The problem with this line of reasoning is in the need to "draw the line". There is no clear-cut demarcation between science and non-science.
I was not so much referring to the line between science and non-science as the general line between *facts* which Wikipedia can report in its own voice without attribution ("The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.") and *contested opinions* which have to be attributed or qualified ("Some critics of the Bush administration have suggested that oil interests were an important factor in the decision to invade Iraq.").
Here are a few statements which I have been using as test cases for where different people might want to draw this line.
1. Christianity is a religion.
2. Creationism is pseudo-science.
3. Americans have landed on the moon.
4. The Nazis systematically exterminated millions of Jews.
5. Human activities are significantly affecting the average temperature on Earth.
My personal "line of unmarked narrative" lies somewhere between statements 4 and 5.
This was the main point in Feyerabend's arguments. Drawing on your Chick pick I could certainly find an argument in favor of "Bible Christianity is not religion." Bible Christians are too stuck in the words of the Bible to brought together as religion should do. By disavowing the record of the Bible the author effectively disavows creation, prefering instead his mystical relationship with Jesus.
Excellent. Would you, then, object to Christianity being included in a religion category on grounds of the NPOV policy?
Since you seem to disagree with the age of the earth, what would you suggest? How would you back up your alternative theory?
Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I'm fine with the Earth being old. I'm not a geologist, though, and I'm not familiar with the fine points of our current status of knowledge regarding the age of the Earth.
Saying that Christian fundamentalists are wrong is just as POV as saying that they are right.
I'm still not quite clear on your position here. Do you object to the current lead of the [[Earth]] article on grounds of the NPOV policy? If not then why not?
There is no better way to promote creationism than to argue against it. The same happens with a lot of other fields that you might label as pseudoscience.
I happen to disagree with that but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We're not talking about how best to combat pseudoscience, we're talking about how the NPOV principle of Wikipedia applies to such topics and, in particular, their categorization.
Attitudes toward the various topics that end up on the pseudoscience list will vary considerably. The ones that I consider most likely to be credible will differ from those that you put on such a list.
What's important is the consensus of the scientific community. Not the opinion of me or you after a casual look on a list. As with any other topic you have to do substantial research to be able to write well on this.
Regards, Haukur