`  I appreciate your viewpoint, Keithbob. While I agree that a rewrite to be more concise is a reasonable future goal, I certainly disagree that the revised sections I've prepared ``perpetuate`` any problems; they simply don't address (and weren't designed to address) the concerns you raise. They are merely intended to correct inaccuracies, update figures, make language clearer, and verify information. I strongly object to the notion that the ``writing style is deeply flawed``—I am always careful to write in an encyclopedic tone, with NPOV in mind. Perhaps these new versions are not perfect, but I do submit that they are an improvement. Even if this more detailed material should eventually be forked, I think what I am writing now could be the basis of that fork. So I'll hope you reconsider, however I will also ask others for their views. Best,   · ) `