There is no reason not to have an article on Immanuel,
or innumerable
other pseudoscientific phenomena / fads / people.
My opinion on fringe materials is to be inclusive in terms of having
articles or descriptions, but make the descriptions from a mainstream
perspective. Velikovsky was not in the end a scientist; nor was
Hoagland, or others of note recently. We have articles for them, and
their most important theories, as we should. The articles need not
confuse the issue by telling readers to lend the fringe theory as much
credibility as one does normal mainstream science.
Wikipedia specifically tells us to describe things from a neutral
point of view which Jimmy Wales says is "absolute and non-negotiable".
That's not to say that we exclude the scientific point of view, or
even the mainstream scientific point of view. But we do tell people
there is a mainstream point of view, and point people to the
appropriate article, and/or, provide criticisms where they exist.
When we describe the Republican point of view, we don't automatically
counter-point from the Democratic point of view.
I would expect a scientific encyclopedia to assume a mainstream
scientific point of view.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com