic newsletter of a society even without invoking WP:PARITY. Also keep in mind that the source is citing Pigliucci & Boudry while completely contradicting your personal interpretation of the source that they aren't treating faith healing as pseudoscience. At the end of the day, we have sources satisfying WP:RS/AC that state nearly all philosophers and scientists treat FH as pseudoscience, so we will reflect that to comply with various policies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit by Tryptofish is attempting to lower down the impact of faith healing as pseudoscience. What is the problem? Do we really want to argue against the label (pseudoscience)? Are there any reliable sources that argue like this? Raymond3023 (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

While I do want to state that I don't think Trypto is trying to water things down at all (and that edit is a bit out of date now), I'm mainly holding off to see how they respond to my most recent response to them. That being said, maybe the simplest way to close the book on this is to include the epistemic language, but change or as "at least lack[ing] the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously" to and "lack[s] the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously" in order to deal with the undue weight concerns that make it seem like the source isn't classifying it as pseudoscience. That would take care of all my concerns at least, and I imagine it would yours too? Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes that would be a nice compromise but then why we will need "by nearly all scientists and philosophers"? It looks like a clear underestimation. I am waiting for further explanation before taking this back to WP:FTN. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Partly, it's not using Wikipedia's voice per the RfC close, but as I mentioned before, that's an even stronger statement this way per WP:RS/AC, not the opposite. To state that there is an academic consensus (or nearly all scientists agree) for things like global warming, GMOs, etc. is perhaps the highest tier statement of WP:WEIGHT we can make in topics involving science, hence why we specifically require sources stating something to that language. We can have a statement like the example you mentioned above that "Ayurveda medicine is considered pseudoscientific.", but that's a step below saying that virtually all scientists agree. Does that make sense? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes that statement also sounds like it could be superfluous while current statement on the lead of this article reads like a fact. I also agree that "and "lack[s] the epistemic" will be more neutral. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just misreading your post, but are you saying the nearly all scientists language is superfluous? If that's the case, removing that language would weaken the statement that FH is pseudoscience, not strengthen it (and it doesn't sound like that is your intended effect at all). We'd also need to be mindful of PSCI policy in not weakening such statements too. Unanimous is never used to describe scientific consensus if that's the word you're looking for, so the convention in stating scientific consensus is that statements like this source make are as strong as we can get. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

By "that statement" I was referring to one of the example of the alternative medicines that you have mentioned (Ayurvedic one) after I had provided a few of them above. That's why I agreed that "current statement on the lead of this article reads like a fact", in comparison with those examples I had provided that. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I just got confused by what you were referring to. That sounds pretty spot on then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Raymond3023, I'm not trying to water anything down. I was the filing party in the ArbCom GMO case, and I was the primary editor behind WP:GMORFC, where I wrote most of the language that was adopted by the community, saying that there is a scientific consensus that eating GM foods is safe. I am not someone who attempts to undermine how Wikipedia presents scientific fact.

About the "epistemic" part, I'm quite receptive to the idea that we could include something about it, but paraphrase what is now a direct quote in order to make it more accurate in context. If so, we need to be clear about what is, or is not, a direct quote. As of now, it's a verbatim quote from the source, but it does not have to be. Similarly, I see that KofA moved the citation for the quote to the end of the sentence, but I believe that as long as we keep using the direct quote, we should keep the corresponding inline cite directly after the quote. On the other hand, if we stop using a direct quote, I think it might be best to move all of the citations to the end of the sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On moving the references, the virtually all scientists and philosophers text is pulled from the same source as the quoted epistemic language, so that's why I moved them back to indicate where that text was sourced to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, that makes me increasingly believe that we should (1) paraphrase, and (2) move all of the cites to the end of the sentence. That way, we don't interrupt the sentence, and we are basically saying that an abundance of sources all take this position. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've got to duck out for the day (beer awaits), but I'm fine doing that. If we go with the and instead of or language Raymond and I were just discussing and paraphrase the currently quoted epistemic language portion, does it seem like we'd only need those minor tweaks to the current framework we have up? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That depends on what other editors think. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm skeptical - I'd like to see the wording of the paraphrase before I agree to it. In any case, I don't see what footnote 13 is doing there - it doesn't support the quote (which is from footnote 12) or even the claim. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As stated many times on the talk page already, ref 13 (SAFS) is only there because of OR claims on this talk page that ref 12 (Pigliucci and Boudry) did not treat FH as pseudoscience, so we looked at sources citing ref 12. I don't think we need to rehash that again (and again) since that claim violated PSCI, but ref 13 itself in the content isn't required. It was mostly there for good measure. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I haven't seen your edits outside this article. It's good you participate in GMO subjects, I will look into them someday but right now the concerns with the lead of this article remains unsolved. I am not a fan of using quotes, and not especially for lead. Do you at least agree that we can change the present lead to and "lack[s] the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously"?Raymond3023 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In terms of paraphrasing, how about Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience and lacks the justification to be taken seriously by nearly all scientists and philosophers. with references at the end (the SAFS source wouldn't be needed at this point if we're paraphrasing). That should be enough paraphrasing to get rid of quotes, and epistemic warrant basically "translates" to justification, verifiability, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No, because you've changed the "or" into an "and" - and there's a big difference. StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have already said, I'm fine with changing the wording, so long as we either use a verbatim quote or use a paraphrase. I think what KoA just said comes very close to being the right solution, and I'm open to arguments for either "and" or "or", or both. I'll suggest tweaking that wording to Faith healing is regarded by nearly all scientists and philosophers as a pseudoscience and/or as lacking epistemological justification.^{[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]} I don't know if "and/or" is acceptable, but if not, we need to get to where we agree on one of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, the word 'either' must be included otherwise the source is being misrepresented. The word 'or' must also be included. Deleting 'either' and 'or' is misrepresenting sources, original research and POV pushing and I am shocked to read your posts where you are even considering this as an option. Don't forget the use of this one source is already POV pushing because there is a source that says 'certain approaches to faith healing are widely regarded as pseudoscience' implying that simple prayer for healing is not a pseudoscience. Why is this equally valid source not being summarised for the lead? Because some editors WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm open to either "and" or "either... or". I'll support whichever one editors agree better describes the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Odd reasoning, why not say you will support what the source says?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that I want editors to agree on which option actually is what the source says. It would only be "odd" if I were to have said that I don't want the text to match the source – and I did nothing of the sort. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

We’re required can ignore this as WP:PSCI and WP:OR violations in terms of consensus as you’ve been told many times on this talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep flashing PSCI at me, and I am familiar with it. Nothing in PSCI that says we should misrepresent what a source says.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like we are at a decision point between making the sentence in the form of "and" or in the form of "either... or". I'm making a section break to focus on which one of them is the more accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The source says most experts regard it as either pseudoscience or lacks justification to be taken seriously. It is as simple as that. You delete the word 'either' and you delete the word 'or' and it becomes something far removed from what the source says or means. We follow the sources and not add our original ideas via synthesis or soapboxing to change meanings of authors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Your most recent version looks good, though we need to remove the or language in order to not create undue weight for the perspective that sources say FH isn’t pseudoscience (which we don’t even have sources for). The use of and shows the two phrases are not contradicting, and that’s important for avoiding the PSCI issued we’ve had on this talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes we do have a source that states the pseudoscience label is mostly limited to "certain forms of faith healing are widely regarded to be pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism."[2]. The reason for the confusion here is because sources are being selectively used and individual sources misquoted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you’ve been cautioned about misquoting that source many times. It does not restrict FH pseudoscience to only those types, only pointing out that those ones were of note to that source. That doesn’t contradict the proposed language I had one bit, so we can’t make that source seem like it does. That violates WP:OR. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I quoted 'e.g.' which means examples, so every reader over the age of 10 will know that it is not limited to those three examples. You have been misquoting and synthesising sources and when an editor quotes a source properly you accuse them (without evidence) of 'misquoting.,' which of course is a WP:BATTLE tactic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup, this is purely disruptive behavior for an article talk page. Please remove this comment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Since the source restricts itself to certain approaches to faith healing are widely believed to be pseudoscience, that means not all approaches to faith healing are widely believed to be pseudoscience, which does contradict your proposed wording.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that’s pure WP:OR again. Please don’t waste our time (and talk page space) repeating that when you’ve been cautioned multiple times about that source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And this source says: "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." [3] --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That would violate WP:PSCI to use the source in that way since FH is making scientific claims (i.e., healing), and that’s already documented in sources we already use. That sources talks about FH as part of the paranormal, which is a sub branch of pseudoscience. This had already been addressed in the RfC and shouldn’t be any surprise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)←

My point was that you are wrong to state that no source claims faith healing is not pseudoscience. I was not saying it was the most authoritative source on the matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, we can’t use he source to do that since it classified it under paranormal, which is pseudoscience, not to mention GEVAL still applies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support "and/or". But we should also retain "epistemological warrant", so we might as well keep the quote. StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• First of all, it looks to me like a stalemate here, with editors taking firm and opposing positions. We may need to look for an alternative way to resolve the disagreement. But first, I've gone back and looked some more at the passage from the source: we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like... faith healing... are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. So the issue rests on how one should read "or at least". That phrase, "or at least", is neither "or" nor "and".
  • One way that I could paraphrase it in my own words would be: fields like... faith healing... are either pseudosciences or effectively the same thing as pseudoscience because they lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. That interpretation would be compatible with "and".
  • Alternatively, I could paraphrase it instead as: fields like... faith healing... are either classified as pseudosciences or as something that just falls short of pseudoscience but still lacks the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. That interpretation would be compatible with "either... or".
• And quite honestly, after thinking hard about it, I don't see any objective reason to choose either of those interpretations over the other, based solely on the quoted passage. Perhaps seeing a couple of pages from the source, surrounding the quoted sentence, would help put that sentence in context. But the sentence in isolation probably cannot resolve the question. And neither can editor opinion based on an overall view of other sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And quite honestly, I can't understand how anyone could read it as "and". That's simply not the plain English meaning of "or at least". StAnselm (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There was no need to repeat my wording like that. "Or at least" is neither exactly "and" nor exactly "or". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - reading it over it does sound a bit snarky. StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• "and" would be better. Not "or", "or at least", "and/or". We don't have to lower down its impact as a pseudoscience. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

All I'm seeing here is editors repeating their fixed opinions, without any movement towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wall of text incoming since I'll try to summarize everything contested so far. Unfortunately we're in a topic where we need to be more cautious of PSCI policy and making it seem like sources say something isn't pseudoscience, but I do share the sentiment this should be much easier. That being said, we appear to be looking at a rough WP:CONSENSUS (policy, not vote counts), among the five editors active here so far. Raymond, yourself, and myself have agreed on a rough framework (or at least heading towards consensus as Raymond and I appear on-board with similar language, and you also are considering treating the source as saying psuedoscience and epistemic warrant phrases are not opposing). When it comes to StAnselm and Literaturegeek's comments, they've been personal editor opinion about a source that contradicts how secondary sources use it in addition to trying to claim FH isn't pseudoscience, so we are required to ignore those comments per WP:PSCI and WP:OR in assessing consensus policy. We don't need to satisfy all editors here, especially when there are policy issues with content-based opposition. That's difficult in controversial topics, but something we need to keep in mind unfortunately.

So with that in mind, the rough concept you are trying to get across in the first iteration is more or less in line with the sources. Though to directly state in-text that the epistemic warrant language and the pseudoscience classification are the same, we should have a secondary source saying explicitly that even though the context of the sources imply it. When we look at the sentence in question, they cite Hines 2003 saying that the paranormal are a subset of pseudoscience, of which faith healing falls under. The rest of the chapter is dedicated to the demarcation problem, but doesn't really gleam anything else for our particular conversation. In a way, it's a similar situation to climate change/denial where there's overall agreement on the conclusion, but tweaking points within the overall agreement is inappropriately seen as broad disagreement by contrarians. Here philosophers have talked a lot about how to exactly classify pseudoscience, but no one of sufficient weight is disputing FH is pseudoscience. I'm not sure if the demarcation problem discussion is what caused your questioning on the rest of the context, but that's a fair parallel to view it as.

What we do have though is a look at secondary sources that satisfy WP:DUE by showing they treat FH as pseudoscience while citing the source in question in talking about faith healing.[4] That's where the SAFS source came from. The other first Boundry source doesn't directly discuss anything of direct relevance to this conversation, but does have interesting commentary on how "God has cured me" type statements try to make themselves unfalsifiable to escape scientific scrutiny, which is nearly stating pseudoscience in concept anyways. The remaining sources don't directly talk about faith healing (putting quotes around faith+healing doens't work for a wikilink), but the second Boudry source conclusion section among others I've read now never seem to use the two phrases as separate categories, but rather that something has epistemic evidence or else they describe it as pseudoscience. No one treats the or language in the P&B 2013 source as being distinct categories at least, so we have no reason to assume the or distinction being made by others in assessing weight. In terms of assessing the weight of sources, we seem to be in a fine position for the and concept at least since the quoted source is both citing and being cited for statements FH is pseudoscience explicitly.

With that, I still think my previous version, Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience and lacks the justification to be taken seriously by nearly all scientists and philosophers. is most in line with the sources without potentially stretching them too far or diminishing them, but your first bullet in concept is a potential other avenue. I'd have to think of how we could tweak the paraphrasing though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. I just want to clarify something first. You make it sound like I am on one "side" of this, with you and Raymond, and against StAnselm and Literaturegeek. That is not where I stand. Up to this point, I've really been in the middle, with my opinion shifting back-and-forth a bit, but basically ambivalent, and being very interested in seeing whether there can be a compromise. But that might change.

Within that post, it looks to me like you buried the lead. When I got to this source: [5], I really took notice! It's the same authors and, although they are mostly discussing pseudoscience in general rather than faith healing in particular, they repeatedly use the exact phrase "epistemic warrant" that is under discussion here, giving numerous instances where we can look in context at how they see "epistemic warrant" in relationship to pseudoscience in general. I'm going to take a bit of time to read it further, and think about whether they see these as separate or identical. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not intending to place sides, just that Raymond and I came to a rough agreement and that you were in a middle ground considering text like I had among other options. No worries there. There's a lot of stuff buried in all that previous reply, but it has been a snowball effect once you start summing everything up that's been addressed individually already on the talk page (though the source that interests you is relatively new). I personally put a little more focus on how P&B 2013 cite Hines 2003, but both are good context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course, Kingofaces43, you don't need to ignore my comments, because you won't be assessing the consensus here - that would require an uninvolved editor. StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Since we can't come to a consensus, I think we just need to stick with the quote in the lead. I realise that's not something we normally like to do, but we have to put accuracy above stylistic concerns. StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, the personal viewpoint of the authors of epistemic warrant and pseudoscience isn't relevant and is not what what the issue in dispute is. The issue is what those authors said about epistemic warrant and virtually all scientists and philosophers. So not sure why you got excited about that source. Maybe I missed something.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about what the bottom line will be, but the issue isn't their personal opinion of epistemology. It's what they actually meant when they said that about epistemic warrant in the cited sentence about virtually all scientists and philosophers. And yes, that's very important in terms of how we cite that sentence. Obviously, if that sentence were taken out of context in a way that obscured its actual meaning, we would need to correct that. Everyone else should feel free to look at that source too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What they meant is what they said: they said virtually all scientists and philosophers view faith healing as either a pseudoscience or at least lacking the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. I urge you to abandon attempts to resynthesize the authors conclusions/change what they wrote. If this ends up going to a content RfC there is no way the community will endorse resynthesizing their conclusions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've now read this source: [6] multiple times and thought carefully about it. I think that it's important in terms of how we treat the "and/or" issue about the pseudoscience sentence, because the decision about "and/or" depends on the intended meaning of "or at least" in the sentence 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 that is cited for the sentence. The same authors wrote both sources, and in both they describe what they feel makes pseudoscience pseudoscience, and in both they use the "epistemic warrant" terminology.

I've looked carefully at what I think is every instance in which they both: (1) discuss how pseudoscience differs from science, and (2) discuss that in terms of some sort of epistemic insufficiency. I'm looking for whether they treat some instances of lacking "epistemic warrant" as being characteristic of something that does not qualify as pseudoscience, in which case we would have to treat "or at least" as being like "either... or" – or whether they consider "lack [of] epistemic warrant" as essentially the same thing as pseudoscience, in which case we should treat it as equivalent to "and". In the source, they are talking about pseudoscience in general, and do not mention faith healing by name, but the sentence that sources our page also lists faith healing as just one example in a general list, so it's not treating faith healing as a separate case.

On page 7, they say: For example, it is something of a stretch to treat medieval alchemy and astrology as "pseudosciences," even though they may suffer from similar epistemic problems to the ones we are concerned with here, and would certainly be branded as pseudoscience today. That's fairly similar to the cited sentence that mentions faith healing, in that it sounds like something can have "epistemic problems" but it would be "a stretch" to call it pseudoscience. But they are clearly saying that in terms of history, because these things "would certainly be... pseudoscience today." (Note that both sentences include astrology, so they are comparable in terms of the kinds of pseudoscience-like things being discussed.) It's still open to reading both ways.

But everywhere else, they clearly treat "lack of epistemic warrant" as being (along with claiming scientific-like effects on health or on other things) what pseudoscience is defined by, not as being a separate category.

On page 2: Pseudoscience, as the etymology of the word suggests, is a form of imitation or fakery. It exhibits the superficial trappings of science, but all it offers is epistemic fool's gold.

On page 7: If we want to develop an evolutionary model of pseudoscience, we should take into account partly different selective pressures. If we accept that the cultural success of pseudoscience is not a function of its epistemic warrant, there must be other factors at play.

On page 12: Pseudoscience, as well as many forms of religion, has sacrificed intellectual integrity for intuitive appeal. In science, extremely counterintuitive ideas have won general assent, even among the public at large, in virtue of the epistemic warrant accorded to them. However, a hidden assumption in this argument, which needs to be spelled out more clearly, is that lack of epistemic warrant is a problem in the first place.

On page 13: Beliefs without epistemic warrant, by their very nature, cannot benefit from the boons of empirical evidence and conceptual rigor in virtue of which scientific beliefs stabilize in a population. Pseudoscience caters to our cherished intuitions, but the world does not care about our intuitions. For belief systems that promise the one and final truth about the world, such as religions and grand ideologies, falsehood and contradiction form a serious concern... Pseudoscience, in particular, mimics the outlook of science and openly boasts of its scientific pretensions, including the deference to evidence and reason. Epistemic warrant, however, is hard to fake, for the simple reason that it depends on factors outside of our control.

On page 17: Epistemic support and intuitive appeal can be modeled as two inversely correlated and compensatory sources of cultural stabilization. Science, on the one hand, by bowing to the demands of evidence, tends to become hard to swallow for laypeople and even scientists themselves... Pseudosciences, on the other hand, by tuning in on comfortable intuitive representations of the world, have an edge in terms of popular acceptance. The reason for their success, in spite of their epistemic deficiencies, is their intuitive appeal (and other more local and contingent factors). Pseudoscience has traded intellectual respectability for intuitive allure.

Taking all of those together, it becomes clear that the authors consider epistemic insufficiency to be the quality that distinguishes pseudoscience from science. They are not treating stuff that "lacks epistemic warrant" as something that needs to be differentiated from pseudoscience itself. That's very clear. The correct way to understand the sentence that we cite is as: fields like... faith healing... are either pseudosciences or effectively the same thing as pseudoscience because they lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. These authors occasionally write sentences where they don't spell that out, so it's understandable that editors (including me!) could look at the cited sentence and think that it means "either... or". But once one takes seriously how the authors write about the topic, one cannot argue for "either... or" without cherrypicking the sentence and misrepresenting the source as saying something that it doesn't.

I now support changing the sentence on the page to: Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience by nearly all scientists and philosophers. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Puzzled, have only read your statement. Why include 'philosophers' at all? It's an unusual stretch to ponder a group of philosophers sitting around conferencing of "Is Faith Healing a Thing?" The best they could do is philosophize about why people trust faith healers, it seems a judgement on its effectiveness is outside their field. Scientists should surfice. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. The phrase comes from a direct quote from the source, but we don't need to quote it directly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Philosophers" is pulled from the source's long list of the profession's thoughts about six or seven matters, and maybe adding 'faith healing' to that list was the place where it was being stretched. The seminal paper "The Inner-Turmoil When Given Over to Faith Healing: To Trust or Not Trust in the Divine" has given philosophers the mental run-around for eons, but their opinion on the subject may not rise to inclusion alongside scientists (how about "chefs"?). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase is "virtually all philosophers and scientists", not the long list of pseudosciences. Currently cite 12 on the page. But – I don't want to get sidetracked by that right now. The issue is whether or not to include the phrase about "epistemic warrant", as though it described something other than pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, normally editors just paraphrase what an author(s) write. It is a bit of an eccentric approach, and generally poor editing practice to attempt to perform an original reanalysis to then justify chopping in half a statement to say something different than what they wrote. But anyway, we are where we are. I read what you wrote tryptofish and I think you are confused by the fact that yes pseudoscience "lacks the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously" but so too do a wide range of subject matters that are unscientific or scientifically not credible/no evidence of effectiveness, but are either not pseudoscience at all or not universally seen to be pseudoscience. If they were the same thing then they wouldn't have added the words 'either' and 'or' to their statement. The correct way of interpreting the sentence in lay language is therefore "virtually all scientists and philosophers regard faith healing as either a pseudoscience or at least as not scientifically credible and therefore not justified in being taken seriously."--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Their use of the words "either" pseudoscience followed by "or at least" means the authors are firstly differentiating by the use of the words 'either' and 'or,' then secondly with their 'at least' wording they're very clearly saying something less than pseudoscience, something falling short of pseudoscience demarcation. Really there is no doubt what the authors meant. Tryptofish, you are just flat out wrong. Can you comment on why they said "or at least" and how you have now turned this into "the same as". As far as I am concerned, you are removing the authors differentiation by removing 'either' and 'or' (and you did so in the main article text of this article,[7] please revert) and you are removing their assessment of "at least" to create an original synthesis and perversion of what they wrote. You (and kingofaces43) need to man up and accept you're mistaken and abandon this original research quest to reinterpret what an author wrote and get back to mainstream Wikipedia editing style which is closely paraphrasing what authors wrote. That is how Wikipedia works I am afraid.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So with this, it seems like we're approaching more of a policy-based convergence that to claim the "either. . . or" language is distinguishing from pseudoscience rather than making a complimentary statement is going to run into trouble with misrepresenting the source (and those citing or being cited by it as I mentioned in the above subsection) as well as run into issues with WP:PSCI? We've got reams of text on this talk page, and it doesn't look like anyone has shown a reason that could stick as to why the proposed language is problematic at least. I'm not going to reinsert the text yet, but is there any more "stress-testing" you can think of that might be needed? Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with policy - it is about interpreting a phrase in its context. But it looks like we're going to need an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. You keep on referring to WP:PSCI, but really that is irrelevant for this particular issue. StAnselm (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably Sandstein should be approached since he reviewed and closed the RfC, if we need to go down that road.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein is not an editor but an uninvolved admin. He can't do anything for this content dispute and the closing statement was long enough to make things clear cut. If you really want to discuss how we should paraphrase you have no option except using appropriate noticeboards. I had already said above I am willing to take this to WP:FTN. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No to the idea of WP:FTN, because the issue is a lot more complicated than interpretation of sources. You started the RfC misrepresenting sources, for example, this source (that you listed below the RfC question) does not actually say faith healing is a pseudoscience and this source (that you listed below the RfC question) restricted faith healing to only certain approaches were pseudoscience and this source (that you listed below the RfC question), that we are debating now, points out clearly that academic opinion is not universal as to whether it is a pseudoscience - this academic lack of consensus was not made in your comment immediately below the RfC question. It is clear by some support comments, that they read your first comment and felt there was no academic controversy or limitations on faith healing being a pseudoscience in sources. Then when the RfC ended it became clear the sources did not support what some support voters (who read your misrepresentation) thought they did and so drama and battlefield behaviour appears to have emerged. There is also the issue of what I believe is relentless misrepresentation of sources by kingofaces43 and battlefield conduct as well as edit warring. Kingofaces43 has posted regularly on FRINGE noticeboard so has 'friends' there and also it is not the job of editors on such a noticeboard to interpret and judge deceptive behaviour. There are only really two options at this juncture, ARBCOM enforcement which is my least preferred option or a content RfC where we get a diverse range of opinions from around Wikipedia. I really want to avoid ARBCOM because that means we become enemies and can hold grudges if someone gets blocked. I want to be on friendly terms with my fellow editors or at least only have temporary minor fall outs over content. I also don't want to have to accuse tryptofish of original synthesis in even more public settings because he is a fellow medical editor and I do like him. This is just not a good situation all around. So lets avoid things getting nasty, let's just keep trying to resolve it for a bit longer here before trying to escalate it?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have problems with taking this to FTN for the same reasons - that would be WP:CANVASSing. It's not about fringe or pseudoscience or anything like that - it's about whether and how to paraphrase a source. We either (a) say "no consensus" and keep the status quo (though we might argue about what that is; (b) ask someone to close the discussion; or (c) start and RfC on this particular point. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

StAnselm, what policy or guideline or project suggests an editor or admin can close a discussion (with a uninvolved opinion)? I think Raymond might be correct that there is no such thing and it is not an option.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

My sources support the label (pseudoscience) and you don't have to doubt about that since there are many other sources supporting the label. You can escalate it to wherever you want but given RfC was closed in favor of me and Kingofaces43, you really don't have a strong argument. There is no canvassing if we were taking this to WP:FTN. There are other noticeboards too but which one you will suggest? Starting another RfC is not bad either. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And here I was thinking the RfC was closed in my favour... StAnselm (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Closing discussions. The obvious "noticeboard" is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks StAnselm.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the RfC did close in your favour Raymond IMHO because it required the sources to be summarised neutrally and academic disagreement to be included. You and kingofaces have deep problems accepting that whereas myself and StAnselm want to play by the rules and summarise the sources fairly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC closed in my favor because I proposed the inclusion of content and category and article supports it now while you and StAnselm had entirely opposed any categorization or content. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023: That's simply not true. StAnselm (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's just an excuse, given your original vote.[8][9] Clearly you didn't wanted even a single mention of pseudoscience in article. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to try to WP:AGF and assume you and Literaturegeek were making a really bad joke with respect to canvassing (please remember that kind of stuff on a talk page often results in sanctions even outside DS topics), but this also isn't the place for such jokes. FTN is a logical next option since we are talking about a fringe topic (alternative medicine) and whether something is pseudoscience or not according to sources. That's pretty square in their core domain. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it was not a joke - it really would be canvassing. And the question is not whether FH is pseudoscience - it's about how to state the fact that it is considered to be pseudoscience. StAnselm (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein is independent of this drama/dispute and his post on this page suggested an RfC, so I think that is preferable to FRINGE noticeboard. As far as DS sanctions, you have edit warred and behaviour is not impeccable. You really should relax. Thick skin is needed for Wikipedia. We should all be friends and keep trying to resolve this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. I don't think I can offer any very helpful advice here. When I closed the RfC I assessed consensus such as I considered it to exist at the time. As I indicated in the closure, I anticipated that establishing consensus for an actual wording would require additional discussion, such as the one in which you all are engaged here. If you ask me to comment on which (if any) consensus exists based on this additional discussion, I'm sorry to say that it's a bit too long and unstructured for me to assess without spending an amount of time incommensurate to my rather faint interest in the topic; and I'd probably get things wrong because I haven't read all the sources you all have. But as far as Wikipedia content discussions about controversial topics go, this one looks remarkably constructive, so I think you'll come up with something eventually. You could for example try another RfC to allow for a structured evaluation of the variants proposed so far. Sorry that I can't help you out more. Sandstein 21:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Sandstein. Having only faint interest can be good because it means you can be neutral, but I understand about the length of text to read and your related concerns. Hopefully we editors here can work something out over the next week or two and avoid the need for an RfC. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• As I said earlier, there are two potential ways to understand the sentence that has been cited:
  • One way that I could paraphrase it in my own words would be: fields like... faith healing... are either pseudosciences or effectively the same thing as pseudoscience because they lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. That interpretation would be compatible with "and".
  • Alternatively, I could paraphrase it instead as: fields like... faith healing... are either classified as pseudosciences or as something that just falls short of pseudoscience but still lacks the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously. That interpretation would be compatible with "either... or".
• I started out leaning towards the opinion that the interpretation as "either... or" was the correct one. It did indeed seem to sound that way. I came to this discussion with an open mind. You can easily see that I edited the page and commented here in talk in support of "either... or". But I was not comfortable with that, because the cited sentence is ambiguous: "or at least" is not the same thing as "or". "Or at least" can sometimes mean something like at a very minimum, it's this, but it's pretty much the same thing. So I felt that it was important to look some more at what the authors say about it. What the authors say, not what I say. There's no original research on my part here. I've explained it very clearly above. To say that we must only consider one sentence as meaning one thing and we need to disregard everything else that the same authors have said about the same topic, that's original research. If some editors want to hyperventilate about how they think I'm wrong, and keep repeating that "either... or at least" is the same thing as "either... or" no matter what else the authors have said, well, that's not only cherrypicking, but it's POV-pushing. I've had plenty of experience dealing with POV-pushers, so I'm not intimidated by editors telling me to "man up". This page is under discretionary sanctions, per the ArbCom pseudoscience decision. If you don't like what I'm saying, WP:AE is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not POV pushing, I don't think I have ever edited a religious article in my near decade of Wikipedia editing and faith healing had no real meaning to me (I never thought about the subject) before this RfC flashed up. What motivates me is that I have seen what I view as POV pushing and misinterpretations/misrepresentations of sources and I am trying to achieve some neutral agreement through close paraphrasing of the sources. I don't see you wanting to include other sources like certain approaches to faith healing... I am the one saying, lets include all the sources, see my very first post summarising the sources several sections up. We are just probably going to have to disagree on this one. I'm not trying to intimidate you but persuade of the facts, we disagree and that is that. I do not want to report you to ARBCOM, don't think you have done anything to warrant that. Maybe I should just take this off my watch list and let you guys do what you gonna do and use my time more productively.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget trypto your support vote you cast in the RfC vote was made with strong emotion and a firm POV opinion that faith healing is "absolutely pseudoscience". I expressed firm opinions as well. I am just thinking of WP:KETTLE.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think what I said in the RfC was emotional, but yes, I said that, and then I subsequently was quite open to an either-or nuancing of that. Anyway, I'd be a lot happier to just discuss these content issues without everyone getting angry with one another, and I really do hope that you and I and the other editors can come to a thoughtful agreement. Much better that taking "sides" and digging in. The discussion just below looks good to me. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Struck out "strong emotion". Yeah. Okay, peace trypto! :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. With PSCI and discretionary sanctions in play, we are supposed to take strong stances against claims that something isn't psuedoscience unless the viewpoint is extremely well sourced and of sufficient weight (string theory comes to mind). We don't have anything that approaches that level, and since we already went beyond the pale even before this most recent post on yours, we would be more than justified in dismissing the claim that the source is saying FH isn't pseudoscience. To do otherwise would violate the WP:WEIGHT of all sources it cites, that cite it, and other sources Pigliucii et al. wrote that use similar language.

That being said, maybe the next step should be asking for more eyes from WP:FTN since we're clearly working with material about a fringe topic and pseudoscience? I'll note I'm going to at least completely ignore the blatant aspersions by others above[10][11] related to that for now. It is difficult to get others up to speed with all the information we've covered (as you can attest to), so maybe re-centering with a new heading stating the proposed language and why while linking to your original post in this section would help focus things. As I've said before though, it seems like we've established WP:CON even though some editors have made it clear they do not want the language (that's how the policy works sometimes). We need to follow policy one way or another though, especially PSCI, so we should think about how to keep moving forward. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again, the issue is not whether FH is pseudoscience. The question is whether "nearly all" philosophers and scientists" think that it is. StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We might be able to work something out ourselves over the next week or two. I suggest: let's keep trying a bit longer because if we drag more people here with an RfC or noticeboard it is just going to be 100's of kb more talk page drama. We are not that much of a hopeless bunch according to Sandstein's post, he thinks we can work it out. Have faith that we can heal our differences folks!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I spent some more time reading tryptofish's anaylsis, and correct me if I am wrong, but the passages that tryptofish posted are the personal opinion of the individual authors, whereas the disputed sentence is relating to a summary of a wide range of different authors/professionals, so Boudry et al's personal opinion is actually not all that relevant to this dispute IMHO. I still think this is the correct interpretation of the source: "virtually all scientists and philosophers regard faith healing as either a pseudoscience or at least as not scientifically credible and therefore not justified in being taken seriously."

My interpretation of the source is of course incredibly negative about faith healing, so I really do not think I am POV pushing. If I am missing something, well that is possible and am open to criticism.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I just did something that I wish I had done several days ago. The citation on the page does not include an online link, so I decided to see if I could find the book online, and look in context at the passage that was quoted. Here it is: [12]. For one thing folks, guess what? Whoever put this source on the page got the authors wrong! Pigliucci and Boudry edited the book, but the quote is from a chapter written by Martin Mahner [13].

Anyway, the sentence that was quoted is in a chapter about how difficult it is to define demarcation criteria, and I think we agree that for this page that broader question of demarcation is off the point. But it's part of a paragraph that basically is arguing that, even though Mahner does not think that there are good demarcation criteria, he believes that pretty much everybody recognizes pseudoscience when they see it. The quoted sentence starts the paragraph. Then comes this sentence: As Hansson (2008, 2009) observes, we are thus faced with the paradoxical situation that most of us seem to recognize a pseudoscience when we encounter one, yet when it comes to formulating criteria for the characterization of science and pseudoscience, respectively, we are told that no such demarcation is possible. So in context (and that includes the rest of the chapter, not just that one paragraph), he is not writing about pseudoscience and something that is similar to pseudoscience, but not quite the same as it. He's comparing science and pseudoscience, and he argues that philosophers seem unable to define demarcation criteria, but pretty much everyone knows the difference when they see it. The point he is making in the quoted sentence is that pretty much nobody looks at faith healing and all those other things and thinks they are science. I think that's a pretty thin branch to hang the "either... or" interpretation on. He simply is not writing in any detail about something intermediate between science and pseudoscience that "lacks epistemic warrant" but isn't pseudoscience.

If the problem here is that if we want to say "nearly all scientists and philosophers", then we also need to pay close attention to the rest of the sentence, how about we find an alternative instead of saying "nearly all scientists and philosophers"? There seems to me to be plenty of sourcing in the other sources to say something like "Scientists generally agree that faith healing is pseudoscience". Or something like that. It's not worth dragging this dispute out over such subtle distinctions. I'm happy to see Literaturegeek saying that we can and should work together on this. I agree. In my opinion, we should have a simple sentence about pseudoscience, but also add something about the assertion that it does not claim to be science. That makes a lot more sense to me than struggling to describe some thing that "or at least lack[s] the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good catch on the authors. I just let the reference template autofill, but I'm not sure why I had ISBN instead of url while including it for the other sources. In terms of text though, we're essentially dealing with a WP:RS/AC statement saying there is virtually no disagreement that FH is pseudoscience (i.e., a different degree than just general agreement). As long as that's getting across, we're good. In terms of not going with the current iteration we've been discussing, what do you see as precluding that version in terms of paying close attention to the rest of the sentence? It still seems like our best option so far policy-wise, but if we have a good reason to ground additional changes by, that can help direct things too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I'm trying to see whether we can simplify the sentence by leaving out the "epistemic warrant" part and just making the sentence about pseudoscience, but also by adding something about not claiming to be science. I hope it's a way to get editors off of the dug-in positions about what to say beyond it being pseudoscience, trying as best as I can to think of a reasonable compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to suss out from you is do you have a specific content or policy-based problem with the virtually all scientists and philosophers consider to pseudoscience idea? I'm just double checking since it seems like we've all confused intent a time or two now, but it sounds like you are at least on board with the idea that the epistemic warrant idea is more complimentary or explanatory rather than contradictory to being a pseudoscience? Not to mention the sources being cited by Mahner strictly saying FH is pseudoscience with no other sources they cite saying otherwise, but that also sounds like an argument that the epistemic part of it is unneeded here.

Maybe it's just because it's late while I'm rethinking about this, but I realized I'm not sure if you're suggesting just dropping the epistemic warrant language while keeping the nearly all philosophers and scientists concept, or else avoiding a paraphrase of Mahner's statement in general. If it's the former, I'm on board with that. If it's the latter (what I had been thinking you were saying), the answer to the question I posed in my last reply could help move things for that direction if it's based in content or sourcing. Hopefully that explains why I'm not sure if wires are being crossed or not now. That's also understanding there can be a separate potential pragmatic component to the latter, but I'm still operating under the concept that, so far, opposition to including the virtually all scientists and philosophers consider FH pseudoscience phrase hasn't been grounded in the WP:WEIGHT of sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's how I would break that down. I have come to be convinced, based on the actual nature of the source material, that the "epistemic warrant" phrase should be left out. There simply isn't enough source support to justify implying that something lacking epistemic warrant is anything different than pseudoscience in a way that requires us to treat it as two different things (maybe it belongs on some page about the philosophy of these things, but not here). On the other hand, how we treat "virtually all scientists and philosophers" is something that I feel very flexible about. I recognize that "virtually all" is an accurate description. But I also see that editors here are disagreeing about the degree to which we write the page in a way that allows for it being less than 100% (and pretty much nothing like this is ever exactly 100%). So I'm trying to find language we might be able to compromise on. (So, yes to compromising on "virtually all", and now no to compromising on "epistemic warrant".) An editor pointed out earlier that we could leave out philosophers and just say scientists, and that makes some sense to me. And I don't care how strongly we say "virtually all" so long as we make it clear that it's the preponderant view. Because the sourcing for "virtually all" and for "epistemic warrant" is the same source, I can see that some editors might insist that if we have one, we must have both, so I'd like to avoid that. I think a good way to get there might be to find an equivalent alternative to "virtually all". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I thought we had some divergence, but what you're saying is more or less where I am too. I've only been focusing on the virtually all scientists and philosophers language because that's a stronger statement in terms of RS/AC than just saying something like scientists consider it pseudoscience. I understand the concerns about how consensus language gets tricky (e.g., climate change denial confounding unanimity and consensus).

That being said, I'm also to the point where I think we should work on closing the book here with decent placeholder language and work on stronger academic consensus statement language at a later time. How about, Scientists and philosophers consider faith healing to be pseudoscience. as a starting point for now with most of the sources currently already used in the old language? Thinking about paraphrasing, I we maybe could just use Mahner's words "virtually all" at the beginning without quotes. Nearly all can sound a little weaker or more confusing in reference to your comments about <100%, so virtually all is the best qualifier I can think of at the moment to try to make that clearer. I'm still in favor of including philosophers because they deal a lot in the demarcation subject in these sources (and it's stated in Mahner). The main thing though is that it follows the RfC close and avoids directly saying faith healing is pseudoscience in WP's voice. If that base sentence works out, how would you want to tweak it at this point if at all? Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth looking for a poll of scientists, and I'm not sure whether we need to include philosophers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything like that yet, even with some fair searching during the RfC, but usually we just stick to using that language if the sources use it (things like the 9X% of climate scientists polls are rare for most topics). Aside from keeping an eye out for such a source though, does the sentence otherwise seem ok? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I just spent a lot of time looking for a relevant poll of scientists, and didn't come up with anything. I had remembered that poll of how scientists and the public view GMOs and other things differently, but it never asked about faith healing. So I think I'm becoming more friendly now to saying "virtually all scientists", sourced to Mahner, and without using quote marks. I'm ambivalent about including philosophers. I need to think about this some more before I'll be comfortable committing to a given sentence structure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Now having said what I just said, I do see something in the source material that would be entirely appropriate for the page to point out as an alternative to pseudoscience. Boudry et al. take the position that pseudosciences (a) lack epistemic legitimacy, and (b) make science-like claims. They say, for example, that claiming that one sees ghosts lacks epistemic warrant but isn't pseudoscience because it does not claim to be science. So – if there is reliable sourcing indicating that some proponents of faith healing say that they should not be called pseudoscience because they make no scientific claims but instead base it purely on faith – I'm fine with adding that to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Do these sources help?
• 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.[14]
• Another expert stated that only certain forms of faith healing are widely regarded as pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism.[15] Cheers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That looks very good to me! I think that this is a promising approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I just went through those two sources, and I simply cannot find those two quotes in them. I don't think that the second is really even relevant to the specific issue of faith healers asserting that they make no scientific claims. The first includes "Cures allegedly brought about by religious faith are, in turn, considered to be paranormal phenomena but the related religious practices and beliefs are not pseudoscientific since they usually have no scientific pretensions." That's not at all the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As previously discussed a few times already, these sources cannot be used for this purpose. The second does not state only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, only that they chose those ones as prominent examples (and it doesn't need to be repeated yet again that the former is a misrepresentation the source). The first source lists it as paranormal, which is a subset of pseudoscience. To claim that either say faith healing is not pseudoscience would get us in trouble with WP:PSCI again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Some authors do indeed class the whole subject of paranormal as pseudoscience whereas others do not. The source in question clearly takes the position that paranormal is not pseudoscience and gives faith healing as an example of something that is paranormal but is not pseudoscience. I previously pointed this out in the following diffs: [16], [17] Yes the word 'only' was added by me because if the authors meant all approaches to faith healing were pseudoscience they wouldn't have said 'certain'. As far as I am concerned, it is basic English and I don't think I am misinterpreting.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Why, KoA, is it that every source that disagrees with your position needs to be 'reinterpreted' to mean something else than what it says? Why can't we just add to the article "certain approaches to faith healing are widely regarded as pseudoscience?" Why does the other source you dispute need to be 'reinterpreted'. If you read noticeboards, e.g. Wiki Medicine, no other editors have this problem of having to reinterpret sources, except exceptionally rarely. Why are you so unlucky with sources?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Because we do not engage in WP:OR and take sources out of context and use that to support a fringe point of view like FH is not pseudoscience or weaken that language. That has been the problem you have been running into and why editors are pointing out the context of the sources while cautioning you about original research repeatedly (and it's not helpful to turn around and claim OR by editors trying to respond to the primary claims made by OR). If you follow noticeboards like WP:FTN or Wikiproject Medicine as you mention, editors are generally expected to take a strong stance against this since it is enshrined in some of our core policies. That's all the more I'm going respond to that personalization. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is already dealt with to some degree in the sourcing for the language we're discussing earlier. Basically, the claim faith healing isn't making scientific claims is a form of special pleading common to pseudoscience because in reality it is making an empirical claim (i.e., getting better because of faith). We already have a source that states There are also activities that, although not classified (or claimed) as science, have implications that trespass into the scientific territories. Examples of this category of activities are the claim that we have been visited by aliens riding unidentified flying objects, all pyschic phenomena, and faith healing. We study the nature of all these activities under the general heading of pseudoscience. . .[18] Also from previous discussions, we have Hines 2003 (cited by Pigluicci et al) which states The paranormal can be thought of as subset of pseudoscience. while mentioning faith healing in that subset[19] In terms of PSCI, we do need to be guarded against special pleading and be wary about sources classify paranormal in terms of weight (also goes back to PSCI). In most sources we have so far, we don't get discussion of how faith healing falls into psuedoscience or how it's subsetted into paranormal, just that it is. At best, we'll get sources talking about the interplay of pseudoscience and paranormal, but that's best left for the respective articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• If we used these sources and included the text what has been proposed by those who believe that faith healing makes no scientific claim then you would find this article to be more about debunking the prevalent notion that it is a pseudoscience and we can't do that per WP:PSCI. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the result of the RfC was that we "describe in the article how reliable sources characterize faith healing in terms of it being pseudoscience or not" and that this may involve "mention sources opposing" the pseudoscience characterisation. Are you now saying that we should set aside the previous RfC because it contradicts WP:PSCI? StAnselm (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

These two sources are not even directly disputing the label of pseudoscience. My comment was focused on these sources and the proposed wording, by using these two sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll just tack on that an RfC also does not allow us to override policy such as WP:OR or WP:GEVAL (though that wasn't the intent of the close either). If we explicitly had sources saying FH isn't a pseudoscience (or within a sub-branch of pseudoscience) they would have an uphill battle to overcome GEVAL since the topic has been classified as pseudoscience. As we don't have such sources at this time, there isn't anything to particularly act on for that part of the close essentially saying apply WP:DUE or GEVAL. We would need significant dispute in sources to pursue that further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

KofA, you have me facepalming over the point about it being special pleading. Of course it's special pleading! That's why we will not say it in Wikipedia's voice. There is nothing wrong with saying that faith healers assert such-and-such, on a page about faith healing. I agree that we should be careful not to create the impression that this argument actually demonstrates that it isn't pseudoscience. But we can still describe what faith healers say. Take a look at Modern flat Earth societies. Surely, there is nothing in modern times that is more scientifically ridiculous than claiming the Earth is flat. But the page repeatedly quotes what flat-earthers say. That doesn't mean that what they say is right! And readers are not being misled. I don't know how special this is, but I have a plea of my own. Can we perhaps solve this entire editorial dilemma by saying that faith healing is pseudoscience, but some faith healers claim that it doesn't try to be science? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by facepalming in this instance (could be eureka or that I put my foot in my mouth), but either way, I am on board with what you just said. I was just putting my initial cautions out there before pursuing. I maybe would avoid having this new text in the lead (something for later), but in the body we could have a separate sentence somewhere after the pseudoscience language saying something like X claim faith healing does not to make scientific claims, but the implications of faith healing trespass into scientific territories.^[1]

Obviously that's just my initial partial copy and paste version we'd want to do more paraphrasing on, but that's the intent to get across. We might just be fine with that source, but we could add in a source that explicitly says "faith healers claim Y" too. I don't have great text in the sources that come to mind for that right now. We also have a source talking about how the religious act of praying, etc. is not pseudoscience[20] (it crosses over when it claims someone was healed), but I'd have to think more about how to make that explicit in the context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant that it would be a mistake to oppose mention of not claiming to be science, because it previously sounded like you were opposing any mention of it because it is special pleading. Maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, I'm happy now that we are in agreement. We can wordsmith it as we go along. (I'd rather not say "trespass".) I see this as something that is cooperative with the editors who are unhappy with simply saying it is pseudoscience, but also something that really is supported by sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah sorry if my initial comment came across as unclear (I actually talked about doing exactly this many words ago). "Trespass" was copy and pasted directly from the source, but that's also why I'd want to paraphrase the later phrase. As long as we're saying essentially that the claim that FH isn't making scientific claims is false, we should be good in concept. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support the use of the term "or". Not sure the term "either" is needed. Does have to be claiming to be science before it can be described as pseudoscience. This is similar to how most religions are not typically described as pseudoscience. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

But "or" seems to be giving contrary impression that faith healing is not really a pseudoscience. This is not a religion, but an alternative medicine influenced by religious elements. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Doc or Raymond, this fits more into Talk:Faith_healing#And_versus_or, so you may want to move that there. This is more about separate language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Starting a new sub-thread here, but after comments so far, it seems we more or less agree on two main ideas in that we want to include both that some people claim FH is not science, but that ultimately is special pleading because FH makes claims that "trespass" in the realm of science.^[1]. That Hassani source I just cited encompasses all of those ideas, so I'm going to suggest at a bare minimum (even if it's just placeholder text while more language is fleshed out), While faith healing is sometimes not purported to make scientific claims, a claim of healing by faith has implications that traverse into the purview of science. while citing Hassani. Potential areas to flesh out could include citing a source more directly showing someone making the not science claim, which I'm suggesting addressing after agreeing on this rough baseline or tweaks to that first for a step-by-step process. The source also says this special pleading is also what makes it pseudoscience, but I'm holding off on additional phrasing on that for now since we have the previous sentence we're working out. If folks agree to this rough idea, we can ratchet up pieces of text from there if need be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should fit all of that into one sentence, and it might be better to clarify who does the purporting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

At least as far as the source goes, they don't go about saying who's doing the claiming, purporting, etc. and more or less handle the same concept (aside from their list including faith healing) in one sentence, so I'm not seeing issues so far that preclude us from doing it too. I'm just mirroring the source for now. If we're good on the gist of that sentence, we look at ratcheting in new language by adding something like proponents of faith healing along with a source at the comma, but there's not an absolute need to add that either since everything is sourced to Hassani as a bare minimum. I basically just want to establish if we have something passable first before additional fine-tuning. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I found this source: [21]. In the paragraph starting with "Naturally, this result has provoked bitter complaints from many believers who assert that God should not be put to the test", there are specific examples of faith healing proponents who assert that it should be regarded as a matter of faith and not science. I think that's as good as we are going to get in terms of verifiably documenting those claims. Then that source and the Hassani source provide the rebuttal about it essentially being special pleading. So I think we can structure something around that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That looks good to me (normally I'd avoid a blog source like that, but it's fine for WP:PARITY). Just building off my old draft: While proponents of faith healing sometimes claim faith healing is not making scientific claims,^[2] the claim of healing by faith has implications that traverse into the purview of science.^[1] I can see some room for tweaking, but it seems like a start. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, after sleeping on it, I agree that's a good start. I do want to do some tweaking, so I'm about to start a new subsection below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest something like the following as a resolution of this entire discussion:

Although some faith healing proponents assert that it makes no scientific claims,^{[ ]} scientists consider it to be a pseudoscience.^{[ ]}

I haven't put in the citations yet, but I figured I would see what the rest of you think. This would replace the existing sentence about pseudoscience at both places on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have two questions: (1) is it just proponents who assert that FH makes no scientific claims? (2) Which scientists - all of them? StAnselm (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

To take one of your favorite terms, that is burying the lead (though not horribly) with respect to pseudoscience. However, focusing on the more recent idea of what to do about the claim that it isn't making scientific claims, it's probably better to deal with that in its own sentence. Basically, the idea that it is not claimed as science, but actually does make scientific claims (i.e., trespassing into scientific territory), does a bit better being fleshed out than trying to condense everything into once sentence. I know this is an attempt to kill two birds with one stone, but we have two somewhat separate (though related) ideas to work with here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Replying to both of you here, I would be perfectly happy with anything along the lines that you propose. (That's why it's a suggestion instead of a proposal.) Starting with StAnselm, my short answer to both of your questions is: I don't know. I wrote it with just the word "scientists" in order to skirt the question you raised, but we could get more specific with appropriate sourcing. I am not convinced that we need to give an exact percentage of scientists, because this is a "pretty much all" kind of situation. We could go with "virtually all" sourced to that source, or maybe there is a Pew or AAAS poll that would give a more specific result. I would welcome editors looking for sourcing for that, as well as for whether there are any non-proponents making the claim.

Now to KofA, I got a smile out of your response to me. I'm fine with making it two or more sentences, if other editors do not object to having a sentence that calls it pseudoscience, full stop. I'd like you to take a look at the first paragraph of Faith healing#Scientific investigation, because the rest of that paragraph does go into those issues, and I thought the suggestion I made would flow right into that. We could also use different wording in the lead versus in that section.

Would other editors like to make alternative suggestions? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's really called burying the lead. We should not bother what proponents think. My proposal is: "Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience[6][7][8][9][10][11] and lacks the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously by nearly all scientists and philosophers." Raymond3023 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Please pay attention to the previous discussion about epistemic warrant, and stop doubling down a fixed position. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Part of WP:FRINGE is to call out fallacious viewpoints, especially when sources call it out. That's why in the above subsection I talked about how people try to claim FH isn't making science claims, but in reality it is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that section. I forgot about the second sentence in the first paragraph after I inserted the pseudoscience language. At this point, I'm going to try to craft a more concrete second sentence than my previous draft on the claims of being science idea in the next few days, but I'd rather deal with that in the above subsection.

As for the pseudoscience sentence, I'm not beholden to the epistemic warrant language, but the virtually all scientists and philosophers language is more where my focus lies for due weight. I'm doing a little digging into sources that cite Mahner and use the same epistemic warrant language to basically say the lack equates to pseudoscience in the abstract, but I'm away from my university connection for a bit to see what they actually have to say in the article for the time being. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Going first to the point about fringe, since the page topic is a fringe one, I think we can and should present what the fringe views of faith healers are, but do it with attribution and not in Wikipedia's voice. Simply not reporting it at all because it is fringe seems wrong to me, and unnecessary. Nor should we "lecture" the reader about it as if the reader cannot figure it out. As for "epistemic warrant" and "virtually all", I just commented on that above. Where I want to go with all of this is to (1) find a strong statement about pseudoscience that editors can come to consensus on, (2) leave out the "epistemic warrant" thing entirely, and (3) give a fair presentation of the assertion that no scientific claims are being made. In part, the "no scientific claims" aspect is a compromise in return for leaving out "epistemic warrant", and it part it's just the right balance to take in terms of encyclopedic content. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, I am also not ready yet.

Tryptofish, I have read the discussion. When you said "sourcing indicating that some proponents of faith healing say that they should not be called pseudoscience because they make no scientific claims but instead base it purely on faith – I'm fine with adding that to the page", you were talking about lead or section? Raymond3023 (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It could be either the lead or the section, or both. I'm still very open to different possibilities. Obviously, there is more room to go into details in the section. How much we include in the lead depends on what other editors think about whether anything in the lead needs to be said about it after the statement about pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As of now, I would like to approach it as follows:

In the lead section, change the existing sentence to this:

Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience by nearly all scientists and philosophers.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

In Faith healing#Scientific investigation, revise the first paragraph to:

Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience by nearly all scientists.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} Some proponents of faith healing assert that faith healing makes no scientific claims and thus should be treated as a matter of faith that is not testable by science.^[9] Critics reply that claims of medical cures should be tested scientifically because, although faith in the supernatural is not in itself usually considered to be the purview of science,^[10][a] claims of reproducible effects are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation.^[2][9]

I think that best represents the available source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - eight citations and none of them back up the claim. If you really want to include "nearly all" you need at least a million more. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

And the people cited in footnote 9 are not necessarily proponents of FH and it would be a BLP violation to suggest that they are. StAnselm (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As I first started taking part in this discussion, I was quite sympathetic to your position, but I'm getting less and less so with time. The RfC consensus does not invalidate those eight citations. And one of the sources says explicitly "virtually all philosophers and scientists", as I'm sure you know. And the source cited for the proponents quotes them responding to a criticism of faith healing as being pseudoscience – they were not speaking more generally about religion and science. If you want, I could go along with changing "proponents" to "defenders". And if you'd like more about the "no scientific claims" material in the lead, I can work with that. But I find myself less sympathetic when I see no real effort by you to offer an alternative version, following the large amount of time I spent looking for sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we've been over this lots - the authors themselves believe that FH is PS, but they qualify their statement about "virtually all philosophers and scientists" doing so. If you were serious about alternative versions, you would post one that you knew we could all agree with, and two of us have made it clear that this one is not acceptable. (The best wording I've seen is what is currently in the article, so there is no big incentive for me to suggest a worse one.) StAnselm (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely do not want to get into a tit-for-tat argument over that, but please understand that I am serious about finding consensus here. But I'm being guided by the sources, and I've become convinced that some earlier versions that we have discussed are not supported by the source material. As I see it, what is on the page now is going to change, so one should not assume that it won't. I'm willing to compromise on what I suggested here – that's why I called it a suggestion – but I do not feel obligated to leave the page unchanged. If changing "proponents" to "defenders" and adding some sort of balancing material to the lead is insufficient for you, then we have an impasse, but it's not for lack of accommodation on my part. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It's still a BLP violation. Lawrence refers to the "infantile theology that God is out there ready to miraculously defy the laws of nature in answer to a prayer" - there is no way you can get from that to Lawrence being a "defender" of faith healing. StAnselm (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I decided to track down the original source from which Lawrence's quote was taken. Here it is: [22]. He refers to "when you design a study to see if God answers your prayers", and the Times article is about studies of whether people get better from medical conditions as a result of prayers. He was asked to comment on those studies. So he was absolutely commenting about faith healing, and saying that it should not be tested as if it were science. So it comes down to whether that constituted "defending" it. It sounds to me like he was defending it against criticism based on scientific testing, but I'll go along with the possibility that he was not endorsing faith healing more broadly than that. So I would be fine with changing "Some proponents of faith healing" to "Some opponents of the pseudoscience label". Would that work for you? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be very happy with that. Now the only thing left is the unqualified "nearly all" claim. StAnselm (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

By coincidence I was writing about that simultaneously with your reply here. I said: I was slow to pick up on this, but I just realized that your reference to "at least a million more" meant that eight citations do not add up to "nearly all", as if each of those eight sources consisted of one single scientist or philosopher expressing that opinion. But that is not what the sources are, at least not all of them. The source about "virtually all" says explicitly that it is their interpretation of the field of study as a whole.

I really do think that it does back up the "nearly all" language. And I've commented at length about the "epistemic warrant" issue in #Boudry et al (i.e., Mahner) above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of the eight citations, only one is actually backing up the claim (the other seven are redundant) and that one is qualified (as argued above). I disagree with your interpretation of "epistemic warrant". StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I have an idea. For the lead, add to the sentence above: "Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience by nearly all scientists and philosophers, although there have been objections to subjecting it to scientific testing." The latter part of the revised sentence could probably be tweaked some more. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that’s getting into undue territory. We really should have the pseudoscience statement in its own sentence. Your first version statisties all the main policy issues we’ve discussed before, so I’m good with that. The only thing I might change is mention of proponents and critics. I guess I’m fine just saying the claim is occasionally made without needing to say who (it may not always be proponents). Basically, sometimes X is claimed, but this is false. Something to that effect could more concise, but I’m not going to oppose this version over it either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

KofA, I feel that way too. But I think we need to find some way to get past the impasse we are in here. I'd be most happy with the lead version that I posted at the top of this subsection. But if it would break the logjam, I'd agree to "Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience by nearly all scientists and philosophers, although there have been objections to subjecting it to scientific testing" or even "Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience by nearly all scientists and philosophers, although there have been objections to subjecting it to scientific testing and there is evidence that it can have a placebo effect" or "Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience by nearly all scientists and philosophers, although there is evidence that it can have a placebo effect." But I'm going to have to see a substantive reason for going back to the "epistemic warrant" thing.

And, @StAnselm: that means that you need to realize that I am offering you some compromises, and that we need to come to some agreement about what to do. If you can agree to any of the alternatives that I have offered, please say so. And if you cannot agree to any of them and insist on "epistemic warrant", you need to explain that better than just "I disagree with your interpretation of "epistemic warrant"." If you disagree, please go above to #Mahner, read what I said from there to the bottom of that subsection, and provide specific rebuttals based on what the source says. If you do that, I'm happy to work with you. But if not, there will come a point where I will conclude that consensus has gone against you you are being tendentious. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that I'm not sure you understand how consensus works. It won't be up to you to conclude what the consensus is - that would be an uninvolved editor. I'll probably provide some specific rebuttals later, but the fact remains that you haven't convinced everybody - so we still need to find a solution acceptable to all parties. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I've corrected what I said about consensus. I hope you are happy now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking it again, though - the problem is that you've missed the point that Mahner is describing what other people are saying. And I don't think you can interpret the "epistemic warrant" phrase by looking at what other authors in the volume are saying. None of your other quotes are by Mahner himself. StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I said to look at #Mahner. That's not the entire section. Click on the link; it goes to an anchor within that discussion. I don't make any quotes there. I simply repeated the sentence, written by Mahner himself, that comes after the cited sentence. The earlier parts of the discussion have been made moot by what I said after tracking down the original source, so we can disregard any quotes I made earlier. So which quotes are you talking about? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Remember that we don't work by consensus here, but WP:CONSENSUS. We don't need all parties to agree, especially when the main reasons for opposing something run into problems with policy like PSCI and other policies. It also looks like you may be unfamiliar with WP:RS/AC. We don't engage in WP:SYNTH, which is what you are suggesting by needing "at least a million more" citations. We just rely on sources saying there is a consensus, etc. We might want more than one if there was some opposition to it, but pretty much all sources agree FH is pseudoscience/fringe. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you have misinterpreted pretty much every policy and guideline you've cited. None of them mean what you think they mean. StAnselm (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess the "epistemic warrant" issue is connected to a bigger one - we've made a big claim ("nearly all") based on a single source. The fact that there is dispute about the meaning means we need to either (a) find another source that says the same thing, or (b) tone down the claim. The stronger the claim, the stronger the evidence required. So here's my question: if we leave aside the "nearly all" source to one side for the moment, what's the next strongest claim made in reliable sources? For example, is there are source that says "most"? "Widespread"? StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing "nearly all" to something else (although I honestly doubt that, at least for scientists, there are a significant number who feel otherwise, per Moxy's quote immediately below). I'll look for a source, and you are invited to look for one too. But I'll assume from this point on that you have rejected my offer to add a separate clause to that sentence, so we are going to wind up with: "Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience by [... ] scientists and philosophers", full stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Two sources for "most scientists":

1. [23]: "Most scientists view faith healing as a means of eliciting the placebo effect."
2. [24]: "For example, most scientists dismiss the notion of faith healing...".

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone else object to changing "nearly all scientists" to "most scientists"? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, do editors think that there is a meaningful difference between "nearly all scientists" and "most scientists"? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on that, I'm starting to think:

Most scientists dismiss faith healing as a pseudoscience.

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(a) Yes, I would see a meaningful difference between "nearly all scientists" and "most scientists". It's like 55% vs. 98%. (b) The problem with the two quotes you offered is that neither mention "pseudoscience". StAnselm (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess they are dismissing it as good science then. 55%, huh? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is actually a good example of why we want to stick to the sourced virtually all or nearly all language so someone doesn't mistakenly think not being pseudoscience is a significant minority view. I agree it creates a meaningful difference, but that good-faith attempt can inadvertently violate WP:PSCI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not use another source from the RfC that say "faith healing may seem too obvious examples of pseudoscience for academics.--Moxy (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Trypto, I'm not suggesting going back to the epistemic warrant text at all. I'm just thinking of ways to streamline the second a third sentences with a few minor tweaks. I'll keep thinking on that, but as this text currently stands, I don't see any major issues with it since since it stands up to pretty much any criticism that has been thrown at it so far. In terms of WP:CON (not full agreement of all editors), we should be pretty close with this version. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow walls of text with zero new research done...wow. Why is the sentence editors discussing in the RfC not the one used? "Certain approaches to faith healing have been classified as a pseudoscience".--Moxy (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing like that was mentioned in the close, nor do we have sources saying only certain approaches are. Ultimately, we’re summarizing what the sources do say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Walls of text to decide what to do after the RfC when you're not even reading the sources or the RFC it's self......Bill J. Leonard; Jill Y. Crainshaw (2013). Encyclopedia of Religious Controversies in the United States: A-L. ABC-CLIO. pp. 625–. ISBN 978-1-59884-867-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help).--Moxy (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, for myself, I have indeed been doing more researching for sources, and I've already read the one you just linked. The reason for the wall of text is that a couple of editors are dug-in to their positions and are absolutely unwilling to budge, so they keep repeating that they support X and oppose Y, or oppose X and support Y, and it keeps going round and round. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, I would suggest looking through the talk page where I know I've been directly quoting the RfC quite a few times. We've been working on following the RfC where: 1. We mention that sources describe faith healing as pseudoscience (policies like WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL that come with that). 2. Sandstein's third paragraph being the other key point that essentially summarizes to apply GEVAL/due weight to the idea that FH isn't pseudoscience. So far, this version is addressing all that without any issues being grounded in policy to oppose it.

As for the source you mention, I already included that source in the current language as examples of specific types of FH. The source says Certain approaches to faith healing are also widely considered to be pseudoscientific, including those of Christian Science, voodoo, and Spiritualism. In case there is confusion as there has been before, that source is making an e.g. statement, not a limiting i.e. statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support proposed lead. I will look more into the section, but for now I am confirming my agreement with the lead. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, how about:

Faith healing is regarded as a pseudoscience by nearly all scientists and philosophers.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} Faith healing is sometimes asserted to make no scientific claims and thus should be treated as a matter of faith that is not testable by science.^[7] While faith in the supernatural is not in itself usually considered to be within the purview of science,^[8][9][a] claims of reproducible effects, such as medical cures, are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation.^[8][7]

I can merge citations say after Zerbe and add Erzinclioglu (more on that in version 3 comments), but I want to check in on the text change that's now the second sentence. For the first sentence, I'm not picky about where philosophers go for lead/body if it's in the article somewhere. This gets across what I was thinking about tweaks for streamlining. Basically, the proponents/critics tit-for-tat is something we usually try to avoid, especially when our sources aren't really doing it either quite as much. This takes care of that while keeping some of your fleshing out. If it looks like a slight improvement, great. If not, I still think your original version in this section gets the job done too, so I'd still fully support that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see how that would actually improve anything. If I nitpick, "is sometimes asserted to make" uses the passive voice and is less well-written from a purely writing style perspective. It also is vague about who is doing the asserting. I don't think that the versions I've been working on are really "tit-for-tat". And I don't think that those versions come anywhere near to giving equal weight to the proponents of FH. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's relatively minor, but the intent was to make it more passive. I didn't think your version really cast undue weight, which is why I was fine with it, but I was just looking at some fine-tuning. Sources also don't call out who is doing the asserting, just that it's sometimes claimed. Ultimately, you don't need who's saying what when you have a sentence(s) stringing together the idea that the claim is sometimes made, but it's still actually subject to the purview of science. Either way, it was just a potential suggestion, so if that seems more trouble than it's worth, I'm fine with your previous version. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm taking into account the responses to version 2, but I'm also convinced that we need to keep moving forward here:

In the lead section, change the existing sentence to this:

Most scientists dismiss faith healing as a pseudoscience.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}

In Faith healing#Scientific investigation, revise the first paragraph to:

Most scientists dismiss faith healing as a pseudoscience.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} Some opponents of the pseudoscience label assert that faith healing makes no scientific claims and thus should be treated as a matter of faith that is not testable by science.^[10] Critics reply that claims of medical cures should be tested scientifically because, although faith in the supernatural is not in itself usually considered to be the purview of science,^[11][a] claims of reproducible effects are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation.^[3][10]

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I like the actual wording - the only problem is the references to back it up. We definitely have to mention "pseudoscience" (per the RfC result) but there are so few references to back up the claim. I'm a bit worried that we're doing original synthesis with the Erzinclioglu reference, for example. And we should not include any that fail to address the claim - e.g. Cogan has to go. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I actually am bothered by the long string of nine citations myself. I does come across as overkill. If you or other editors would make a list of the cites to remove, I'm fine with that. But I am strongly convinced that the wording is backed up by the cites. I disagree that it is synthesis, and I've been going over this stuff with a fine toothed comb. If more editors feel that there is a problem with matching the sources with the text, I'm open to persuasion. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Include Erzinclioglu, Leonard & Crainshaw, and Mahner. Remove the others (though Hassani will be later in the paragraph). StAnselm (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to piggyback off this as part of version 2 as well, but all those references were originally added as discussion points since they all make the pseudoscience claim. For the first sentence, Peña is fine going out since I only included that one as being the only journal article. Otherwise, there's no reason to remove Cogan, Crainshaw, Zerbe, and Pitt as they are good sources that clearly state the foothold pseudoscience in addition to Mahner. If we're concerned about those five still being too long, two or three can be condensed into a multi-ref (SAFS could still be included in that). Refs in the remaining sentences looks good though and reiterate the pseudoscience language as well.

As for Erzinclioglu (go forensic entomology), we do need to be careful since that quote can go into fringe territory (and violate PSCI) if we say there is evidence for faith healing in general. Are they maybe referencing the placebo effect? Without context like that, the two sentences are otherwise contradictory. I don't have access to the book aside from that small excerpt though. While we don't have that detail, that context shows it can't be used as a claim that FH isn't pseudoscience at least. We already have Mahner that more than satisfies RS/AC, but adding in this source with that caveat works as additional "padding" to the consensus language even if we're going with the virtually all language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion about which sources to include, and which not to include. Speaking specifically to KofA's point about "evidence", I would agree if we were to say that in the text, but it's a part of the source that does not wind up in the paragraph. I really wish I had access to more of that source, but I'm guessing (could be wrong) that in context Erzinclioglu is just saying that, in spite of a few largely discredited studies that were claimed to show efficacy, "most scientists" recognize FH for what it is. Alternatively, I already offered this source too: [25], so feel free to use that one instead or in addition. Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion as to how many or which sources we include, but I do think nine are probably too many. I think other editors should decide about those sources, and I'll go along with whatever other editors want to do. But that does mean that other editors have to actually work it out with one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to this one over version two, partly because it takes into account some of the responses about version two (I'll be replying about those issues later). While the authors didn't seem to intend anything of the sort (one doesn't explicitly talk about pseudoscience), "most" can be misconstrued to mean there is a significant minority viewpoint as opposed to fringe. The virtually or nearly all describes the sources better in this case, so I would exclude this version as having potential PSCI issues even though it obviously wasn't intended in the proposal. We have sources using the virtually all language while specifically mentioning pseudoscience, so that seems most appropriate for making weight, etc. as clear as can be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Most scientists" is misleading because not everyone is aware of the correct definition of pseudoscience and no scientist claims that there are medical benefits in FH. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the objections to "most" are without merit. Unfortunately, StAnselm made a big deal of "most" being different than "nearly all" and being like 55%, and maybe that makes other editors feel like they would be "losing" an argument, but that's just not what "most scientists" really means. Here are dictionary definitions of "most": [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Note specifically that the Cambridge Dictionary says "most" and "almost all" are the same thing.

There is a limit to my ability to "be in the middle" of this discussion. To Kingofaces43 and Raymond3023: please convince StAnselm that you are correct. To StAnselm: please convince Kingofaces43 and Raymond3023. Or the three of you can find a compromise. Or some of you can take others of you to WP:AE. Or maybe I'll take all three of you there. Whatever. But this impasse is getting ridiculous. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Most" can mean 51% to 99%. StAnselm hates to accept that FH is a pseudoscience and he has often misrepresented himself to mislead people.[31] He is not giving up his unconvincing claim that FH is not a pseudoscience because "so few references" call it. He wants every reference to call FH a pseudoscience. How WP:AE will help? No one is edit warring or making even a minor PA. You don't have to give up, I think your opinion matters a lot until we don't have more editors that would take interest in this discussion. Who is correct according to you? I and Kingofaces43 or StAnselm? Raymond3023 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that my opinion matters. Since you've asked me, I think the most correct position in this debate is the position that I have taken in suggestion 3, and I think that KofA is the second most correct because he is making some effort to be flexible, but I still have a few disagreements with him. I think that StAnselm is wrong for insisting that we do not have enough appropriate sourcing, and I think that you are wrong when you say that most can be as little as 51%. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023: Please stop your personal attacks. StAnselm (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@StAnselm: How? You claimed that RfC closed in your favor by supporting inclusion of category and content of pseudoscience. Your votes were totally opposite though.[32][33] You were never in support of inclusion of any word like "pseudoscience" in this RfC or the one that happened years ago. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023: Once again, please stop telling lies. I think it's time for you to walk away from this discussion. I have already provided you with the diff which shows that I was one of the editors who explicitly proposed the position that the closer accepted as the consensual position. The time has come for you to walk away from this discussion. You have come here with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and have repeatedly made personal attacks. I can't believe you had the temerity to say something like "No one is edit warring or making even a minor PA." I cannot work with you under these conditions, and I ask you please not to interact with me on this or any other page. StAnselm (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Where's the proof that I was wrong? You opposed any mention of "pseudoscience" in form of category and/or lead sentence and RfC went against you. Falsely accusing me of personal attacks while calling my correct statements a "lies" is all good with you? You really need to read what is WP:NPA. Nothing has prohibited me to reply you or participate in this discussion. Until now, I, Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 have agreed on multiple versions but you are not agreeing with any. Why can't you just agree with Version 2 or Version 3? Raymond3023 (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Raymond3023: You need to stop this. StAnselm has been making a good-faith attempt to work with me on this. You, on the other hand, have only been disruptive here. Cut it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: But where? He is only working on getting rid of any mention of "pseudoscience" or giving undue with to fringe position. There's a lack of "good-faith attempt" with misleading comments that RfC ended in his favor when the outcome was totally opposite and hostility that he has shown so far. Even you had agreed that StAnselm is "being tendentious".[34] I am not sure what you are attempting to prove, but if we follow StAnselm, then we need to get rid of any mention of "pseudoscience" from the whole article, since he believes that every reference must explicitly describe FH as pseudoscience. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about who is "right" or "wrong" on the content issue. It's simple: comment on the content, not on the editor. If you think anyone is being disruptive, there are administrative noticeboards for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating dealing with this can all be, but there's no "winning" going on my mind. While I personally agree with you in how "most" basically means all in cases like this, it's also easy to have undue doubt cast on language like that (again, climate change denial where uncertainty in consensus language is easily overestimated by those not familiar with how it works). Some definitions in sources you list do say a simple majority, so opposition to most is just being really careful about accidentally making room for fringe claims. It would be a lot simpler if we could just link to scientific consensus as a self-explaining way to get around all of that, but we don't have sources using that language.

PSCI is pretty strict about not letting fringe viewpoints affect statements of being pseudoscience, consensus, etc., so that's where my perceived lack of flexibility is based. When someone tries to bring in a viewpoint that tries to cast that kind of doubt, we're supposed to tamp down on that and provide language that gives those kinds of viewpoints as little room as possible to get in. That's laid out in the policy, so that shouldn't be implied as battleground behavior or anything of the sort on my part. We're just dealing with a strict policy wall that makes "meeting in the middle" tricky at best, if not sometimes contradicting policy. Either way, I'm focusing on crafting content most in line with the sources and the policy issues I've mentioned. Once we've solidified that for maybe versions 2 and 3 (I think we're as close as we'll get with those two?), the next logical step might be getting more eyes from a place like WP:FTN or dealing with it in other processes as you mentioned. I do agree that it's time to move ahead one way or another soon. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep my options open here, but I do take WP:PSCI very seriously. So I'd like to ask: @StAnselm: given that WP:PSCI is part of WP:NPOV, and of course WP:NPOV is a fundamental policy, and the RfC has established that WP:PSCI should be applied to this page, how do you see WP:PSCI applying to "most" versus "nearly all"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

When deciding between words like "many, "most", and "nearly all", we have to (a) follow the sources, and (b) take into account how the average reader will interpret those words. Now, WP:PSCI is really talking about the pro-FH position, which we should not represent as an equal-and-opposite position to the "scientific" position. But this is not what our discussion is about - we're talking about the "FH is not pseudoscience" position which is not necessarily pro-FH, and may well be equal and opposite to the "FH is pseudoscience" position. (Don't forget, the article did not mention pseudoscience at all until recently!) Now, the RfC determined that some people regard FH as pseudoscience, and we need to mention that. We have ONE source that explicitly mentions numbers ("virtually all") in regards to pseudoscience but that is qualified ("or at least..."). (Actually, we have Leonard and Crainshaw as well, with "widely considered", but that is also qualified - "certain approaches".) My personal feeling is that the number is "most", but I'm still looking for a good source. So here's the thing: WP:PSCI is not talking about the minority opinion of "FH not being pseudoscience" - it's only talking about pseudoscientific viewpoints ("we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other", emphasis mine). It's very important not to confuse the two. StAnselm (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that answer. If you would like more time to look for a better source, that's fine with me personally. I guess I'm having trouble getting a handle on the concept of something that is (a) not pro-FH, and simultaneously (b) opposed to calling it pseudoscience, particularly if that is a concept endorsed by some scientists (since we would be attributing it either to scientists or to scientists plus philosophers). Of course I know that there are some persons of faith who say that it should not be judged as science but who do not necessarily endorse FH per se. But are there reliable sources about scientists who reject FH but accept it as something like science, or at least as something (what?) that is not pseudoscience? I feel like I would need to see a reliable source that describes such a concept. (The closest that I've seen is philosophers, not scientists, saying that if it is not pseudoscience then it is at least lacking epistemic warrant. I cannot get a mental picture of what such a thing would be. Mediocre science that is lacking epistemic warrant?) Otherwise, I'm just not seeing the sourcing to provide a rationale for saying that some significant number of scientists regard it as other-than-pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

But what we will do if such a source doesn't exist? (I've looked, and I haven't found it.) I think we would need to stick with Mahner and quote him. But I know you disagree. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. I recognize that you are trying here, and I appreciate it. I've just spent some time looking, and I cannot find it either. I do feel that Mahner either isn't saying that at all or is saying it in such an unclear manner that it's not enough for us to either say it in Wikipedia's voice or say it in the text with attribution to Mahner. Maybe there's an option here to have something in a footnote? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As I think about it, maybe a footnote could be the solution here. I'm thinking about going back to the "nearly all" language, but putting a template:efn-type footnote immediately after "all", and putting the sentence from Mahner there. That way, we use the "nearly all" language that three of us (I'm now one of those three) prefer, but we also alert the reader that there is something more to know about the "nearly all" characterization, and we present the Mahner quote without any commentary in that footnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I could live with that; not sure about Literaturegeek. StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! @Kingofaces43: and @Raymond3023: Would that be OK with you as well? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC

I forget whether we settled on nearly or virtually all (slight preference to using virtually), but that footnote would just be doing the same thing we already do in the reference that also quotes the text. A footnote is not really needed in that case, but doesn't also significantly change anything from version two either. I'd be fine with either approach. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've started thinking the same thing about "virtually" instead of "nearly". There is little reason for anyone to object to one of those in favor of the other. I'm actually leaning towards splitting the difference, by saying "virtually all scientists and philosophers" in the lead, and "nearly all scientists" in the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And I have another question, this one going to Kingofaces: Could you please draw up a list of the sources that you think should be cited for the first/lead sentence, perhaps pruning it down from 8 or 9 to a much smaller number (or, alternatively, combining some of the references into a single inline citation)? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You can take a look at my most recent suggestion in version 2 where I changed the ref order too. It goes in order of Mahner, Pitt, and Zerbe for ones I'd use as main refs, while Cogan, Leonard, and SAFS would be fine in a single ref tag. If we add Erzinclioglu to that sentence, which I'm perfectly fine with, I would probably boot SAFS to cut down on space. I can put a formal draft of the refs together later this evening if need be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Amid all this tl;dr, I have to admit that I completely missed that you had already done that with the references. I think once we settle about "most" versus "nearly all", that will make clear what to do with the ones that you say "if" about. But I agree that, as a number of citations, that looks very good to me. Regardless of what we decide about that, I think I prefer the "dismiss" sentence structure over the older one, and I consider the "opponents of the pseudoscience label" language in the section to be necessary for purposes of accuracy. That's getting us pretty close. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So if I'm on track with everything so far, here's the current draft of the first sentence with updated references (I'm fine with this in the body and omitting philosophers in the lead):

Nearly all scientists and philosophers^[1] dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience.^[2][3][4]

I decided to merge Zerbe into the multi-ref as well to keep it down to four ref numbers. Looking at Template:Efn, reference tags really are just another type of footnote, so I just moved the reference up in place of where the proposed footnote would go. Is that essentially the same as intended with the footnote conversation? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why Cogan is there? How does he back up the statement? StAnselm (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support "Nearly all scientists and philosophers[1] dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience.[2][3][4]" I think the statement sums up a lot and doesn't give false weight to opinion of proponents. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support "Nearly all scientists and philosophers[1] dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience.[2][3][4]" I can't believe how long this discussion has gone on, frankly. One thing I would like to know though, @StAnselm:, is the exact nature of your opposition to the use of Cogan. All I can see are assertions that this ref shouldn't be used. What's the beef? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Mainly because he doesn't back up the statement at all. He says nothing about what scientists and philosophers believe. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously, I support this approach. I do not know if the Robert Cogan who wrote the source is this Robert Cogan, but that one is an expert on music but not pseudoscience. Depending on who the source author is, I would be OK with substituting a different source for that one. Also, although KofA suggests a regular <ref></ref> for the Mahner cite, I had been thinking of it, and discussing it above, as an {{efn}} footnote, in the same way as the Bruce Flamm note in the section, and I think that would be better – and maybe also to put it after "all" instead of after "philosophers". Please note that it was discussed that way. Also, is it "pseudoscience" or "a pseudoscience"? (Oh, and Famousdog, +1 on how long this has gone on! ) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a different Cogan. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That being the case, and it also being the case that it is a book about critical thinking, I believe it is safe to conclude that he is a reliable source about critical thinking. On that basis, my opinion is that we should definitely keep him in. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, he is a Professor of Philosophy (emeritus): [35], [36]. Absolutely appropriate as a source about philosophy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. After all this time, no one had brought up issues with using Cogan in the drafts as far as I’m aware. It’s a pretty straightforward description of FH being pseudoscience while focusing on it rather than just listing a bunch of pseudosciences. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well,, the issue has been flagged lots of times, namely that (a) there were too many citations and (b) so few of them actually supported the claim. (a) has been somewhat resolved but we should still eliminate any citations not directly related to the claim. The problem is not with Cogan being a reliable source (I think he's probably notable and I'm surprised there is no article about him) but in the irrelevance of the citation. StAnselm (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no preference on how we do footnote formatting, I was just getting the gist of the reference layout drafted. For placement, don’t we want it after scientists and philosophers since that whole phrase is cited to Mahner? It doesn’t seem like it would change the intent of the footnote as discussed. Also, I think just pseudoscience is fine since the a is mostly redudnant unless we have a reader somehow thinking FH is the only pseudoscience out there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I drafted the version below before I saw your comments here. I think the version below addresses the specific concern about "virtually all" versus "most" by using the footnote where it is, but Mahner overall is cited at the end of the sentence. About "a", I don't care either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

At this point, we basically have consensus, and I want to keep things moving. The remaining issues appear to all be minor tweaking stuff, so I'm incorporating the loose ends from part 3 into this:

In the lead section, change the existing sentence to this:

Virtually all^[a] scientists and philosophers dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience.^[1][2][3][4]

In Faith healing#Scientific investigation, revise the first paragraph to:

Nearly all^[a] scientists dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience.^[1][2][3][4] Some opponents of the pseudoscience label assert that faith healing makes no scientific claims and thus should be treated as a matter of faith that is not testable by science.^[5] Critics reply that claims of medical cures should be tested scientifically because, although faith in the supernatural is not in itself usually considered to be the purview of science,^[6][b] claims of reproducible effects are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation.^[2][5]

I'm pretty sure that's ready for prime time, but we should check it over one final time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Drop the "a" and drop Cogan and we're good to go. StAnselm (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped the "a". I cannot agree with dropping Cogan because he is clearly an expert in philosophy, and because it sounds like the other editors here agree with me that he should remain. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But once again, how is the citation relevant? How does it back up the claim? StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A Professor of Philosophy, saying "Faith healing is probably the most dangerous pseudoscience." Clearly, a philosopher who classifies FH as pseudoscience, when we are saying in part that philosophers classify FH as pseudoscience. It seems pretty obvious to me. Does anyone else here object to including that cite? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But it's just one person; it doesn't come close to "nearly all". We should restrict the references to those that indicate the consensus. StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My individual opinion is that it is unnecessary to make that restriction. But if there is a consensus to remove it on that basis, OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

To flesh out why I feel that it is unnecessary, I think that we need to have sufficient sourcing to support what we say, and we do, and that must include sources that support all of it (to avoid synthesis), but once that threshold is met, there is nothing wrong with including further sources in support. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Make sure your not removing access to researchable information ( academic links) just because some are concerned about wording in the article. Does the link expand someone's knowledge on the topic at hand in the manner represented in the article.... this is what is to be considered first. We are here to facilitate access to information.--Moxy (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at policies and guidelines in this area, I see that WP:BUNDLING insists that "each source applies to the entire sentence". I also see in the Wikipedia:Citation overkill essay, the following: "Or, if the additional material is not quite encyclopedically pertinent to the article but provides useful background information, add it to the "Further reading" or "External links" section instead of citing it inline in a way that does not actually improve verifiability." This may be a useful way forward. Since Cogan devotes a couple of pages to faith healing, he can go in the "further reading" section (which doesn't exist yet, but can be created). I also notice that Cogan is already cited elsewhere in the article (currently footnote 96 - though the citation is incomplete). StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, what do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I like bundling I did this at ......See source 2 at Jared Taylor first in the lead or note style at Joan Crawford note 1 in lead.--Moxy (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And the Jared Taylor one is very appropriate - and here's the thing: all the citations are directly related to the claim. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a strong need to do this (combing all refs into one rather than the subset we currently have). We sometimes use see also type refs in other consensus statements like Genetically_modified_food#Health_and_safety (first sentence, ref 8 for those not familiar with it). I'm not entirely opposed to a complete bundling, but I'm just not seeing a reason for it when this version seems adequate in terms of convention. Sometimes it is useful to have a few references on their own rather than present a reader with a wall of bullets for all sources instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with this version. On Cogan, I would object to removing it as a violation of PSCI, namely that we don't obscure mentions of a topic being pseudoscience. Cogan clearly calls FH pseudoscience, so that obviously fits into a sentence describing FH as such. That ref is also at the end of the sentence describing pseudoscience, not the all philosophers language footnote. That was partly the point of the footnote to separate the refs for such a demarcation, so it seems like we're just going back in circles by suddenly going to this last minute. If anything, the version mirrors the reference placement of the GMO consensus language I linked above. Since that removal is a non-starter policy-wise, and this version seemed to address all other concerns out there, I think we'd be fine going ahead with this version aside from the minor bundling formatting question. (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And this is precisely why this was an issue for me - per the result of the RfC we are not "describing faith healing as pseudoscience". We are only reporting on such descriptions. StAnselm (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And it's not a "non-starter policy-wise" - it's following the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline. StAnselm (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Per RfC, we should be "describing faith healing as pseudoscience" as well as per WP:PSCI because FH is a pseudoscience. We can't give undue weight to fringe position just because you believe that FH is not a pseudoscience. But given that we have already tried enough to teach you this simple fact and you are clearly not getting it. I think we should discuss this on WP:FTN. You had discarded that solution as "canvassing"[37] but we don't really have any other solution. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sooooo tired of this discussion going around in circles. StAnselm, I think that you have expressed your rationale about the Cogan cite very clearly and everyone here understands it. But I don't think that anyone agrees with you. And I, for one, have been making a very strong effort to listen to you and to cooperate with you; there's a lot in this version that reflects requests that you have made. (I also read WP:Bundling and WP:Citation overkill before posting this comment here.) I think that, although we do not have unanimity, we have what any uninvolved editor would recognize as consensus for the overall language proposed here. Keeping or deleting the one line about Cogan in the footnote is something that can continue to be discussed, even after implementation of the rest of the language. I am going to implement it now, because it's time. That doesn't mean that it cannot be further edited, of course. If anyone wants to bring up the issue of the Cogan cite somewhere else, that's fine with me. (WP:RSN could be an alternative to WP:FTN.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't expect that idea to get any traction as noticeboards, so since WP:CON is not a unanimous count, I think we're in a good position to let this tired old dog rest. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again (because some people have still not understood), the RfC consensus was not to "describe faith healing as pseudoscientific" but "include text indicating that there are sources describing faith healing as pseudoscientific". There is a very big difference. Tryptofish, I'm not sure there is a consensus when there are !votes arising out of that misinterpretation. StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to pursue that concern, as you see fit. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In Faith healing#Scientific investigation, revise the first paragraph to:

Nearly all^[a] scientists dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience.^[1][2][3][4] Some opponents of the pseudoscience label assert that faith healing makes no scientific claims and thus should be treated as a matter of faith that is not testable by science.^[5][6] Critics reply that claims of medical cures should be tested scientifically because, although faith in the supernatural is not in itself usually considered to be the purview of science,^[7][b] claims of reproducible effects are nevertheless subject to scientific investigation.^[2][5]

Please view my proposed slight change to Tryptofish's proposed near final version. Good to see that some progress is being made. I feel that, in the scientific investigation section, the reference to Martin, Michael needs to be included after reference 5 before I can consider offering my support to including this body of text in the article. I am still not entirely happy, but I am interested in reaching a compromise and avoiding another RfC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, that consists only of adding the Martin citation directly after the Popular Delusions one. I think that's an excellent idea, and I would be happy to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup, you understand correctly. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Good! For my understanding, it that this Michael Martin? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at the source, and it says right at the top that he is. I can't think of any reason for anyone to object to it, so I'm going to make the edit now. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I remembered having discussed this source during #Science, or not claiming to be science, above, and that made me take another look at it. Looking carefully at what Martin said, he is not objecting to calling FH pseudoscience, but rather saying that the associated religious beliefs cannot be considered pseudoscience. For that reason, I've moved the position where the source is cited, to just before the Stephen J. Gould cite. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)