Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
We can then have a section where the theorists have a relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying to tell them what they believe. A further section would give the critics an equally free reign. The article would not really reach conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.
Sorry, but this is a recipe for he-said-she-said and original research. Sometimes it works, more often you get articles like Aetherometry where we are in the vanguard of debunking something that nobody else takes seriously enough to give time to.
Being subject to referencing deals with the original research rule. Both sides of the argument have to do it. There is certainly a strong element of he-said-she-said, but I wouldn't worry about that. That can be constrained by keeping both sides from carrying on endlessly.
It is not the function of Wikipedia to be either promoting or debunking theories. Doing either of these would be jumping on one side's POV bandwagon. I tried to look up aetherometry just to see what it is but we currently do not have an article about it.
Ec