Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's definitely not true)?
It's better to accurately summarize or characterize something as "widely considered by mainstream scientists to be pseudoscience". References are helpful.
Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something similar)
It's better to soften the claim to an extent that even a pro-Communist could agree with it. It's very vague to say "never works", for example. It would be better to simply point out that communist societies have had some notable failures such as X, Y, and Z.
Is it POV to only list some of the facts (by accident or on purpose) leading someone to believe one point of view?
Yes, but often this will happen out of simple ignorance on the part of a well-intentioned contributor. Deliberately omitting facts in an effort to mislead, yes, that's bad mojo.
Is it POV to use words that can be '''interperated''' as insulting?
Well, it's important that we be sensitive to possible insults, but at the same time, we have to stake out the broad, sensible middle ground and not be toooooo paranoid about "political correctness".
--Jimbo