Delirium-
That is completely irrelevant to my comment. The
American Psychiatry
Association represents a particular faction within psychology, with a
particularly extremist viewpoint that there is no such thing as mental
illness, but only physical illness, and all mental illnesses are
actually "brain diseases" that they will begrudgingly call "mental
disorders" for historical reasons, with the understanding that they are
wholly the result of physiological medical conditions.
At least Wikipedia is biased in the right direction, then.
Furthermore, it's inherently POV to favor
"mainstream scientists".
Mainstream scientists who also have mainstream public acceptance,
perhaps, but simply giving experts in a field undue credence, even if
their viewpoints are not generally held, is taking an explicit position
on the matter.
Held by whom? Since when is the general public relevant when it comes to
scientific claims? By that standard, we would have to preface every
article on biology with creationist claims, because they are so widely
held. Overall popularity is the worst possible standard to use when it
comes to NPOV.
If there are distinct scientific traditions, then I agree with you that we
should not favor one over the other.
Generally speaking, we should favor the views of the majority of the best
thinkers in a particular belief system, and present primarily the views of
thinkers within the belief system relevant to an article (so we don't have
to have a huge section on atheist views within [[Christianity]], nor a
huge section on creationist views within [[Ephemeroptera]]).
The current NPOV policy is incomplete in that it does not properly
elaborate on the differences between different traditions of belief. This
has led to many edit wars where belief systems intersect, with one group
arguing that the other group's views don't matter. Sometimes that is
correct, and the other group's views are more appropriately dealt with in
a separate article.
Regards,
Erik