I conclude he s a vandal for what I consider very sound reasons leading to inevitable deductions but let s not talk about him and stick to the specifics of the issue at hand 1 It is backwards to approach any controversal subject by first listing the defense of the perpetrators can you imagine how jarring it would be for you to read an account of say the Antebellum South which began by listing choice quotes regarding lenient recommendations plantation owners gave to their overseers concerning the treatment of their subjects It s utterly bizarre 2 It is grossly POV as well as inaccurate to portrary the perpetrators as giving rights and protection when they are doing precisely the contrary The whole turgid mess is an appalling whitewash despite a few throw a bone references in the links and everyone involved in whatever horrific consensus if any Hell spawned it ought to be very ashamed of themselves