"I am coming at this as an outsider. Here are my observations:

An article like this can show many different theories and still remain POV. The idea isn't to exclude information (such as some theories), but to provide as much information as possible (such as adding more theories). WegianWarrior explains it well: ""Wikipedia isn't about whats valid or not, its about what can be verified. It's a verfiable fact that these claims are made by a number of conspiracy theorists."" And Blueboar's statement (""If a source discusses directly the theories that are the topic of this article, it does belong ... no matter what its viewpoint on the theory"") is valid and useful in this discussion.

Ukufwakfgr, your incivility diminishes greatly the legitimacy of any argument you make. It would be more effective if you left out the abrasive language and cries of flamebaiting and focused only on how to improve the article. By providing a list of what needs to be fixed, removed and added (without being abrasive), other editors will be much more likely to work with you. For example, if you think parts need further toning-down, quote the current sentence as it appears in the article and then provided what you think would be a better way to say it. You're going to have to play nice or not play at all.

Lastly to all, please review Staying cool when the editing gets hot and Civility. Even if you feel you are on the correct side of an issue here, sarcasm and curtness aren't going to help. Insults and abrasive language is not congruent to the way things work around here.   

"