Right --

This is somewhat in response to Eloquence's last, but I'd like to  use it to point out something that has to do with Lir, Ark, and Helga as well.

1)  Historians are trained to try to put aside their own personal prejudices before writing.  We assume this when we talk about NPOV --that writers will try to write objectively.  Historians also try to explain things in term of the temporal context.  It's something else we are trained to do.  What historians of the late 20th and 21st centuries consider to be the best way to approach something is different than the approach followed by people a hundred years ago.  Historians are expected to be reasonably conversant in the different schools of thought and what's acceptable.  Finally (on this point), a recent NPR interview pointed out that History is the academic discipline that offers students the best opportunity to learn expository, analytical writing -- and that it is being neglected in US K-12 courses.

2) all of the stuff initially written on NPOV and similar policies points out that not all theories are equally valid, and that those that aren't should receive proportionately less space than the predominant theories.  When theories are crank theories, or when they have fallen into disrepute, we don't need to put them in -- or should mentions this.

3) Most Medievalists (and many historians focusing on later periods), these days reject the notion of the Dark Ages (except in Greece between about 1100 BC and 800 BC), because we now know that a lot was going on, much of it having to do with learning.  Moreover, we can now speak of the Northumbrian, Carolingian, Ottonian, and 12th century renaissances -- to a certain degree, this has made the Renaissance a bit less unique.

4) Just because much of the modern world view began in the Enlightenment doesn't mean it's the best view.

5) Not all people accept that religion is a destructive force in society

6) Erik, who comes at the world believing that religion is by nature (or application) socially destructive, that post-Enlightenment thought is in some way, more correct, and that the world before the Renaissance was somehow a lesser thing to be judged  by modern standards, seems unable to keep these views from influencing many of his contributions.  What makes it seem more reasonable in Erik's case is that he assumes that his views are both correct and universally accepted as sensible.  This is about as neutral as, for example, Helga with her anachronistic nationalist backwards projections or Ark with his dogmatic acceptance of deMause's marginal theories.    If bans were imposed on Helga and Lir (with his own prejudicial notions) and Ark (if he didn't just leave), then I don't understand why we don't hold Eloquence to the same standard -- He is equally incapable of neutrality and equally anti-social -- one has only to read the Galileo talk to see that his inability to work with others and his lack of respect for people who disagree with him is clear. 

Y'all might at some point notice that you've lost most of the people who actually are specialists in History and who actually work in that field as a profession.  And you might ask why -- except, I think, that you don't really care.  It's funny, when you realize just how much of the stuff in the 'pedia falls under the stuff historians do for a living.

Pax

Jules