Talk:Benjamin Lee Whorf/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review this article. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * review
 * "but as a young man he took up an interest in linguistics. First taking an interest" - repeating "he took up an interest" - "taking an interest" - seek to vary wording
 * changed
 * the quote "unlocked the mysteries" needs a citation directly after it.
 * changed
 * the quote "utterly incompetent by training and background to handle such a subject." needs a citation directly after it.


 * I am copy editing as I go, which of course you are free to revert, but I believe my little changes make for smoother reading, variation of wording, MOS issues and such.
 * changed

(will continue)
 * "They took it upon themselves to formulate a hypothesis" -should be "They formulated a hypothesis ..." - the wording as is sounds POV; in academics and in research, anyone is allowed to formulate a hypothesis based on whatever ideas they want. It's not considered that some academic researcher "took it upon themselves to formulate a hypothesis".
 * changed
 * I feel this article must watch out for POV; it is a very positive view of the article's subject.
 * "claimed" see words to avoid. ("claimed" is one of them)
 * changed several instances (some claims are actually best described as claims, but I have removed some that could be more neutrally described in other words)
 * "when it was almost obligatory to disparage him" - is there a more neutral way to phrase this?
 * I've given it a try
 * "Black ridiculed what he called" - did Black use the word "ridiculed", or who used it? Need citation.
 * moved the citation to fit the quote - "ridicule" is my characterization which I don't think is controversial given that he talks about "amateurish crudity".
 * "linguists slowly began reading Whorf sympathetically again," - it's really not the job of linguists or any other academic/researcher to analyze data "sympathetically" - this tone sounds off base to me. That's not now academics works.
 * rephrased
 * "Whorf however did not intend to make any statements about direct causality between language and behavior" - wikipedia doesn't know what Whorf "intended" - the encyclopedia only knows what the reliable sources say - and i don't someone's intentions are general knowable to another. We draw conclusions from behavior.
 * rephrased
 * There's a combination of British and American English. Should be one or the other consistently.


 * Degree of influence of language on thought
 * I urge you to review your writing for neutrality. Our job as an encyclopedia is to present information without bias. Wikipedia doesn't malign or defend anyone.
 * rephrased some passages for more neutral presentation

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These are my edits which of course you are free to change:
 * The article is extremely interesting. You have done a good job. I don't think Whorf needs defending. He was operating in an academic environment where ideas/views come and go.
 * I will wait for your response and meanwhile put the article on hold.
 * Good points. I will work on this over the weekend. Some responses when I say "Black ridiculed hat he called ..." it seems obvious to me that Black didn't use the word ridicule but that he used the word that comes after called and that I am describing the tenor of his usage as ridiculing Whorf (Lee and Leavitt also sees Black's tenor in that way). About Whorf's intentions my statement is based on the work of Lee 1996 who has done a thorough job of reading whorf's works to try to find his actual intentions, I will include that it is her interpretation of his intention. Your comment about defending is well taken and i can certainly do something about that but I think it is necessary to evaluate the criticisms in light of newer and more in-depth scholarship. I also don't think that it is off the mark to say that some scholars read whorf more sympathetically than others - this is certainly the case and I can provide sources that says so. I think that the work of aany scholar is best understood through a sympathetic rather than a dismissive reading - and this is exactly the different between those scholrs who dismiss out of hand that Whorf's work could have any value and those who read it trying to uunderstand why Whorf said what he did. I do appreciate the point about neutrality and I do see several ways in which I can ork on that. Thanks for a thorough initial review.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and not being a Native English writer I am not good at discriminating between British and American conventions, if you could copyedit that I'd be happy. It should be American spelling obviously.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, great! (I'm glad that you took my comments in the spirit in which I intended. I think it is a fine article, really fascinating.) MathewTownsend (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * more review
 * The section "Early interest in religion and language" could be more concise:
 * I've condensed it some and brought the descrption of theosophy up to the first mention The point of the section is to summarise the scholarship about Whorf's relationship with religion, since he has sometimes been described as a Christian fundamentalist and at others as a theosophical mystic. The section is meant to show both claims and then weigh them according to their prominence in recent literature.
 * The article says "he was influenced by the mystic writings of Madam Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical movement"
 * [some intervening sentences, including that his children attended theosophical summer camps, his father's beliefs etc.], then:
 * "In his adult years Whorf's spiritual leanings seem to have be drawn to the teachings of the Theosophical Society, a nonsectarian organization which, based on Buddhist and Hindu teachings, promotes the view of the world as an interconnected whole and the unity and brotherhood of humankind "without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color"
 * I suggest that the description of the Theosophical movement/teachings be given when it is first mentioned in the section, so the subsequent mentions would have already been given context.
 * "Some sources have described him as a devout Methodist Episcopalian, impressed with fundamentalist ideas at an early age. The main reason for this belief seems to have been that as a young man he produced a manuscript titled "Why I have discarded Evolution", which has sometimes been taken by creationists to indicate that his later work critiquing science might be considered supportive of creationism."
 * So the same "evidence" that he was "a devout Methodist Episcopalian, impressed with fundamentalist ideas at an early age" (his manuscript as a young man) was also "sometimes been taken by creationists to indicate that his later work critiquing science might be considered supportive of creationism."?
 * Yes, different scholars have interpreted in different ways per NPOV I don't make a clear statement of which is correct but not the ways they each use the available evidence. Standard practice.
 * "Some sources" needs to be clarified and sourced, as do other vague wording e.g. "seems to have been", "sometimes been taken by creationists", "suggest", "may have" etc. See MOS:Words to avoid
 * I have introduced the names of the authors into the text with attribution and removed some of the hedges. The use of hedges such as "may have" and "suggest" is often necessary for weighing contradictory interpretations without privileging one over the other. Sometimes removing them would bring the text out of line with the sources.
 * "Some of Whorf's unpublished manuscripts on spiritual matters also suggest that he was influenced by Blavatsky's ideas about cosmic evolution, which regards reincarnation as the source of evolution of human races towards continuously higher forms"
 * This is more on Blavatsky's/theosophical beliefs.
 * I've tried to consolidate this.
 * Suggest something like: "Whorf's unpublished manuscripts on spiritual matters reflect Blavatsky's ideas about cosmic evolution and reincarnation as the source of evolution of human races. [needs citation] towards continuously higher forms. - redundant as that's what evolution is.
 * That is emphatically not what evolution is, although it is perhaps a common misunderrtanding. Blavatsky's idea of cosmic evolution was a teleological kind of evolution with some racist implications that is not at all what evolution is considered to be today, and therefor it is necessary to include the description. The source is given below - it is standard practice not to introduce the same source multiple times when sourcing several consecutive statements.
 * "Theosophy as a philosophy does not recognize any dichotomy between science and mysticism, and promotes of the world based on relativism and holism – something that may have appealed particularly to Whorf. (this appears to be personal opinion. Is there a source that says this?)
 * Yes, the source given. I have removed the statement as unnecessary
 * Are all the statements in the last part of this paragraph cited by the last source at the end of the paragraph? If so, it needs to be stated who drew these conclusions, rather that being worded in the "wikipedian voice".
 * I disagree, it is not necessary to give in text attribution unless something is contentious, here it should be completely fine to have the citation at the end of the sentence. Overdoing in-text attribution makes for poor and clunky prose.
 * "and an almost cabbalistic approach to the study of meaning and writing" - who said this and what does it mean? (The link does not clarify.)
 * I've described what Joseph means when he says cabbalistic·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(will continue)

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you may be getting a little over-zealous here, Mathew. I would like to remind you that this is a GA review and not an FA review, prose quality is not a requirement. I think some of your comments are much too detailed for the GAC. Some of your suggestions are also not in line with standard practice for sourcing which does not require a separate citation for each sentence. Also when a source is presented after a statement in the "wikpedia voice" then it should go without requiring explicit attribution that the source is the source of the statement. That is simply how sourcing works - both in other articles and in professional publishing. Please try to stick to the GA criteria in your evaluation. I am not adverse to improving beyond the GA criteria but it was a conscious decision that I didn't nominate for FAC. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * reply
 * "Whorf also didn't bring up his children" > did not
 * "an almost cabbalistic approach" - is the "almost cabbalistic" in the source? Maybe a quote from the source would be good here.
 * None of this section "Early interest in religion and language" seems to be summarized in the lede.
 * Sorry. I apologize for any overzealousness. Truly. I'm just trying to understand the article. For example, "sometimes been taken by creationists to indicate that his later work critiquing science might be considered supportive of creationism." is cited to one article by Jerry Bergman, and as far as I can tell, is his opinion and doesn't make statements about what other creationists think. (I don't know the details of what creationists think, but are they so scholarly that groups of them use one early paper by someone who later became a linguist to support their views?) Does the whole bit about creationism even need to be in the article, as it doesn't seem to be relevant to anything before or after? (After all, he was influenced by Einstein, "became more influenced by positivist science" etc.) Perhaps a mention as a titbit in a footnote?
 * Apologize for my mistake about evolution - stupid of me - you are emphatically right.
 * If you are uncomfortable with me I can withdraw. Or we can get a second opinions. I certainly don't mean to make this an unpleasant experience for you. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not uncomfortable with you, I just feel you are going a little deeper into the prose than I would expect for a GA review. As I say I am happy with the feedback, but it is comfortable in a review situation to know what are suggestions for improvements that can be discussed and what is considered a requirement for passing the bar. I think some of your very helpful comments are above where the bar should be. The question of religion is relevant because as you can see two different relgion have claimed him as one of theirs. Perhaps you are right that Bergman shouldn't be called "creationists" - but other scholars (such as Lakoff 1987) have also expressed a belief that Whorf was a fundamentalist Christian. The claim that he was a Christian at least been so prominent that both Lee and Hutton and Joseph find it reasonable to refute, stressing rather his theosophical inclinations. Since the literature considers the question of Christian vs. Theosophical influences to be relevant so do I. I'll remove the "cabbalistic" description.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wonderful that you're ok with me! As far as the religion thing, why does it matter so much what religion he was, other than interesting information about him and his thinking? I don't see how religion can be used to discredit someone's academic/scientific contributions. Skimming the article just now, the breadth and sophistication of his interests and his "influences" indicates he was a person greatly interested in ideas, not a person that was predominently interest in religion per se. (Or am I wrong?) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason it matters is that it has mattered to the persons writing about Whorf, who have used it not necessarily to discredit his thinking but to understand it. Lakoff for example argues that it was Whorf's "fundamentalist Christian background" that made him interested in science. His statement has been repeated by some scholars and shown to be unfounded by others. Therefore it makes sense to report it. Also it is relevant because it was his interest in religion that started his interest in language. I agree that it doesn't seem that he was deeply religious, but more of a seeker of new ideas. But I don't know of any sources that write that explicitly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * reply after a long time
 * This article is too long and repetitious to me and too filled with jargon. I can understand it, but only with great effort. The prose doesn't "come to life". I got all the way through "Resurgence of Whorfianism" and then my heart sank when I saw the huge "Work" section, since the "Biography" section seemed to cover influences on his thinking. Do you think some of this article could be spun off into daughter sections, per WP:MOS? "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." How about a sleeked down version, clear and to the point, so that a reader without a PHD in linguistic anthropology could understand? I have a PHD in a related field and a scientific background, so I thought I could handle it as the subject is interesting, but I'm saying "uncle"! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry to hear that. I don't know exactly what parts are difficult for you to understand, but I think that specialized work is always difficult to understand for people outside of the field, also when its written relatively clearly - I certainly don't understand everything in FA level articles about physics, math or chemistry for example. So I think some of it may be due simply to you having a different background. But I also recognize that the aims should be for the article to be useful to a general readership, and apparently I have failed on that account. I don't think it makes sense to spin out parts of the biography section, and the sections in the "work" section I already think I have written in summary style. I am not up for drastically condensing or simplifying the article at this point, that would feel like cutting limbs off my child, so probably you should just fail it if you do find the prose to be "ambiguous, jargony, vague or unneccesarily complex". But perhaps first, you could try to look at some other GA or FA article's in linguistics and see if you understand those better, or whether they also seem complex - I think that is the standard the article should be measured by. Personally, I honestly don't think the prose is overly complex, jargony or ambiguous and I believe that other GA and FA articles in linguistics are of a comparable level of difficulty. However, I will not be offended if you fail it for prose concerns - that is your decision as reviewer. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * another reply after a long time
 * I really don't get how Einstein's theory of relativity applies to linguistics, other than the idea that language is relative, but many things are relative and don't depend on Einstein's theory. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The connection is Einsteins's idea that the observed reality is relative to the point of view of the observer. Whorf argued that language is part of the lens through which any observer observes reality. I'll be happy to clarify the relation to Einstein, even though it is a relatively [!] small part of the literature.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Einstein said time was relative, depending on one's location in the universe, rather than a constant as we on earth think. But the observation that things are relative, depending on one's point of view was not a new idea. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not going to agrue with you Mathew. I am just summarizing what the sources say. Are you going to fail the article or not? What is happening with the review?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * rely
 * I'm wading through it, but I can fail it if this is getting on your nerves. That way another reviewer can pick it up. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just like to know what is review and what is you expressing your personal tastes about prose or opinions about the content. That way I know what I have to work with. If you think, as you expressed above, that the article is too badly written and goes into too much detail then failing it is the option.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * rely
 * I'm reading it as a general reader. My father is a plasma physicist and when I was a kid he explained the theory of relativity to me. So I think I grasp the concept. I personally think that if the article concentrated on explaining concisely Whorf's specific concepts of language, rather than trying to connect it to Einstein, it would be clearer. Hopi language use of tense is easy to understand. It's just that it's embedded in too much detail, from my point of view.


 * example in "Hopi Time" is these two statements:
 * "Malotki argues that the Hopi language has a tense system consisting of future and non-future, and that the only difference between the three tense systems of European languages and Hopi, is that the latter combines past and present to form a single category."
 * "Whorf described the Hopi categories of tense, but noted that they did not divide time into past, present and future as speakers of most European languages tend to do, but rather have one tense that refers to both present and past, and another to refer to events that have not yet happened at the time of speaking but which may or may not happen in the future."

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's personal taste. I don't know. It's true I like clear, concise language. This article isn't written in a clear and concise style as stated in the GA criteria.


 * 1. what counts as "clear concise style" is obviously itself a question of taste . Whether or not you understand general relativity is besides the point, the reason I mention Einstein is that Whorf himself and his later interpreters have described his theory as being inspired by Einstein and the principle of relativity. I am not "trying to connect it to Einstein" - Einstein was a source of inspiration for whorf whether or not you agree with Whorf's interpretation of the relavance of general relativity. (He was also inspired the observer principle in quantum physics - but that would very likely be excessive detail). In the quote you mention I summarize a 600 page book, in one sentence. I don't see how that could be less detailed or more concise - or what would be gained by simplifying it. The Hopi time issue is one of the main controversies regarding Whorf's work and there are lietarlly a thousand pages published about the issue. It is very highly likely that a reader comes to this article to know what Whorf wrote about Hopi time and whether it is "right" or "wrong" - the very least I can do is give a fair summary of both the details of the critique and of the scholars who have defended Whorf's interpretation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * The article is too long and contains too much detail to make for clear reading. It contains a long biography and then a long section on the subject's work. I believe the article should be split in two. It also needs a good copy edit.
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Those instances of POV I found were remedied. It needs a thorough check for POV issues.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I've made many suggestions regarding POV which were accepted, but the article needs a thorough check.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fail
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fail
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fail

Comment before the bot closes this: I'm in the process of reading through and in my view the subject's work is what makes him notable, so I'd be careful about splitting out, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * reply
 * Sounds like you're saying the whole biography should be pared as non notable, and the article should concentrate on his work. It's true that much in the biography is about his work, so maybe you're right. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that both are necessary. As it happens I'm vaguely familiar with the work that's been done in the 20th century with Native American linguistics, which is actually a phenomonal amount of work as some languages have been on the brink of extinction. I've never heard of Whorf until I read this page, but obviously he's a pioneer in a very important field, so both aspects are necessary in my view. I just wanted to say that his work is what makes him notable, that's all. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My undergraduate degree had a minor in anthropology and I'm very familiar with Edward Sapir and others mentioned in the article. Being "vaguely familiar" is not the same as familiar. I'm quite aware of the fact that "Native American linguistics, which is actually a phenomonal amount of work as some languages have been on the brink of extinction". I think part of the problem with this article is the attitude that no one is knowledgable enough to review this article. And my many complaints about POV, wording, and the need for copy editing are the result of my ignorance or my failure to appreciate the subject matter. Looking at the copy edits you did today indicates you were seeing the same problems I did. Please don't presume and lecture. The nominator said: "I think you may be getting a little over-zealous here, Mathew. I would like to remind you that this is a GA review and not an FA review, prose quality is not a requirement." That is not true, and I failed the article primarily on the failure of the prose to be clear and concise. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)To be honest, I haven't read all of the review. I just happened to log in, had this on my list of things I've wanted to do, had an edit conflict with you and then saw all of this. I'm sorry if I came across as lecturing; I don't disagree that the prose needs tightening, but I wouldn't want to trim out his achievements. When I wrote that, I was thinking of Brothers Grimm which seems to have as much in it about their achievements as the bio, but I wrote it intentionally to be that way. Anyway, maybe some restructuring is in order for Whorf; I'm not sure as I was hitting various sections of the page so haven't yet read all of it. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you were incompetent so please accept my apologies. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a veiled accusation in your statement about "the attitude that no one is knowledgeable enough to review this article" - since the only person who could have had this attitude would be me. I think that a GA review shouldn't depend on knowledge of the topic but on knowledge about the standards for GA articles, I accept fully that you don't find the article to meet those criteria. However, I also do think though that you have turned the review into a question of your personal taste in how the article should have been written, that is setting an arbitrary standard that I have no possibility of meeting. I also think that you have suggested revisions that to my best judgement are not in line with the sources on which the article was written - in effect challenging my knowledge of how best to represent the sources (that would have been legitimate if you were familiar with the sources, in which case we could have had an argument). That is if you had simply reviewed for the GA criteria to begin with and simply said "I don't like the prose I'm gonna fail it" then the question of your appreciation of the topic would not have arisen. I admit that I had not considered the first criteria about clear and concise prose when I wrote that you were getting overzealous - that is because I have never before been told my articles have problems in that department. And in any case the requirement is clearly meant to be lower than the FA requirement - which I think your standard approaches. I also don't think it is accurate that you have pointed out prose problems that Truthkeeper88 is now fixing - I have addressed all of the specific problems that you have mentioned. The many vague and general complaints I obviously have not been able to address, not being a mind reader.  ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * reply
 * Please don't personally attack me. You say there was a "the attitude that no one is knowledgeable enough to review this article". Truthkeeper88 above, based on a "vague familiarity" with the subject, suggested that I didn't understand the importance of the subject matter: "As it happens I'm vaguely familiar with the work that's been done in the 20th century with Native American linguistics, which is actually a phenomonal amount of work as some languages have been on the brink of extinction. ... I just wanted to say that his work is what makes him notable, that's all." The implication is that I'm a dunce, while you accuse me of failing the article on personal taste.
 * I often make suggestions when reviewing articles, as is preferable in conducting a GA review. In going through the whole biography section, almost all my suggestions were accepted (the clearly POV issues, etc., the characterizations of how academics treated Whorf, etc.) I also made 30 copy edits, and was the second highest contributor to the article until yesterday. You didn't seem to object to those. I just wasn't willing to go through an equally long "Works" section and do the same thing. I was copy editing you article and that's not the reviewer's job. Since his work is discussed in the biography section, the "Work" section needs also to be checked for repetition.
 * You basically requested me to close the article one way or the other (pass or fail). With massive cope editing issues remaining that obscured the meaning of the article, I could not pass it, so chose to fail per your statements. Since you wrote the article, you seem to have taken my review comments personally, and at times suggested that I was unable to understand the most basic concepts. I am a reviewer; this is wikipedia. To take my comments personally, rather than focusing on how the article could be improved is not the wikipedia way. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not take your comments personally - you have clearly been taking mine that way. I have béen focusing exactly on how the article could be improved, I just don't agree with all of your suggested improvements. You were the one who decided to copyedit because of your stylistic preferences, nobody made you do that. But if a reviewer finds problems with the article then it is his job to state them in a way clear enough that they can be addressed - which you did. But then couldn't be bothered for the second half. I am completely fine with you failing the article and yes I asked you to do it. But I do maintain that you are failing it based in personal taste and not based on objective criteria, or even by comparison with other GAs about similar topics. Now lets let this article rest in peace. I am going to start drastically shortening it later today. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I do disagree fundamentally with your opinion, but you being the reviewer I respect and accept your judgment. The argument that it is too long and detailed is a non-argument in my book. There are many Good Article much longer than this in wikipedia - which is in any case not a paper encyclopedia. The article obviously has to include both his biography and a description of his work - splitting either would be nonsensical. I also think the suggestion of remaining POV problems is unfair without providing examples from the article or from the literature.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * reply
 * I'd modify that to say it's too long, detailed and unnecessarily wordy to be easily read, and in need of more copy editing. I see that Truthkeeper88 is today doing a bunch of copy editing and seems to be addressing the very issues that I finally gave up pointing out to you. I just didn't have the energy to copy edit the whole article myself and remedy all those things that Truthkeeper88 is today addressing.  As it is, I did quite a bit. But I'm relieved someone else is taking it over.  Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)