Neutral, regarding conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, is to state the theory's fundamental statement, note that it is not considered part of mainstream science (or insert field), and then go ahead and describe the details in a neutral fashion. Once that's done, a criticisms section noting how mainstream science (or insert field) believes the theory to be wrong.

Indeed, I did say that we describe the mainstream view and criticism. That is not the same as writing the article from those perspectives.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

I agree totally. Note: "tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views".

Regards,

Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com