[Wikipedia-l] Policy clarification: Undue weight (example)

Tue Apr 11 21:34:40 UTC 2006

>And rightly so. It's a small minority position, and has its own
>article. The correct way to handle it in such a more general article
>would be to have a one-line statement that plasma cosmology would
>solve the problem, and lead people who would like to know more about
>the subject to the plasma cosmology page. This is exactly the kind of
>thing that undue weight is talking about.

I agree, except that the one line has been COMPLETELY removed, so 
that people can not find out if the theory exists.

>It's very simple: If you get a consensus against you, it probably
>means that you are wrong. You cannot push your own POV just by writing
>about it in an NPOV way.

Verifiable information is NOT "my" point of view, so I can't push it 
as my own. Otherwise removing verifiable information would be 
construed as the opposing POV, and neither are acceptable.

>I think your example is a good example of why I oppose to those who
>say that anything for which there are citations should be included.
>Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people pushing theories.

Surely behind every theory is someone "pushing"? Isn't an editor's 
job merely to describe what they are?

>And arguing
>that your statements are perfectly NPOV and referenced is simply
>barking up the wrong tree. There's no reason to put the material where
>you want to put it.

Where else should I expect to find out about the existence of such 
theories, if I hadn't heard about it before?

A line or two mentioning that there is an alternative theory, and a 
very brief summary is not unreasonable.

Regards,
Ian Tresman