On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side
with this though. Some of
my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China
could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship.
What has currently been hit on is "single-party state governed by the
Communist Party of China (CPC)." with a link to "single-party state" an
artificial construct for which there is little published authority.
We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is
forbidden.
It's easy for someone who is a little too anal-retentive at following rules
to cause trouble, because the fact that he *is* following rules makes it so
much easier for him to push his demands. And if you rules-lawyer, it's still
easy to get away with it.
The reason is that having the rules on your side gives you one *heck* of an
edge in any dispute. It's occasionally possible for common sense to triumph
over rules, but only in the very obvious cases will this happen--if the person
following the rules isn't demanding something so outrageous that anyone can
see how bad it is instantly, it'll work.