TO KMH AND MARK  I am not slipping  I have taken responsibility for my actions said I should not have created the bio of duncharris  I shouldnt have done this  Two wrongs do not make a right  I also realize that mark is right I should use the term nonBSF    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 doesnt 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 Marks assuming that Wikipedia doesnt 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 creationevolution forums I have seen  No there isnt 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 nonBSF camp No it wasnt     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