Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity

[M.Sjostrom]

Will Johnson uttered: "...Articles are routinely
removed if found to be about people of no real
wide-spread interest....", notability requires.... "a
person interest to the mass market."


It is relatively clear that David Howe's notability,
and inclusion in Wikipedia, is based on notoriety.
Notoriety is a good reason of publishing some sort of
biography. If he really is of some interest to "mass
market".

He and his friends editing other, related articles,
may however get them at least for some time, to be
somewhat biased, and/or twisted. Along the lines of
his published (and for several parts, unwarranted)
arguments in support of his claim.
It would be a pity if plenty of people receive their
introduction to the historical concept of "King of
Man" as a flawed or twisted representation of facts
and history by courtesy of the Howe claim.

Hopefully no one gets to put that "princess Jane" to
any related article anywhere. Since I have my doubts
whether the entire honorific "princess" was in use in
Middle Ages, in Britain and in plenty of other places.
I think the royal family of England itself did not
have children called princes and princesses at that
time.



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ