This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dowsing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Those so-called explosive detectors I don't think are really the same thing as dowsing, which involve locating things under the ground. If those explosive detectors constitute dowsing devices, then there's a variety of other bogus instruments that would quality, from questionable medical instruments, bug-detectors, air samplers, etc. Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 05:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we should look very carefully at the references and for other references that might suggest the comparison between (or identification of) these devices and dowsing devices as being DUE. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The French (2013) ref appears to be useful to restore some of the material. -- Hipal ( talk) 02:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
the kit was not sold as a... Irrelevant and OR. We don't dismiss claims because the subject said otherwise. The viewpoint seems DUE. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I've restored the section. Clearly something is DUE, as the two refs identified in this discussion demonstrate: [1] and [2]. Are there more we can use? -- Hipal ( talk) 20:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it needs a complete rewrite, so copying below for reference: -- Hipal ( talk) 20:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I've tagged the section as needing a rewrite, and asked for help at WP:FTN -- Hipal ( talk) 20:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A number of devices have been marketed for modern police and military use, for example ADE 651, Sniffex, and the GT200. [1] [2] A US government study advised against buying "bogus explosive detection equipment" and noted that all testing has shown the devices to perform no better than random chance. [3]
Devices:
References
A number of fraudulent handheld military devices such as bomb detectors, including the ADE 651 have been claimed to work by dowsing.[ref making the specific claim and not just journo headline] This led the US National Institute of Justice to issue advice against buying equipment based on dowsing. [6]
to work by dowsing. That assumes "work by dowsing" is a thing that we should present in Wikipedia's voice and doesn't violate policy when we do so. I don't think we should. The ideomoter effect is what "works". Dowsing is just a method of using the ideomotor effect where people believe the device is helping them locate something. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Xurizuri has found even more sources to use. I hope we can agree that they demonstrate significant views that should be included in this article. Let's focus on writing that article content. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Steelpillow asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism#Dowsing. Thanks! -- Hipal ( talk) 17:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead currently states that "The motion of dowsing rods is now generally attributed to the ideomotor phenomenon, a psychological response where a subject makes motions unconsciously. Put simply, dowsing rods respond to the user's accidental or involuntary movements.
" and offers it as an alternative explanation to the pseudoscience. Yet I know a few dowsers, and most are adamant that this is exactly how dowsing works. Rather than trot out what dowsers believe, the sceptical alternative needs to get to grips with why invoking this universally accepted phenomenon is still regarded as pseudoscience. Obviously, it hinges on the fact that dowsers believe the involuntary muscular movement to be triggered by mystery forces (magnetism is a popular choice among them, as is some kind of psychic energy). So that is the bit which the lead - and the rest of the article - should explain and offer alternative mechanisms for. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There should be at least some mention of it's being taught for forensic use per https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/03/17/witching-dowsing-buried-bodies-police -- Hipal ( talk) 16:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I just added Professor Calculus as a notable dowser. should I delete it as it is fictional, or should I just keep it?
~~~
π (
talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: What ref? It doesn't have one. Don't get me wrong, I'm a scientist myself, but according to Wiki a pseudoscience makes claims to be a science but lacks the evidence to support those claims. Nowhere does the article say that dowsing claims to be a science in WP:RS. Bermicourt ( talk) 18:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
that dowsing claims to be a science?Irrelevant. The content [7] is verified by reliable sources. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dowsing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Those so-called explosive detectors I don't think are really the same thing as dowsing, which involve locating things under the ground. If those explosive detectors constitute dowsing devices, then there's a variety of other bogus instruments that would quality, from questionable medical instruments, bug-detectors, air samplers, etc. Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 05:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we should look very carefully at the references and for other references that might suggest the comparison between (or identification of) these devices and dowsing devices as being DUE. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The French (2013) ref appears to be useful to restore some of the material. -- Hipal ( talk) 02:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
the kit was not sold as a... Irrelevant and OR. We don't dismiss claims because the subject said otherwise. The viewpoint seems DUE. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I've restored the section. Clearly something is DUE, as the two refs identified in this discussion demonstrate: [1] and [2]. Are there more we can use? -- Hipal ( talk) 20:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it needs a complete rewrite, so copying below for reference: -- Hipal ( talk) 20:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I've tagged the section as needing a rewrite, and asked for help at WP:FTN -- Hipal ( talk) 20:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A number of devices have been marketed for modern police and military use, for example ADE 651, Sniffex, and the GT200. [1] [2] A US government study advised against buying "bogus explosive detection equipment" and noted that all testing has shown the devices to perform no better than random chance. [3]
Devices:
References
A number of fraudulent handheld military devices such as bomb detectors, including the ADE 651 have been claimed to work by dowsing.[ref making the specific claim and not just journo headline] This led the US National Institute of Justice to issue advice against buying equipment based on dowsing. [6]
to work by dowsing. That assumes "work by dowsing" is a thing that we should present in Wikipedia's voice and doesn't violate policy when we do so. I don't think we should. The ideomoter effect is what "works". Dowsing is just a method of using the ideomotor effect where people believe the device is helping them locate something. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Xurizuri has found even more sources to use. I hope we can agree that they demonstrate significant views that should be included in this article. Let's focus on writing that article content. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Steelpillow asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism#Dowsing. Thanks! -- Hipal ( talk) 17:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead currently states that "The motion of dowsing rods is now generally attributed to the ideomotor phenomenon, a psychological response where a subject makes motions unconsciously. Put simply, dowsing rods respond to the user's accidental or involuntary movements.
" and offers it as an alternative explanation to the pseudoscience. Yet I know a few dowsers, and most are adamant that this is exactly how dowsing works. Rather than trot out what dowsers believe, the sceptical alternative needs to get to grips with why invoking this universally accepted phenomenon is still regarded as pseudoscience. Obviously, it hinges on the fact that dowsers believe the involuntary muscular movement to be triggered by mystery forces (magnetism is a popular choice among them, as is some kind of psychic energy). So that is the bit which the lead - and the rest of the article - should explain and offer alternative mechanisms for. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There should be at least some mention of it's being taught for forensic use per https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/03/17/witching-dowsing-buried-bodies-police -- Hipal ( talk) 16:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I just added Professor Calculus as a notable dowser. should I delete it as it is fictional, or should I just keep it?
~~~
π (
talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: What ref? It doesn't have one. Don't get me wrong, I'm a scientist myself, but according to Wiki a pseudoscience makes claims to be a science but lacks the evidence to support those claims. Nowhere does the article say that dowsing claims to be a science in WP:RS. Bermicourt ( talk) 18:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
that dowsing claims to be a science?Irrelevant. The content [7] is verified by reliable sources. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)