What is this daft discussion about? Trying to change NPOV policy again?  We have already established that the book is written by notable and reliable people.  Your problem solving skills seem to involve a broom and a carpet. Its really a very dumb way of doing things.  The book is full of explicit statements that such and such is pseudoscientific. And it agrees with a lot of what is written in the hatebox already. So what are you all trying to do about making the article at least halfway accessible to the reader? No matter what you do with that stupid laundry list, you still seem to end up with a load of accusations.  You removed all the conceptual grouping that was being set up, and now its back to an alphabetical list.  How to organize pseudosciences from a-z. Utterly stupid! No value at all for any reader.