`:::The changes were already reverted. They are being discussed now. Only no one has yet come up with any actual problems with any of the edits I made (other than the meta-objection that Wikipedia's hardware did a poor job of representing the changes). So I can't do anything to improve them or to come up with new solutions to issues. Until an editor other than me decides that he's actually interested in working on the article, rather than all this politicking. I'm 100% open to discussing the edits; I layed out a few of my first edits above, presented a side-by-side comparison of the changes, explained my reasoning, etc. I fully accept that many of my changes were sub-standard (though I consider them improvements over some of the terrible problems in the original version, such as stub-sections and opaque, meaningless wording), and that I may have been in error with some of my changes. But if none of you have any interest in discussing or analyzing any of the proposed changes, then the article's reached a dead end. :::Additionally, if mass edits to controversial articles were invariably ``disruptive``, then both me and Brian would have been banned from Wikipedia long ago. Methinks you're overreacting a tiny bit. My edits were only to a few sections, and are really not that complicated. Feel free to take the time to go over them and to comment on what changes you agree and disagree with. -   `