Ray Saintonge wrote:
The term "crackpot" should really be avoided, because of the attitude that it carries.
I agree.
I support allowing each of them to have an article where the proponent has virtually free reign to explain his ideas. Opponents of the theories should learn to apply some restraint, and to note that it will suffice for the purpose of NPOV to make a note at the end of the article saying something like, "The ideas in this article are disputed by the mainstream of scientific thought." The more outrageous and ridiculous you consider a theory to be, the less you should say about it.
I thoroughly disagree, for three reasons:
* nobody should ever get virtually free reign over any Wikipedia article.
* NPOV, as well the duty to our readers, requires that people are informed *why* mainstream scientists dispute a given theory. How else would they be able to properly judge the matter?
* A theory that only exists in one head and maybe in an incomplete outline in some usenet articles and web pages is not a proper subject of encyclopedic coverage. An encyclopedia reports about those things that *have had* an impact, it does not help people along who want to *make* an impact.
Axel