On 02/05/06, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Which has the majority? Should either be be dropped
completely? Should either be reduced to a footnote or an "other views" section
deeper within the article? Again, for simplicity, all the sources are equally reliable,
reputable, and prominent.
Other than all or most of the sources of either being non-notable or biased, are there
any circumstances in which you would reverse the majority/minority or consider Moo and
There's probably more at stake than simply number of words, no? For
example, a very simple, even if exceptionally popular, theory, doesn't
really need 10 paragraphs explaining it. I'll take a bad example: Say
there are two schools of thought: one says that NASA was telling the
truth about the moon landings, and one (or a group of schools) that
says they were lying and it's faked somehow. How much can you say
about the first theory? It's widely supported, has references and so
on, but what is there to say about the "theory" that the moon landing
actually happened? Nothing - it's all covered at [[Apollo mission]] or
wherever. On the other hand, the various counter theories are
certainly interesting and worth covering - but you simply wouldn't
present them as if they had more legitimacy than they do.
If there are lots of interesting, legitimate theories, and a couple of
really crackpot ones, I would see no harm in giving the crackpot
theories their own articles, and giving them no more than a link, in
the style of. "In the 50s, some stranger theories arose, including
[[Giant M&Ms]], [[Borking Meatballs]] and the [[Google Premonition]]"