Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Memetics

{{Notice|image=Stop hand nuvola.svg| In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.}}

{{Old AfD multi

| date = January 31 2007

| result = Speedy keep

| page = List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

| date2 = February 1 2007

| result2 = Speedy keep

| page2 = List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (2nd nomination)

| date3 = April 14 2009

| result3 = Keep

| page3 = List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (3rd nomination)

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=List|1=

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 250K

|counter = 19

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(30d)

|archive = Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive %(counter)d

|archiveheader={{aan}}

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive index

|mask=Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes

}}

__TOC__

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2025

{{edit semi-protected|List of topics characterized as pseudoscience|answered=yes}}

Add expanding Earth, now considered to be pseudoscience as per [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2014HGSS....5..135S/doi:10.5194/hgss-5-135-2014 this source]. 132.181.47.1 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Lova Falk (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Update the lead/summary to include pseudo historical claims and so forth?

The list includes psuedo-acadmeic claims that are not pseudoscience but obviously other forms of it. Should the lead be updated to fit that given that they already exist in the list? Question169 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have some specific examples in mind? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Actually, I'm talking about the article itself. There is a section involving history and that is more pseudo history than pseudoscience. Maybe a short disclaimer at the start to say that the article isn't talking strictly about science? Question169 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Fact verification required and requested

I have doubts when it comes to the validity of this article. Why?

For single example: the author is basing their argument about Body Memory on the research that is 30 & 20 years old, therefore when it comes to science it is completely OUT OF DATE!

This is ridiculous!

The list includes the subjects that used to be considered as pseudoscience, as well as those that are still considered so!

At the very least, this creates confusion: are they/are they not?

At the very worst, Chiropractic practitioners are put in the same brackets as a person believes in healing energy.

Is there a NEUTRAL (with no invested interest) person who can check the resources and make sure they are accurate and UP TO DATE, relevant and from ACADEMIC resources , not web articles for folks!

AggieTe (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

: {{done}} Verified. Sources are good. If no newer sources on this question exist, likely this is just settled knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The list is nice, but too terse.

For example, "The symptoms of "chronic Lyme" are generic and non-specific "symptoms of life".", which includes arthritis, swollen knees, swollen lymph nodes on neck or armpits, nail pitting and most importantly raised borrelial antibody levels in both IgM and IgG years after the original infection, treated with a very short low dose antibiotics course. Not to mention fungal and spirochaetal DNA in PCR of brain lysate of the deceased. Does the article claim that 1-day antibiotics course of two 100-miligram doxycycline treatment such was had been recommended in Texas in 2006 is a guaranteed course to clear the infection? A similar, weaker spirochaete that doesn't even have the heat shock proteins, that causes syphillis, does have a chronic stage that is long recognized. Also known to cause birth defects and abortions. Are we going to claim that it is all bogus now, that spirochaetes can not cause long lasting infections, ever?

The section on Technical Analysis tries to disprove the whole Dow Theory and Benoit Mandelbrots studies on different types of noise and random walk with tendencies. His note on the coin toss experiments is also of note, those too have exhibited trends. Or also, why does anyone try to disprove the formation of movement channels that are easily shown to be within exactly 0.5-sigma or 1-sigma levels. It is pure statistics, and yet it forms again and again. And what about the whole "return to previous levels" memory of price movements. Dead cat bounce doesn't exist or something? Disproving Technical Analysis means disproving Jesse Livermore had existed. 90.64.64.68 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)