Im glad youve made your position clear I cant agree that there is only one possible improvement and I suspect if you think for a moment youll recognise that was not the best argument you could have made at this point However Im getting fed up of talk page pingpong so Ive gone back to the article itself  Ive just made a number of additions based on your ideal version I hope youll be convinced that the article with them is better than without them My criteria for reinclusion were a were they reasonably well sourced and bdid they add something back to the article without simply bloating it I think my main argument with the ideal version is that it was simply too big and overinclusive We had something similar with the Wicca article about  years ago when the additions to the article simply made it top heavy The answer was to cut the main article radically to make it a broad toplevel introduction and leave the detail to subarticles I think that family of articles is much better as a result and we could apply the same logic here  Im going to apply a rule to myself from now on not to post here on the talk page unless Ive either made an improvement to the article or am suggesting one for discussion If we all did something similar Im sure we could work together to get this article improving PS Im not trumpeting my recent readditions as perfect Ive rather hastily cutandpasted from the earlier version so any subediting for style and content would be welcome