User talk:MichaelMaggs/Minority science and pseudoscience
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comments are more than welcome.
[edit] Agreed
This should be Wikipedia policy. It would go a long way toward solving disputes at pseudoscience pages. Bravo. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm in general agreement. Maybe I wouldn't be quite so much a stickler for the idea that usually there be no reference at all to a minority theory in a main article. I'd be a bit more flexible about allowing some kind of brief reference, though I can see that this has its dangers. Overall, I think this is great advice to us all, and we should see what we can do towards following it. Metamagician3000 13:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Usually no reference for minority theories is important to mention because there are a lot of editors who will "spam" their pet idea into many mainstream articles with hopes of gaining visibility for their pet ideas. We need to abide by the principle of single-streaming links: that is just because an article links to another article doesn't mean that the links should be two-way. --ScienceApologist 18:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
