Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 15

End of Mediation?

1. We've never vetoed any mention of San Roque, far from it. You do not help your case by making a falsehood.
2. It is patronising in the extreme and utterly wrong to try and "explain" our objections. I've explained myself repeatedly, this just demonstrates more than anything else, that the above editor does not approach the discussions in good faith.
3. Whatever other authors feel the need to express in an extensive tome on Gibraltar does not dictate that we mention it here. This is a summary for an encyclopedia not an academic reference work.
4. I don't accept your proposal, if you wish to try and derail mediation that is your prerogative. We already had a proposal on the table that we were already discussing. If you wish to walk away from mediation that doesn't mean the rest of us can't work together to try and sort this out. Justin talk 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justin, nobody is really in a position to veto anything, but the obsessive inclusion of San Roque has a Scottish verdict of 'case not proven' Might I suggest that our mediator calls for a straw poll to see if Ecememl is the only editor who can't accept the last compromise version drafted or we have achieved nothing in these long and tedious discussions. --Gibnews (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, we are not simply quoting "other authors". A majority of reputable historians who have published work concerning Gibraltar's history has been cited, as opposed to your opinion and Gibnews'. By which standard are we "obsessed" when it's you who object to publish in a Wikipedia article what almost every verifiable source "feels the need to express"?

I sympathize, however, with your disapproval of "patronising in the extreme" comments, just as I really dislike your inclination to judge on your interlocutors' alleged good or bad faith, or your attributing the "wish to try and derail mediation" to Ecemaml. May I remind you your acceptance of this proposal prior the one you (that is, Gibnews and yourself) are currently discussing? It has been ditched out without even a tentative explanation to the other editors who were debating it as well. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The version you quote is the same as the one I have been proposing excepting that the latter includes that the inhabitants went to Spain which someone else added to the previous version. If you feel leaving that out is better, then I am quite happy to do so. Apart from some minor tidying up of language, sources and capitalisation, its the same. So are we in agreement?? --Gibnews (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• a) Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines raped and pillaged the town, desecrating most churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. After order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed on 7 August 1704.

• b) The Terms of Surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By August 7 1704 order was restored, but almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed for nearby areas of Spain.

--Gibnews (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Excepting the exclusion of the term "most" in the sentence "desecrating Catholic churches", and except the last sentence "By August 7 1704 order was restored, but almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed" as well, which uses the conjuction "but" inbetween the statements "order was restored" and "(...) the population (...) departed". All this has been discussed earlier. There was some sort of incipient agreement.

And no, I don't think that leaving the fate of Gibraltar's villagers out is better. I think it should be explained, just as the siege, capture, subsequent siege and ulterior Treaty are reported. The references already provided do so as well. Cremallera (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremallera, the phrase "If my proposal is not accepted, I can't see any other option than finishing the mediation", please explain to me how that isn't an ultimatum and about to derail mediation? Also could you please explain how you clarify Ecemaml's comments about Gibnews and myself.

I've also trimmed just a few words to try and get a compact description of where the populace went. Pls can we compare apples with apples, the fact that many authors mention something in a book does not mean we also have to mention it here in an encyclopedic article. Can we address that please instead of repeating the same argument. Justin talk 21:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How's that going, Justin? The phrase you quoted is similar to this one, yet you remained silent then, so I can't understand why should you be annoyed now. As for Ecemaml's comments, I believe that you refer to the penultimate paragraph (the "I understand the stance by Justin and Gibnews"...). Well, I think that's merely his opinion. You can either agree or disagree, but I wouldn't deem it "patronising" nor would I feel insulted. Althought that's simply my perspective, of course.

Regarding apples: indeed, "just because many authors mention something in a book does not mean we also have to". Provided that a good reason exists to just dismiss what all those historians seemingly consider relevant and thus, publish. And I truly mean it. However, please understand that while I appreciate your opinion, all those unanimous reliable sources constitute the framework by which we understand this particular piece of history, and therefore are the main criterion to assign objective relevance values to that information. Cremallera (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because I was just as frustrated with the lack of progress at that point in time. But in case you hadn't noticed both Gibnews and I have made a special effort to try and reach an understanding since. Its also extremely patronising to be told what your opinion is, it happens to be wrong. It was also way out of order, when Gibnews has been out of order, you'll find that I've told him so. Interesting is it not.

But a good reason does exits, its been provided. If we had to included every single opinion mentioned by authors we could never summarise anything. A simple reductio ad absurdum to show what your argument doesn't hold water. The criteria I've suggested is the relevance to the subject matter at hand, which is a summary suitable for an overview on Gibraltar bearing in mind this is an encyclopedia not a definitive academic reference work. Lets just take a quick look at what another encyclopedia might find relevant see [1]. Neatly illustrate exactly what I mean. Ciao. Justin talk 23:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[UNINDENT]

Hi all. Justin, I'll comment on your comments: 1. You'll notice that I've used quotation when talking about "veto". The fact is that you and Gibnews does not accept any mention to San Roque here. That's not a falsehood. Otherwise, we'd not be here in this everlasting discussion.
2. I'm trying to figure out which is the reason not to include any mention to the destiny of most of the Gibraltar inhabitants as I haven't seen any sensible argument yet. Wondering about the rationale of editions does not mean that bad faith is assumed, far from it. I'm glad to see that I was wrong.
3. On the contrary, what reputable secondary sources mention is something that is mandatory as basis of an encyclopaedic article. I remind you that the mentions to San Roque has been dismissed as not relevant to this article. Its mention in whatever secondary source just means that is relevant. You haven't provided yet an argumentation about why it cannot be mentioned provided that this article deals with Gibraltar as a whole. 4. This mediation has been the first effort by the Wikipedia "system" to help us to make this article neutral. I cannot see any reason to make it derail. I just remember that it's you the one that has talked about "finishing the mediation". On the other hand, we did agree on the Atama's proposal some days ago. Some parties (me among them) disagreed on not adding a mention to San Roque to finish the paragraph. So a partial consensus was clear and the San Roque issue may be agreed on in the future, if you wish. I've provided my arguments above and, just as an aside what Cremallera has said ("all those unanimous reliable sources constitute the framework by which we understand this particular piece of history, and therefore are the main criterion to assign relevance values to that information") is a short of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you want to wipe something that sources clearly state you must have very, very good arguments. And I haven't seen them. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see.

1. We have never vetoed its mention, point of fact, we suggest mentioning it on [[History of Gibraltar]. Your comment does not reflect the discussion. Misrepresenting what people say is unhelpful.
2. The compromise I've offered does mention something.
3. Sorry but I did provide an appropriate example. You're actually misrepresenting what people say yet again. We say that mention belongs in a detailed article but its inappropriate for an overview.
4. Sorry but I have provided a decent cogent argument, ignore it all you like, it isn't going to go away.

The point you keep making is a logical fallacy, you say we have to use what other authors consider relevant as the benchmark. The logical extension of that is we must include everything that those authors highlight in their work. This is clearly impractical as no article could be shorter than the reference used.

And I'm not wiping out what sources say, I merely suggest that certain details don't have to be in an overview. Further when the previous mediator used the wikipedia "system" you referred to, funnily enough the current article was picked as the most neutral.

There is a compromise that was under discussion, please don't derail it.

Yet again the arguments are misrepresented, the actions of other editors maligned. Do you think this is helpful? Please address the points made for once. Justin talk 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of fallacies... :) Hmph yes, while Wikipedia has it's policies, I believe Britannica has it's own... policies, as well. As for my argument holding water and all those 'simple reductions ad absurdum', I'll reiterate this: you've your opinion. I've got mine. Both are respectable, but mine is supported by a vast array of reliable sources and yours isn't. Provided that the usual procedure is to publish an edition as long as it's properly referenced and compliant with other guidelines, you should bear powerful reasons to claim otherwise. And please notice that a reductio ad absurdum isn't an argument but a logical tool to try to negate other's arguments. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

May I observe that you're incorrect, the process isn't to insist on publishing something simply because its sourced. Sources can't necessarily be used on their own to justify an edit but a lack of sources can be used to justify removing uncited material. The process is to build a consensus and to convince others, using reasons. Yes you're right a reductio ad absurdum isn't an argument but a logical tool. In this case I was simply trying to use it to demonstrate that there is a logical fallacy you're missing not to try and negate an argument. Justin talk 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody wants to end mediation. This one has been the most balanced discussion I have seen in this article, so far.

I will not use the word "veto". But the fact is that two editors don't want the words "San Roque" mentioned in the History section of the article at any cost, even though it is supported by all sources. On the other hand, these two editors are totally OK with events that maybe only one source mentions, such as "drunkenness" on the side of sailors and marines pillaging Gibraltar and to "Cordoba" as a destination of some Sephardim who only stayed in the Rock for three years. I do not say that I don't want these events mentioned in the article, I am only saying that it looks very inconsistent and I have not seen yet a reason to explain why -opposite to what most historians think- "Cordoba" or sailors being "drunken" is more important to the history of Gibraltar than San Roque.

On the other hand: should we publish what we have agreed and go on with San Roque afterwards? --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we go to The Bar Torres and discuss it in detail there. --Gibnews (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"But the fact is that two editors don't want the words "San Roque" mentioned in the History section of the article at any cost, even though it is supported by all sources." Sigh, to be blunt that is nonsense and bears no relationship whatsoever to what has been said. Can we just stop this please, continually repeating the same thing, which happens to be untrue is getting us nowhere. If you want mediation to fail then continuously mischaracterising what people say is a certain recipe for success. Justin talk 15:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I barely had time to even glance at Wikipedia this weekend, I wish I had made time. In any case, going back to the compromise itself, does anyone have any problem with this text (which I put together based on Cremarella's comments above):

The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, drunken sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillaged the town, desecrating most Catholic churches, whilst townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By August 7 1704, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and departed.

Does anyone object to changing the text to this language for now? We can then start a new discussion about San Roque, asking for outside views. I can help get that started. We can also remove the protection on the article if this text is accepted. Thank you. -- Atama頭 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me to putting this in the article. Before we unprotect the article can we have a solemn undertaking from all involved not to introduce contentious material before suggesting it in talk first.

Not to be negative about this but I can only see this moving forward when people stop mischaracterising what people say. Would you be averse to commenting when people do that? Justin talk 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, if you want me to comment on mischaracterisation, at this point I think that as far as this particular article goes both sides have taken a hard stance on San Roque. One side says it can't go in, the other side says it must, which is why I suggested excluding it from this mediation. I don't see it as a mischaracterisation that yourself and Gibnews are inflexible on that point as far as this article goes, but you two are no more inflexible than Cremarella, Imalbornoz, and Ecemacl. Sometimes that happens with articles, it's just part of Wikipedia.

You are correct that Imalbornoz's second point isn't completely accurate. A compromise was suggested that didn't explicitly mention San Roque, but did discuss more generally where the population went to, which was rejected because it didn't explicitly mention San Roque.

The other points made are about the content itself, and I'm not going to get into a personal evaluation of the accurate representation of sources in the article's text and/or proposed text because that's not why I'm here. -- Atama頭 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the text can be included in the article. I also think Atama's description of the current situation is quite accurate, and outside views would probably be helpful with the San Roque issue (right now we have entered a loop in the discussion around this point). --Imalbornoz (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But what we don't do is say that San Roque can't be mentioned at all, which is how it is portrayed. Further we did try to meet people half way. Some have been less flexible. Anyway do we have an agreement to discuss edits first? Justin talk 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the Atama text is fine. --Gibnews (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Atama, I have a comment on your statement "A compromise was suggested that didn't explicitly mention San Roque, but did discuss more generally where the population went to, which was rejected because it didn't explicitly mention San Roque." As far as I'm concerned, my main concern to reject the lack of mention to San Roque is (besides my lack of understanding about, paraphrasing to Gibnews, the "obsession" for not mentioning it) because, as I've shown above providing relevant sources, mentioning the Campo as a whole gives a false impression about a random and equally sized dispersion through the area, when it's not the case (San Roque was the main settlement of the "gibraltareños"). Moreover, San Roque was the place where the Gibraltar City Council was re-established, the town that kept the whole of the Gibraltar municipal term (but the peninsula), keeping all the symbols of the lost town (which are kept to date). Although such facts are possibly not relevant for the British territory of Gibraltar, is obviously relevant to Gibraltar as a whole. Not mentioning it while leaving a generic mention to the Campo is simply a POV (IMHO, obviously). --Ecemaml (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) PS: on the other hand, I support the Atama's proposal on accepting what has been proposed and leave San Roque's "veto" as a next step in the mediation (or in a third-party RFC)

UNINDENT

Well, that's something. I already agreed with that text some days ago, and I still do. As you all know, I think that the description of the capture is incomplete without stating the fate of the villagers. I acknowledge your positions as well. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But you don't want to say they went to the Campo. I thought it was being helpful to include that but it seems to have put achieving a consensus back a few days; But I guess we are there. This talk page belongs in an archive. --Gibnews (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagreed with you on that but still offered a compromise in mentioning the Campo de Gibraltar. There we go. Whats next an RFC? Justin talk 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So the compromise is including a misleading statement that suggests that the Gibraltar population spread more or less anarchically, randomly and equally-sized throughout the Campo (that's not true). I can't see how such a "compromise" complies with Wikipedia principles. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the objections to Campo de Gibraltar, so let's just consider that a compromise that didn't work. Since everyone is fine with the proposed text, I'll go ahead and implement the change, and I'll also remove protection from the article since Eyeserene protected it until mediation was concluded.

If nobody objects, I'm going to close the mediation with this compromise. Note that mediation is not like arbitration; nothing is binding, but it's hoped that everyone here complies with the agreed-upon consensus. I'm going to still hang around the article (I'll keep it watchlisted) and I'll help get the RfC started. -- Atama頭 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If the RFC is replacing mediation then fine, though I'd prefer it that you didn't close it just yet until a conclusion is reached. Justin talk 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see where this is going with false POV assertions like San Roque was the main settlement of the "gibraltareños" No, although a large number of Gibraltarians lived in the Campo until Franco forced them to sell their homes and move to Gibraltar and many Gibraltarians today buy property there. It is unproductive to further the myth that sitting in San Roque is the displaced population of Gibraltar awaiting their return. The only way they are coming back is if they buy property in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your statements begin to seem erratic, Gibnews. I'll try again:

• William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.:

“ But the most important settlement to be established was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque become Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar. ”

• Stephen Constantine (2009). Community and identity. The making of modern Gibraltar since 1704. Manchester University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7190-8054-8.

“ Most Catholics, perhaps 1,500 families, maybe 5,000–6,000 people, transported themselves and their movables across the new frontier to the Campo de Gibraltar, and especially to San Roque. ”

Stating that San Roque was the main settlement of the "gibraltareños" escaped from Gibraltar is not false (it's supported by every secondary source is available) and far from being POV. The rest of your speech on Gibraltarians (we're not talking here of that) is simply out of place. Again, which is the reason to hide that San Roque was the main settlement of the "gibraltareños" escaped from Gibraltar in 1704? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This smacks of baiting to me, lets see what an RFC says Gibnews. Justin talk 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

An interesting point not being a native speaker is that many times I miss some idiom (as that possibly funny "smacks of baiting to me"), but with regard to Gibnews comment, it reminded me something but I didn't remember what. Finally I caught it: Reductio ad Hitlerum, but with a slight difference: whenever there's a disagreement with regard to a Gibraltar issue, Franco is mentioned. Funny. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bicarboate of Soda can be an effective and cheap household cleaner. Justin talk 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP is better. "Gibraltareños" or as we call ourselves Gibraltarians like San Roque because of the golf courses, and the train station. But this useful information belongs in the article on San_Roque, Cádiz. --Gibnews (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

Trying to raise this as tactfully as I can but I am concerned that the extensive quotes here and on User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar are in danger of being classified as a breach of copyright. I have sought advice before raising this and that indicates that this could well be the case. I know copyright is a mine field and I don't pretend to understand it but it would seem that storing extensive amounts of copyrighted material in user space could be exposing the project to legal implications. I haven't raised it as a copyright violation yet it might be an idea for Ecemaml to nominate his user space for deletion and we should redact some of the extensive quotes here. Regards, Justin talk 01:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Link to my query User talk:Moonriddengirl#Query over extensive quotations. Justin talk 11:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time, instead of raising an issue with regard to my subpages in an inappropriate place like this, try to leave me a message. It's simpler, faster, and less prone to misleading statements about me "ignoring" your comments. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, if I'd raised it with you on past performance you'd be screaming about suppressing information, so I raise it diplomatically and check with an expert first. Even then you find an excuse to claim bad faith, I didn't make any misleading statement my exact words were "appear to have been ignored". Quite reasonable, given you'd edited this page. As you make a habit of this I choose not to communicate with you if I can avoid it, please reciprocate and stay off my talk page for about the 6th time of asking. Justin talk 09:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, you'd better stop misusing this talk page. If you have an issue about my user pages, this is obviously not the place to discuss it. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel perfectly comfortable doing so, its related to this article. And I repeat I am not comfortable with you using my talk page as you persistently twist any comment I make so I feel much more comfortable doing it public. Again stay off my talk page. Anyway as far as I'm concerned this conversation is over. Justin talk 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"... is over". Please --Ecemaml (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

How long has this article been unprotected? Shortly thereafter Ececaml decides to get provocative again. [2] And this while we're awaiting settling any outstanding issue. Justin talk 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't revert again, if you wish to be point go right ahead. Funny labeling text as POV that you agreed with in mediation. Justin talk 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding, Justin? It's good to have some humour here (with the usual personal attacks in there), as it's not usually present in these bitter discussions :-) I have agreed to a text and explicitly object to your veto on any mention to San Roque (see the section above, at least while it's vissible), as it makes a POV section. Nothing more and nothing less. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yawn, change the record, we don't veto it. I'm not biting anymore. Justin talk 22:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on Atama's talk page but I guess you knew that. Justin talk 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should I? I'm not wikihounding your editions. It'd be too boring. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And who apart from Ececaml objects to archiving a cluttered talk page, now that disucssion is over? Justin talk 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I don't have a problem with the POV tag, in fact I think it's a good idea. All that a tag does is alert readers that someone feels that there is a problem with an article or section. They are helpful if the problem is evident in the text of the article, or if concerns are addressed on the talk page. Even though we've made a lot of progress in mediation (I hope) there are still unresolved issues so the tag isn't inappropriate. Tags don't mean there is a problem, they only mean that someone feels that there's a problem, and generally remain until the problem is resolved. They're like disclaimers, essentially. -- Atama頭 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't "extremely patronising" to be told what your opinion is, Justin? Let's try to defuss this a little, lest you consider hemorroids an enticing prospect. By the way, the last archive wasn't correctly linked. I've adressed it. See you tomorrow. Cremallera (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was "extremely patronising" to be told what my opinion is. However, I guess I was wrong on this occasion to jump to conclusions about the POV tag. For that I apologise. Justin talk 00:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Possibly the best thing to do with this section should be to archive it and forget the whole issue. A {{POV}} tag is just a tool to advertise that there's a strong disagreement with regard to neutrality (as it happens). Possibly all of us (including me) are too overtouchy. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering all of the back-and-forth and the extensive history between everyone editing this article I understand being jumpy about these things, no worries. :) Just for everyone involved here, if it's at all possible try to assume good faith because it helps make things go along much smoother. I know that it's hard here though. -- Atama頭 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I do have a problem with it, its inappropriate because the content we have agreed is neutral. But I don't intend to go over the same ground endlessly. The page is about Gibraltar not Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm, interestingly your POV statements are increasingly open, as with your usual mantra "This page is about Gibraltar not Spain" (I personally prefer "The main thing to know is the Spanish lost, left and are never coming back"). The issue is that Gibraltar was Spain for several centuries. Handling the article on Gibraltar as it were the article on British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar (as you openly claim) is what leads it to an unavoidable POV approach. It's good that you recognize it so openly (and I'm not the only that thinks the same, see here). See you --Ecemaml (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, Gibnews, do you know WP:MPOV? It's a nice reading. It helped me a lot.

Salt can be useful in many household applications but should be avoided with red wine stains as it can fix the discolouration. Justin talk 13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please, with the POV tag issue already adressed, this talk section lacks a purpose. So I'd suggest to stop posting here. Are you fine with that? Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No the issue is not addressed. There is nothing wrong with the POV of the material that is there. Yes Gibraltar was Spanish, so was Florida. --Gibnews (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MPOV: "You believe you are the only one editing from a neutral point of view, and everyone else is not." --Ecemaml (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just archive the whole page as was done yesterday, there is no need for this and exchanging needling is hardly mature or helpful. Justin talk 14:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)