In that, I actually agree. Wikipedia isn't a judge or critic of scientific methodology. In such cases we should report what was done and how the world responded to it.
I admit I haven't read most of this discussion. However, wouldn't the normal approach work here? If reputable science magazines claim a field is "pseudoscience" and only the field itself claims it is "science", would we not conclude it is "pseudoscience" simply based on the quality and range of sources that say so? Or is the issue that we are incapable of deciding whether "Creation Science Monthly" is a "reputable" "scientific journal" or not? If so, how do we decide that *any* publication is "reputable"?
Steve