Fred Bauder wrote:
Apparently your writ does not run as far as that article.
No, of course not. :-) I don't want to get into the business of trying to dictate the answers to content disputes, outside of the very abstract policies that guide the process.
For example...
A vote on the matter has come up about evenly divided. Several attempts have been made to put some language in about the matter. All such attempts have been reverted, usually by Wik.
Voting on the content of articles is not something that I think is generally helpful, since it tends to lead to a lot of carping about what the result of the vote actually means.
Rather than voting one way or the other, a better approach is for all sides to work towards creatively accomodating the other people working on the article.
In general, let's say the vote goes 80%/20% on some specific content issue? To me, that says that the 20% side has conclusively demonstrated that the article is _not_ NPOV. NPOV requires (near) unanimity.
I wish, too, that people would generally refrain from reverting, except in cases of actual simple vandalism. Reverting doesn't say "I don't fully agree with your changes, but I'm willing to work with you to try to improve the article." Reverting says "I refuse to co-operate with you by pretending that what you're doing is in any way worthwhile."
Hey, sometimes the second is actually true, and we actually should refuse to co-operate. If someone puts in utter and complete nonsense, a very good thing to do is just clean it up, revert it, quickly and with as little effort as possible.
But in this case, Adolph/Adolf, I don't see how it's appropriate to just revert.
--Jimbo