I was talking about consensus on this talkpage, not academic consensus. I think the text is just as clear without using one name or another, but I will not revert  without some further views here. 

 This article has much more important issues than the (excusez le mot) tinkering that is being done consistently by various editors. It would be helpful if we could make a list of the actual content issues in this article so these can be resolved through consensus.  |