I don't know whether PJacobi is "on a hunt," but I am not at all happy about the current state of the "Prem Rawat" and "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article. While trying not to extend that battle here, I want to make two points: a) HYPOTHETICALLY (i.e. I DO NOT want to argue about whether Prem Rawat actually is an example of this situation): SUPPOSE that there is a topic that is being contentiously edited by two factions, A and B, that include most of the WIkipedians actively interested in working on the topic. The two factions could cut a deal in which they produce two articles, one presenting faction A's viewpoint and one presenting faction B's viewpoint, and agree that they will each tolerate and stay out of the other faction's article provided the other faction does the same. In this case, you have two POV articles--and because of the agreement by the two factions and the disinterest by other Wikipedians, the situation is likely to be stable. Surely we agree that that is a VERY unsatisfactory situation, and not what is meant by NPOV? If we have to have this sort of thing, we need to figure out out a way to legitimize it, e.g. with a template saying "This article represents one view of a disputed issue. For the other view, see..." b) In any case, I really dislike seeing the 32K limit being brought up as justification for doing things. 32K is a reasonable _guideline,_ and that articles in, say, the range 32K to 96K should be refactored _eventually_. But it should not be regarded as an urgent necessity. Particularly in the case of a disputed topic, the article should be left to stew and mellow. _When it has reached a stable state_, the need to break it up should be discussed. But breaking up an oversized article shouldn't be a high priority. Breaking up a 32 to 96K article is just _cleanup,_ and it's a _lot_ less important than a lot of other cleanup. _As long as no single section_ is over 32K, people with older browsers can participate actively in almost every part of the editing process. About all that they cannot do is load the entire article as a whole in order to make major changes in the section organization. I think the 32K limit is often used as a convenient excuse for unwise breakouts--specifically, POV splits and subtrivia. ("I couldn't put the vital, encyclopedic, verified fact that John Kerry flip-flopped in August, 1960 at the Central Street McDonalds when he ordered a Quarter Pounder _and tried to exchange it for a Quarter Pounder with Cheese_--the main article is over 32K!) The 32K limit gets an unjustified amount of attention because a warning is displayed automatically. The wording of that warning ought to be toned way down. This is just one of many issues involved in browser compatibility, and not the most important one. I notice that no warning is displayed about the use of Unicode characters, even though these also present problems in older browsers (and sometimes newer ones!) In gauging the seriousness of these issues, note too that using characters outside, say, ISO Latin-1 actually presents problems to people passively _viewing_ the article, whereas articles over 32K are still viewable by everyone (and editable within sections by everyone). -- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/