TO: KMH03 AND MARK

I am not slipping.  I have taken responsibility for my actions said I should not have created the bio of duncharris.  I shouldn't have done this.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

I also realize that mark is right I should use the term non-BSF.  

Thirdly, I am very aware via the creationism article that it is the minority view people who are not respected.  Are they given a chance to present info or is the article overrun by the consensus contrary to the minority view article policy?  I think we know the answer to this question.  But Wikipedia doesn't really care about respecting minority view articles in many cases.  Now I realize that some want to take a cookie cutter approach and let the consensus view dominate, overrun and even trample minority view articles.  This is not Wikipedia policy though.  

Now you can say I am unreasonable but it is simply not true.  

Now I saw Mark's "assuming that Wikipedia doesn't work" comment.  I do think it is fair to ask if the creationism article is working.  Is it working?  Is there much civility like some (not many) internet creation-evolution forums I have seen?  No there isn't civility. It is a failure.  I believe Wikipedia fails in issues like creationism.   I think it is a failure due to mismanagement or due to premeditation.   But I believe it is a failure.  I know it is not blasphemy to say Wikipedia fails in issues like this.  Minority view people are often not respected at Wikipedia even in minority view articles.  

Now why was the Conservative Christianity repeatedly changed to Christian right?  Is it because of magnaninimous generosity of a person in the non-BSF camp? No it wasn't.   

Perhaps in the future articles like creationism will have the minority view truly aired and done in accordance with the current Wikipedia rules.  But I think this is unrealistic at this time as I see no commitment at this time.