--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but more about what is the best way to write _neutrally_ about a controversial subject.
I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking over the various edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked significant NPOV-deficient to me.
Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and figure out how to fix the article -- or at least come up with a solution to the current impasse, so the article can be un-protected.
By the way, would some admin (other than me) please add to the top of [[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard text about ''the neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare do it myself, because of the guideline about "he who protects a page must not edit it".
Ed Poor
IMHO, I think that that is protesting the page anyway. This is the type of case where it's the spirit of the law, not the letter. If you think that the neutrality of the article is disputed, then you can't edit it (unless we want to change that rule partially). LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com