Gareth,
It's precisely because reasonable people disagree on matters of fact as
well as on matters of interpretation, that the Wikipedia does not take
sides.
The first example you cite implied that the Supreme Court acted
"undemocratically" in settling the Florida recount dispute. A Wikipedia
article would have to call that a point of view (POV) and attribute it
to an advocate, such as the DNC boss (McAuliffe or something). Other
people had different interpretations, notably Al Gore ;-)
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm not saying I agree with you or
not. I'm not saying I'm happy or unhappy with the decision -- or its
outcome.
I'm saying that it's /especially/ because of examples like this, where
one person is so sure of the 'truth' that he asserts only a
"delusional"
person could disagree, that we /must/ adhere to the NPOV when writing
Wikipedia articles.
BTW, only a madman could deny that sinners go to hell.
Ha, ha, gotcha going there for a moment, didn't I? (wink wink)
Uncle Ed