Toby Bartels wrote:
Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's definitely not true)?
Not if the something is truely a pseudoscience, as for example [[astrology]].
And say that it's definitely not true? That's POV. I don't think that astrology qualifies as a pseudoscience either, since its practitioners don't traditionally claim to be scientists (although some do *now*).
Claiming to be a scientist is a prerequisite to being a pseudoscientist. Some of those who now claim to be scientists really do try to use scientific methods. If experimental success were the deciding factor in determining if someone is a scientist we would have far fewer scientists.
Is it POV to use words that can be '''interpreted''' as insulting?
Yes, Dummy!
If a person is mentally retarded, then it may not be NPOV to say so, and any way of saying it could be interpreted as insulting. Nevertheless, deprecated terms like "moron" (however correct they may be in their technical senses) should be avoided in favor of those that haven't yet become primarily words of insult, like "IQ below 70".
The multitudes who consider George W. Bush to be a moron tend to apply the popular meaning of that word instead of the technical one.