[WikiEN-l] Re: Pseudoscience category - GSPOV

Wed Jun 29 00:24:07 UTC 2005

>> If you want to make a distinction between alternative medicine
>> and quackery would you object if I moved [[homeopathy]] to the
>> quackery category?

> I would.

> Me too. That's a really hard-to-defend
> category except for proven frauds.

I may well be mistaken. I'm not a native English
speaker and often miss fine distinctions in meaning.
Perhaps "quackery" has more negative connotations
than I was aware of. What I mean by "quack medicine"
is simply "treatments falsely presented as having
curative powers". If the term has more negative
connotations than that it may well be inappropriate
for a Wikipedia category.

I still think that "Alternative medicine" is misleading,
has undeserved positive connotations and does not represent
a NPOV.

I still think the Quackery category and the Alternative
medicine category should be merged. If Quackery is an
unacceptable term then I suggest "Ineffective medicine".
We can debate the inclusion of each item there on its merits.

I would also be happy with Category:Pseudomedicine.

Regards,
Haukur