> you did some blatantly unfair editing there You don't get it. You are treating the original article like a Bible. In my opinion, the original article is the

> you did some blatantly unfair editing there You don't get it. You are treating the original article like a Bible. In my opinion, the original article is the one which did the blatantly unfair editing; it bended over backwards to make the man look good by sandwiching the sexism carefully between the praises. What I did could be constituted as wrong only if I was quoting Feynman and then cut off the last part, for example.