Go away with your CIVIL stuff, mate. If you'd have a sense discussion style, you'd be able to say excuse me, you're right on that instead of ignoring whole arguments on a high horse. You may be a long-time editor here, but in this particular case my assertion stands. As for the argument on Gundell/Gardell: likely perhaps, but an assumption. You can't verify that, either, unless you are able to verify in the book. You did not state wether you verified, or not. I have to assume you are an authority somehow. Great example of how to inject untruth in Wikipedia. Next time Wikipedia's credibility is of subject somewhere, I'll be sure to reference to this case. Just to point out the obvious: as argument in that, it doesn't matter if its true or not, since the problem is that it is unclear wether its verified, or not.