And rightly so. It's a small minority position, and
has its own
article. The correct way to handle it in such a more general article
would be to have a one-line statement that plasma cosmology would
solve the problem, and lead people who would like to know more about
the subject to the plasma cosmology page. This is exactly the kind of
thing that undue weight is talking about.
I agree, except that the one line has been COMPLETELY removed, so
that people can not find out if the theory exists.
It's very simple: If you get a consensus against
you, it probably
means that you are wrong. You cannot push your own POV just by writing
about it in an NPOV way.
Verifiable information is NOT "my" point of view, so I can't push it
as my own. Otherwise removing verifiable information would be
construed as the opposing POV, and neither are acceptable.
I think your example is a good example of why I oppose
to those who
say that anything for which there are citations should be included.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people pushing theories.
Surely behind every theory is someone "pushing"? Isn't an editor's
job merely to describe what they are?
And arguing
that your statements are perfectly NPOV and referenced is simply
barking up the wrong tree. There's no reason to put the material where
you want to put it.
Where else should I expect to find out about the existence of such
theories, if I hadn't heard about it before?
A line or two mentioning that there is an alternative theory, and a
very brief summary is not unreasonable.
Regards,
Ian Tresman