User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2:2.1 Other


 * 1) Put everything into it. Put his theory into a page about him, and say that other scientists think he's full of crap. This way, the article is neutral, and everybody's happy. Habeouscorpus (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I would choose other. It's always going to be a bad idea including unbalanced reviews of controversial works; perhaps a link to a news *article* or similar neutral source could be located. While negative reviews in themselves are never going to violate BLP or NPOV, their presence in an article versus the presence and prominence of positive reviews will cause friction. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't think that this accurately characterizes the real-life dispute. Bwrs (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) The scientific community statement certainly should be included per NPOV, same with reviews critical of his books. Lean on what reliable sources state including that his ideas are both quite popular and disputed. -- Banj e  b oi   10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)