"

Fair enough, mistakes happen. no problem ☺.
I am attempting to move this discussion to the talk page for the article in question, however, I will respond to the specific issues you seem to be having here.
You seem to be mincing terms (“view such fonts as Unicode” — reality is actually closer to the reverse of this statement), and (understandably) confusing very different subjects (characters, glyphs, fonts). I will try my best to address/explain what I assume to be the underlying issues (rather than just the symptoms).

The change I made to the article was nothing to do with fonts (that was only apparent to you specifically, the character exsited, and was likely downloaded sucessfully, but the font in use didn’t have a glyph to display it — the solution is simple: use a better font if you wish to see the glyph for the character). All I did was use the correct character (further discussion on the article talk page once I finish typing it).

Unicode is the standard character encoding these days, all others are now considered legacy. US-ASCII and ISO 8859-1 can both be treated/processed as UTF-8 (a character encoding for Unicode). Notable operating systems, and major applications in their entirity now use Unicode as their character encoding of choice, adding/allowing backwards-compatibility where needed (at least in good quality products/packages). This includes the majority of Microsoft products.
U+XXXX numbers are Unicode code points, an easy way to referrence specific characters without ambiguity, and need not concern the average person browsing the web.
Wikipedia pages are sent to you as UTF-8 (Unicode), so you’re ‘viewing them as Unicode’ anyway.
Fonts for US-ASCII/ISO 8859-1 are inter-changable in modern operating systems. The software with which you’re viewing this page is very likely written using Unicode character encoding (operating system & web browser).

Part of the reason for using the actual character natively in headings (on talk pages at least) was so that others could easily determine if their default system/browser configuration supported a more suitable range of characters, in order to be able to provide feedback about said character. It’s not like a missing glyph is causing an application failure (in which case I could understand your concerns).

Your claim that “My point is … about everybody else who can’t see the font correctly.” is seemingly baseless. Where is your evidence that anyone beyond yourself is having trouble seeing the glyph for this character? What about the people for whom the use of correct characters will help (those using speech-synthisis software)? If you can provide citation/evidence for this rather wild claim, I’d like to read it, otherwise I can’t help but feel you’re merely expressing your own wishes/preferrences/desires, dispite the other issues. What, beyond the issues you’ve encountered personally, are the reasons behind your disagreement with my changes? It seems that perhaps these articles are a little too close to your heart based on the nature and speed of your response(es) to the change.

“Article names here should be as simple as possible.” [emphasis; mine.]
No, article names should be as clear as possible, or as simple to comprehend/understand as possible, or provide for simplest readability. I suggest it may be worthwhile to read about the subject of usability (which is the dicipline concerned with making things easy to use).
Taking your argument further; should punctuation be removed too, as that would make titles much simpler, although less clear. Removing punctuation would mitigate the need to use percent-encoding in URLs, making MediaWiki itself simpler (although less flexible). I realise my example is counter-intuitive, but it was to emphasise the point that clarity, above all else is actually what’s important, not simplicity. A parallel example is user-interfaces; the most usable are not those which are simplest, but those which display the right information at the right time (clarity).

I’m familiar with how screen-readers function/operate. Not all ‘ride’ on top of the user’s browser. Blind people are not the only users of speech-synthisis software. 
Besides, you’re confusing the visual rendering of a charater (a glyph) with the character itself, and other representatinos/renderings of it (such as audio/speech). Modern screen-readers access the source-code of the page (the browser itself is just a vehicle to get to the desired page and/or aquire the source-code itself, along with the character encoding). So they’re given