" I thought that the last version of the ""authorship"" section prior to removal was clear enough that this was ""nutter-territory stuff"" that nobody could think Wikipedia was promoting it — and since the subject had been discussed in reliable sources, I thought that a brief mention (and dismissal, by the same reliable sources) was appropriate. But if an apparent consensus of my fellow editors disagrees, I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to reinstate it. One further point to Kauffner: the reasons you may find Cashill's theory plausible are irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you want the section reinstated, you need to make the argument in terms of Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Your goal
" I thought that the last version of the ""authorship"" section prior to removal was clear enough that this was ""nutter-territory stuff"" that nobody could think Wikipedia was promoting it — and since the subject had been discussed in reliable sources, I thought that a brief mention (and dismissal, by the same reliable sources) was appropriate. But if an apparent consensus of my fellow editors disagrees, I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to reinstate it. One further point to Kauffner: the reasons you may find Cashill's theory plausible are irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you want the section reinstated, you need to make the argument in terms of Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Your goal is