"

 * * 

Another worthy editor, with whom I disagree about his recent editing of what I first wrote six months ago actually gives the best evidence that clarification of the word uphold is appropriate (if not in fact needed) in this article.

As you can read above, he states on this discussion page[] that no clarification of the word “uphold” is needed because it is such a simple word (he says “If people are smart enough to access Wikipedia, they should be smart enough to understand the meaning of an incredibly common word. I'm willing to concede all of your other points, but I will continue to revert your changes if you insist on adding the word approved  twice, no less  to clarify the elementary word ""uphold"" [emphasis added]). 

Yet, even this intelligent and well-expressed editor was confused as to the meaning. When he first edited (by removing “(approved)” as a clarification of the word “upheld”), he did so NOT because it was a commonly understood word that was incapable of being misunderstood, as he now says it is. No, his reason was the complete opposite. He changed it because, at that time, he misunderstood the meaning of the word. In his own explanation of the edit (on the revision history page [] for this article)[] he wrote his reason for removing the word “approved,” stating on December 23 the following “21:20, 23 December 2009  (upholding is different from approving [emphasis added]).”[]

He changed it because he thought the words had different meanings. He understands now, but has [briefly, no doubt, as can we all] forgotten that people, as did he, can misunderstand these terms. He is also correct that I did put that clarification twice. I did so because it seemed appropriate when I sought to present the information in a suitably short, yet accurate, fashion. However, it is rather obvious that even twice isn’t enough clarification for every time that every reader reads something. This is true for us all, even editors who take of their own time in an effort to improve Wikipedia articles.

The other editor says “If people are smart enough to access Wikipedia, they should be smart enough to understand the meaning of an incredibly common word.” I disagree. Respectfully, even intelligent editors can, and this instance, did misunderstand what they thought was an incredibly common and elementary word such as “upheld.” Please understand that this is not a personal attack in any way, and that everyone’s opinion and thoughtful efforts at editing are valuable. It’s just that the circumstances are that the very person who now says that the clarification is so completely inappropriate here that he will continue to remove such clarification every time in the future that it is restored, is the same person who originally took out the explanation - not because it wasn’t needed, but rather, because he didn’t himself understand what the term meant. We are all human. We are all learning.

The other editor is hardly alone in being human. The reason that I could quickly find so many examples of clarification of the same term, coincidently done in the same manner, is that the term (upheld) is worth using (it has a precise meaning, especially to those in the legal field), but it i