Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as
Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as
astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as
psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the
occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
altered states of consciousness on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Altered States of ConsciousnessWikipedia:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessTemplate:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessAltered States of Consciousness articles
This phrase is in the lede, but only supported by no-name sources that probably violate WP:RS. I have the inclination to remove this statement from the lede, due to lack of
WP:RS. I shouldn't have to say this, but I believe the statement to be true, or "true enough" as Terence liked to say, but we are here to follow
WP:RS,
WP:V, and
WP:NPOV. Find a RS that supports this statement.
MarshallKe (
talk) 00:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The problem is that niche pseudoscience isn't going to have explicit criticism by WP:RS as they simply won't bother. A lot of credible science doesn't even get critical evaluation. Novelty theory is in "not even wrong" territory, it relies on false descriptions of history, misapplications of mathematics, denial of physics all to defend an illogical premise. I think that by looking at this we can see that it easily meets the requirement of "Obvious pseudoscience".
JSory (
talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I'm not even certain calling it pseudoscience is enough given that it was barely scientific to begin with.
TBase2 (
talk) 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The bias and general hostile tone of the sources [10, 11] is suspect and not illuminating. Grammatical errors and repetitive insults (prophet of nonsense) undermines the value of these "sources." I do not think the statement "novelty theory is pseudoscience" is backed up effectively at all by the sources indicated.
2600:8800:7299:6E00:C1BD:FED:360A:4235 (
talk) 17:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Thank you for reviewing. Terence directly addresses concerns his views may be considered "mystical" in the clip linked below (fast forward to the end), as he currently is labeled "a mystic" in the first sentence of this Wikipedia article:
"Now I've been accused of mysticism... ... ... And worse."
Is it accurate to label McKenna a mystic, given his frequent criticism of gurism of all kinds, including "Swami Contempo or Guru Garagekey"?
Walkingsocialcatalyst (
talk) 19:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not letting me link to McKenna recordings on YouTube here
Walkingsocialcatalyst (
talk) 19:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Please remove "mystic" as a label because McKenna was not only not a mystic, but also he mocked being thought of as a mystic (search YouTube for the Peculiar Humor of Terence McKenna (Part 1).
143.178.181.54 (
talk) 22:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
To remove the label, you would you have to be convincing that NO sources labelled him as such. We don't decide he is a mystic or not, the sources do, we just print what they print.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 22:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply