` ::::::I'm glad you've made your position clear. I can't agree that there is ``only one possible improvement`` and I suspect if you think for a moment you'll recognise that was not the best argument you could have made at this point! However I'm getting fed up of talk page ping-pong so I've gone back to the article itself.  ::::::I've just made a number of additions based on your ``ideal version``. I hope you'll be convinced that the article with them is better than without them? My criteria for re-inclusion were (a) were they reasonably well sourced and (b)did they add something back to the article without simply bloating it. I think my main argument with the ``ideal version`` is that it was simply too big and over-inclusive. We had something similar with the Wicca article about 3-4 years ago when the additions to the article simply made it top heavy. The answer was to cut the main article radically to make it a broad, top-level introduction and leave the detail to sub-articles. I think that family of articles is much better as a result and we could apply the same logic here.  ::::::I'm going to apply a rule to myself from now on not to post here on the talk page unless I've either made an improvement to the article, or am suggesting one for discussion. If we all did something similar I'm sure we could work together to get this article improving. PS: I'm not trumpeting my recent re-additions as perfect! I've rather hastily cut-and-pasted from the earlier version so any sub-editing for style and content would be welcome!   `