James D. Forrester wrote:
[[Sollog]] believes himself to be the son of God (AIUI, or God himself, or something), and there are very few, perhaps no, people who hold this opinions of him; thus, we would not mention his claim in the article, as it is inappropriately giving time and hence credence to a cause that does not warrant it. This, indeed, is exactly what we do do. Common sense seems to have triumphed. :-)
I've never said that only one POV should be represented, only that extreme minority POVs shouldn't be.
This is still treating truth as a numbers game. Sometimes great scientific discoveries have come from people who stubbornly maintained their opinions on a discovery. Verifiability is a more important criterion than being the position of a small minority. Some people who held the ridiculous minority notion that the earth went around the sun were severely persecuted at one time.
So? It's not our job to trumpet minor views "just in case" they turn out to be correct all along. Yes, we're "treating truth as a numbers game": it's called showing editorial judgement.
If Sollog is the only source of evidence for his being God he has a verifiability problem. Under those circumstances being a part of a minority is moot.
Ec