I agree with Jason but I would add it depends on the scope of the
article. For example in an article about the Holocaust you would not get
into the details of the denial, but you might mention that some deny it and
then link to articles about those groups. This would hold true for any
false (or generally accepted false) belief or statement believed or made by
a group.
But I think the reverse should be held true for religion. I have seen a
number of articles in regards to religion and other "unpopular" topics that
have the opposition within the article. I believe that the article should
solely talk about the subject and only mention the opposition (counter
arguement) and then link to an article that focuses on it.
For example when talking about the Pascal programming language one third of
the article is devoted to criticism by Brian Kernighan, co-creator of the C
programming language. This may be better suited in the article about Brian
Kernighan and in the Pascal article just mention that Pascal is not Brian
Kernighan favorite programming language with a link to his article.
If we censor or argue against what we believe to be false or just a belief
(and not real) then we are not writing / editing with NPOV.
That is just my $0.02 worth. BTW, I am new here, my name is Jim and I look
forward to eventually making meaningful contributions to WikiPedia as time
permits while retaining my day job and my family. ;-)
-Jim McKeeth
At 05:37 PM 09/12/2002 +0100, Jason Williams wrote:
then we simply write that Group A _believes_ this.
I don't think so.
Why not? The fact that those beliefs are held is useful information; this
is a project to collect useful information. There need be no implication
that the belief is true or valid - otherwise there should be no article
on any Religion, for instance, since there is no evidence to support *those*
claims either.