Welcome, Jim!
--- Jim McKeeth jim@mckeeth.org wrote:
I agree with Jason but I would add it depends on the scope of the article. For example in an article about the Holocaust you would not get into the details of the denial, but you might mention that some deny it and then link to articles about those groups. This would hold true for any false (or generally accepted false) belief or statement believed or made by a group.
Exactly. It is a fact that there are Holocaust deniers. We should not exclude this information from the encyclopedia; on the contrary, by including it along with the overwhelming weight of history, we do a service to our readers by allowing them to see the nonsense for what it really is.
Your idea about briefly mentioning it and then linking to the [[Holocaust denial]] article is exactly what we should be doing.
But I think the reverse should be held true for religion. I have seen a number of articles in regards to religion and other "unpopular" topics that have the opposition within the article. I believe that the article should solely talk about the subject and only mention the opposition (counter arguement) and then link to an article that focuses on it.
Yes. For example, when talking about Christianity, there's no need to go into great deal about the historical Jesus. Instead, mention and link to an article that deals with the question.
<snipped another good example about Pascal>
That is just my $0.02 worth. BTW, I am new here, my name is Jim and I look forward to eventually making meaningful contributions to WikiPedia as time permits while retaining my day job and my family. ;-)
I have a job, a wife and a young child, and I;ve managed to hold things together. Good luck. :)
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com