It feels to me that the arguments being made by those
opposed to this
content is that it's "out of scope for the article", and that putting
this information in somehow violates our guidelines about undue
weight, since nobody but a couple of academics cares about it and it's
irrelevant.
I find both quite troubling. "Undue weight" doesn't mean "Remove all
academics from popular culture articles because fans don't care, and
fans outnumber academics 10,000:1".
Attempts to define an article's scope as excluding academic content
are also problematic.
-Matt
Actually that argument is quite similar to those who felt inquiry into
the factual content of Sicko was outside the scope of the article.
Fred