" 
 :::::Took a breather away from the discussio, but realized I'm still bothered.  I thought this development was worthy of inclusion, since the point of Wikipedia IS to be encyclopedic on a topic.  You have failed to convince me otherwise.  I found sources; you all nitpicked them away. 
 :::::There has been a disturbing trend in which Wikipedian source-Nazis would rather hack away at an article until the remainder is grossly anemic, useless, nonsensical, insubstantial, illegible, perhaps even obviously biased, as long as each word that survives is separately sourced up to their standards.  I'm tired of reading articles filled with incomplete sentences, misinformation, and simply horrifying writing, only to click on ""history"" and discover that a PRIOR version was 100 times better and contained specific (completely accurate and adequately-sourced) information FOR WHICH I WAS ACTUALLY SEARCHING, all of it subsequently ransacked by nitpickers. 
 :::::This FSM/Minnesota Recount discussion is a pretty minor, completely inconsequential example of this phenomenon.  But if I were to write a paragraph on the subject, using all available sources, you have already stated that you would toss my work in the trash.  Even though I find you logic (INCLUDING YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WIKI GUIDELINES) specious.  So make no mistake, this is the same disturbing phenomenon.  "