controversial articles and neutrality problems

Reading the responses to my idea, I understand the reticence to the two-thread solution. I just want to clarify a couple of things about the proposal:

• The pro and con versions cannot, in my proposal, drift further and further apart. Because the rules of engagement are that every documented fact in one article must be included in the other. You can bury it in a footnote, you can print it in small type at the end of the article, but it has to be there. I trust the opposing editors to insist on this.

• I find our labeling of editors "POV warriors" incorrect and offensive. It is true that there are editors whose sole objective is to slant articles. But the majority of editors I have encountered in article battlegrounds are not fighting for their private points of view. They are fighting for their own understanding of neutrality. It is important for us, as senior editors, to understand and appreciate that. Denigrating editors involved in article wars is only exacerbating the problem, not helping.

• The parallel article approach is, first and foremost, a tactic, and not an objective. If two opposing editors have each written their own versions of an article, and both versions contain exactly the same information, there is a solid basis for negotiation on a single version. In a lot of edit wars, the rationale for this or that version becomes obscured in a cloud of enmity, where sometimes there are simple and imaginative ways to resolve problems. By having opposing versions that are completely agreeable to the sides (each version to its own side), there is a good starting place to negotiate an agreed version. I don't think this will always be possible, but in some cases it may well be a springboard for agreement.