Robert wrote:
It was proposed that the term "pseudoscience" has no validity, and it was clearly implied that this word is
simply a hateful attack, like "kike" or "nigger".
It's not a question of validity, but of whether Wikipedia articles should flatly categorize any particular idea or system as "pseudoscience".
My reading of Jimbo's NPOV policy is that the Wikipedia should avoid drawing conclusions where there is signifi- cant disagreement. Thus, I would prefer to see articles on, say, chiropractic, say something like:
* "The Western medical establishment dismisses chiropractic as pseudoscience."
This clearly attributes the point of view (or POV) to its advocate, leaving Wikipedia neutral on the issue.
Blandly,
Uncle Ed