Whatever about the text's problems, the central one was that it was on the wrong page. That page was exclusively to do with a political science definition of 'communist state', which is to do with a system of government based on marxism-leninism in which party and constitutional organs of the state are blurred because of a fundamental principle of marxism-leninism; put simply that the party is the state and the state is the party. The page is not a discussion group on communism, there are plenty such pages, but purely a discussion of a political science definition of the working of a system that in contrast to pluralist democracies does not separate the means by which a political elite come to power (the party) and the manner in which they exercise power (the constitutional organs of the state). That is all that page is about. Nothing more. User after user lined up to tell Fred Bauder that (a) his contribution was not NPOV (which he admitted, calling it himself 'unbalanced') but more importantly, (b) even if perfectly NPOV was on the wrong page. Yet he consistently ignored every contributor and reverted to his poorly written irrelevant material, burying major changes as minor edits, on occasion reverting minute by minute. He listened to no-one else, paid heed to no advice but continually planted irrelevant material on the wrong page. It took nearly 20 reversions by a list of people, many of whom came to see what the argument was and immediately agreed that what he was putting on the page was 100% irrelevant to the content of the page, for him to stop. If I went to a page on 'Federal Republic' which was simply talking about the definition of what a Federal Republic is, and plonked in statements about the United States treatment of native Americans when everyone on the page kept saying 'stop. This is the wrong page for it' and kept doing it in the face of everyone else's opposition twenty times, that would rightly be seen as agenda-driven vandalism. Similarly if I went to 'Constitutional Monarchy' and in the middle of a page on the legal and constitutional definition of constitutional monarchy plonked in reference to Prince Charles in a taped telephone call telling Camilla Parker Bowles he wished he was her tampon (which he said), or if I went to the page on 'Conferation' and in the face of universal opposition plonked in references to the collaboration of Swiss banks with Nazi Germany, that would be seen as blatent vandalism on a page that was not on that topic. The issue isn't the content, though there was as Fred Bauder himself admitted a problem of lack of balance there. The issue is simply and clearly that in spite of the appeals of people on the talk pages, in spite of the comments of everyone bar Adam that what he was doing was putting information on the WRONG page, FB continued to do so and did so nearly 20 times. This was after he had tried time and time again to remove the relevant political science definition from the article on China and put in a POV term. In other words in the space of a few days he had tried to add POV content to two pages, tried to stop one being linked to the other, and when he failed there tried to change the whole meaning of the second page to insert his political agenda into it, even through he was told by everyone that he was deliberately twisting the contents of a page to put information on it that was not relevant to that page. One could argue that he did not understand the meaning of the 'communist state' page, except that everyone clearly did; those there at the start and those who came into the debate later on. So either he was unable to grasp what the entire planet could as to the nature of the contents, or he could but was determined to ignore the consensus, ignore the definition, ignore the advice and ignore the evidence on the page and add in his own propagandistic stuff regardless, having failed to get it accepted on other pages. If the latter, then given that he made nearly 20 attempts to force his irrelevant 'unbalanced' add-ons, disguised as minor edits, he was engaged in the blatent POV vandalism of the article. That is the widespread view of the people who worked on that page. Finally, he is now on the w-list accusing people who were simply concerned with keeping a page on a political science definition focused on the political definition, not on his broader view on communism, of being like those who deny the Holocaust, a libelous accusation for which he has offered no apology. If he manages to rewrite his paragraphs in a NPOV manner, there are many pages into which it can be included. But it was and will remain irrelevant to a page that is simply to do with a political science definition, not a broader analysis of communism. And trying to force his stuff through 'minor edits' onto a page when everyone tells him it is the wrong page for that information, and doing so 20 times, is blatent vandalism. JT _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail