James Duffy wrote:
major historical facts, etc but except in extreme cases we need to keep biographies readable, not turn them into theses simply because we don't have a paper usgae limit. Saying 'lets get everything we can in because we can' isn't encyclop?dic, it is amateurish.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Erik in particular has been a big proponent of breaking down articles into more manageable sizes when they grow too big.
That doesn't seem to be the issue in this particular case, though -- the article isn't that long, indeed for such a major figure in history it clearly isn't nearly long enough.
And in depth NPOV is not wikipedia's strong point given that it does not go through independent assessment but is produced in a free-for-all writing spree.
I'd say that in-depth NPOV is precisely our strong point -- we do it better than anyone else ever has.
(Often that free-for-all approach produces superb stuff. All too often it doesn't, as the embarrassing article on Mother Teresa, which not a single solitary person hasn recommended in preference to a better, more NPOV version by Adam Carr, is the embodiment of, showing what happens when an article goes seriously, embarrassingly and indeed almost comically wrong.)
If not a single solitary person prefers the current version to that of Adam Carr, then why doesn't someone just cut and paste and replace it?
I suspect the answer is that there is a single solitary person (at least) who does prefer the current article, or who would like to see them merged, is that right?
(I ask seriously, becuase I haven't read the Adam Carr version.)
Be Bold.
--Jimbo