This is a bizarre discussion but one that interests me It s hard to be objective when some issues are so polarizing Should insane nutty crackpot theories be included on Wikipedia Probably if many people have them making them encyclopediac The Spalding book would be a good example It s a plainly baseless accusation the mere fact that the book was written with a couple parallel plot points but almost nothing in common makes conspiracy theorists get excited but it must be included because it s a common baseless accusation Even on the main Mormon page it includes the Are Mormons Christian debate even though it s a lame debate because it s a common debate Where do we draw the line between encyclopediac and non encyclopedic