Below is a copy of the most recent talk on [[talk:Reciprocal System of Theory]]:

Responding to some positive posts, maveric149 wrote:

Fantastic! I have been waiting for somebody else to chime in. Now maybe  we can continue the discussion so that the longer version can be tweaked some more so that the people advocating the shorter version will be satisfied or at the very least be able to live with a modified longer version. I would like to hear from them -- especially since they have more complete knowledge of the subject matter and arguments against it (which will be needed to make the longer version closer to NPOV). I would like to second 130.94.121.26's (is that you Jimbo?) statement about not simply replacing the current version with the longer one until a compromise is reached. Perhaps if those with knowledge of why this theory is pseudoscience heavily edited the longer version, then it might be acceptable. I wish I had the appropriate knowledge to edit the longer version myself -- but I don't. My goal all along with protecting the page was to put, at least, a temporary stop to the outright replacement of one version with another (a forced truce, if you will). Maybe this can now be done. Although we might still decide that an external link to a more complete treatment is more appropriate (which still tends to be my vote -- especially if nobody has the time or energy to make the longer version NPOV). Hopefully the authors of the shorter version can help us decide what to do. --maveric149

The proponent of the longer version, Doug, responds:

I'm not sure I know quite what to say. I'm pleasantly surprised, certainly pleased, and even somewhat moved by the show of reason and understanding evident in these comments. I think what you chose to do maveric was the right choice. I'm grateful to see the end of the brutal deletes, and the expressions of a real desire to get to a genuine NPOV are certainly encouraging. I'm ready to help all I can. I have reread the Wikipedia policy and articles on etiquette and NPOV writing. I know I need help on writing so as to restate the various views while not asserting the one I happen to agree with, I've found that it's not as easy to do as one might suppose.

Doug

- end -

We should probably now continue the specific issue of what to do with this particular article on that talk page. However, some framework on what to do <in general> in these cases should be discussed here (again in a limited fashion so that we can get on with more interesting matters).

-- maveric149