Since this seems to have blown up spectacularly in my face I might as well explain my edit I came across this BLP which hadn t been edited since last year and noticed that the paragraph about her signing that creationism petition seemed a disjointed and tangential her signing the petition is unquestionably notable but it seemed jarring to go straight from discussion of her research to In February 2006 the New York Times reported The petition a two sentence statement without stating why she signed the petition or anything We have an essay about these sorts of articles and the problems with them WP COATRACK I checked out her personal webpage noticed she was quite open about her religion googled Rosalind Picard christian and found an Atlantic Monthly article that discussed at length why she was a creationist So I added a sentence about that making the article flow more smoothly into the signing of the petition I also removed the second sentence explaining the petition as I thought it was straying too off topic I discussed this with Raul and can now see the merits of leaving that last sentence in I think the article as it now stands is acceptable What s greatly troubling to me is that instead of discussing this and working out a compromise certain folks refused my invitation to discuss it and instantly jumped on me and started canvassing for a revert war when a few minutes of discussion would have cheerfully resolved the situation instead I m personally as agnostic and anti creationist as it gets the only god I m working in the name of here is WP BLP This really isn t the way Wikipedia should work assuming everyone is a POV pusher by default is not how we do things around here