I still don't really like that idea, because it's strongly taking one side in a dispute. Should we, for example, have a [[Category:Pseudoscientists]] that we apply to [[Linus Pauling]] for his wacked-out ideas on nutrition? (Of course, he could also get [[Category:Scientists]] for his more respected work.) This sort of derisive labelling I find troubling, even if it's derisive labelling that's widely accepted. The term "Alternative medicine", by constrast, doesn't carry nearly as much ideological baggage, because it can be read as either good or bad depending on your perspective, so more accurately simply labels a category of stuff without judging it.

I would not object to classifying Pauling's ideas on nutrition (vast amounts of vitamin C etc.) as pseudo-science. The label is no more derisive than the topics under discussion deserve. We call vandalism vandalism. We don't call it "alternative editing". We call the trolls trolls. We don't call them "complementary editors". The labels are only derisive insofar as they are accurate. Such is the case with pseudoscience and quackery.

Regards, Haukur