Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'm still not certain why "concepts described as pseudoscience" wouldn't do.
[[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]
But not at the expense of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
And using "pseudoscience" alone would be at the expense of NPOV
It is NPOV and still conveys the same message. It is a little unwieldy, but it would work fine in prose and probably also as a category title.
I disagree. It's horribly clunky.
Yes, but entirely accurate and undeniable.
Clunky terms never have a long shelf life. People tend not to like the discipline of repeating the clunky term whenever the term is needed.
Ec