Stephen Bain wrote:
Exclusion of minority opinions has always been policy. Not every theory can get in just because someone published a paper on it.
That's a drastic POV on the matter
Scroll down to the second heading and read the quote from Jimbo:
"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
If, out of a collection of say 100 scholarly articles, less than 5 of them represented a particular POV, that POV does not deserve inclusion. Of course people will quibble over what "minority" means, but we can always have a vote on the talk page to see whether people consider a source to be a minority source.
So you support the "tyranny of the majority". Of course 95 will always outvote 5. And 51 will always outvote 49. I would prefer not to be so arrogant in my use of the word "deserve".
The problem articles are generally not the ones with little information available about them.
That much is true.
No, the problem articles are the ones where one large body of people coming from one POV are confronting another large body coming from another POV.
Generally yes.
But of course it is not WP's role to solve these disputes, merely discuss them. Some people seem to forget this. If the process of WP:NPOV (weed out the minority sources) cannot arrive at a consensus set of facts, then that's fine. If we can't, then the real world probably can't either. We just present the opinions and move on.
It's fair enough to say that it's not our role to solve these problems, and that we should be prepared to move on if we can't. There are many valid third party minority opinions. The principal combatants are often so caught up in their own battles that they ignore any alternative options. That's a terrible excuse for suppressing them. The "King of Hearts" represented a very important minority when he stood naked at the doors of the asylum with a bird cage in his hand.
All that is necessary for POV to prevail is for good Wikipedians not to read/enforce WP:NPOV properly.
i.e. behave and do what your told! No thanks!
I prefer to put principles ahead of rules.
Ec