Talk:Norman Finkelstein/Archive 5

message: GA review:
* ouch! This is a huge can of WP:BLP worms. 
* I added one  tag, but in all this article is very well-referenced.
* The article seems stable and has no  tags. At least to the eye of someone completely uninitiated in related topics, it seems relatively well-balanced, if skewed a bit in Finkelstein's favor. [The criticisms come later in the article...] Watch out for sneaky little NPOV question marks buried in innocent-seeming adjectives: "meticulous" "groundbreaking" etc. The point of NPOV is not (only) to give equal time to both points of view. The point is this: after reading the article, I should be unable to recognize the viewpoint of its dedicated editors.
* The most damaging flaw at present is the lede (please read WP:LEDE carefully). It does not summarize the article, and more crucially, it does not give insight into the controversy that Finkelstein is/was involved in. Forex, I read in the lede that he was denied tenure, but had no idea why... so it needs a bit of info from the "Tenure denial" section... There are also crucial bits of info early in the "Praise and criticism " section that need to be summarized in the lede.
* See  here for some potential wikilinks. Most look like garbage, but some seem high-value.
* There are long, longer and too-long quotes. Please summarize/condense, perhaps moving the full quote to Wikiquote
* The references are... what format is that? No offense intended, but to me it looks a bit jumbled. I don't suppose that's a fatal flaw at the GAN level, but FAC reviewers should complain (but lately there have been too many FACs and not enough reviewers...). I sorta kinda suspect you're gonna hafta rework them at some point.
* There are some unnecessarily complex sentences. Here are two examples, please check carefully for others:
:*Finkelstein in his doctoral thesis, by minutely examining all of the sources Peters harvested and the way she used her evidence, concluded that the book, elsewhere acclaimed as a breakthrough into a balanced perspective on Jewish-Palestinian demographics, was nothing more than a what he now calls a "monumental hoax".
:*Finkelstein also had his supporters however. Raul Hilberg, widely regarded during his lifetime as a leading expert among Holocaust researchers, said the book expressed views Hilberg himself subscribed to in substance, in that he too found the exploitation of the Holocaust, in the manner Finkelstein describes, 'detestable.' 
* Drop me a line if you have questions. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on Hold 

message: Hello all,
Well, it seems that things are not going smoothly at all, unfortunately. :-(  Part of this is my fault, via inadvertantly hosing a footnote: I deleted a (1) for the simple reason that my eye did not catch the following (2), and thought the (1) was a stray bit of flotsam from some earlier version of the article. If the cite is accurate, then the (1) could perhaps be restored.. but frankly, putting two bullet points within one footnote is a bit awkward.
I'll make an attempt to investigate this cite, as much as possible. I have absolutley no access to English-language libraries, but do have access to the Internet. ;-)
However, this edit war and subsequent page protection does not bode well at all. Most GA reviewers would automatically 'Fail the article based on point #5 (stability) of WP:WIAGA. I'm hoping this can be resolved fruitfully within the allotted week (less than that, now..) but if not then of course I'll have to fail the GA. 
This article has surely seen some extremely diligent editors, and I would definitely want to avoid failing it, if possible. I'll see what I can find now... cheers! Ling.Nut 04:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'm back. Speaking as someone who (I solemnly affirm) has absolutely and positively no horse in this race, I see absolutely no reason for the cited text to remain in the footnotes. However, I do see a compelling rationale for retaining the hyperlinks in the footnote (or footnotes — I envision two separate ones). From a purely logical point of view, the quoted text does not need to be included in the footnote (and in fact is redundant) because it is there for all the world to see on the two webpages offered in the hyperlink in the cite. As per WP:BOLD I'm gonna make the changes now. I hope the editors of this page will recognize that my actions are based purely and what would seem to be well-formed text and footnotes, rather than partisanship of any kind. Cheers! Ling.Nut 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK finished now. I also noticed that both footnotes point to the same URL but are formatted differently, plus there is an orphaned (2) in what is now footnote 16. I tried to retain the original formatting, other than linking to the title rather than an unadorned URL... I really have to complain again about the inconsistent formatting of the footnotes. I hate to kick a dead horse, but although this might slide at the GA level, it really needs a complete overhaul, in my opinion. Cheers. Ling.Nut 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cite and the orphan (2) 

message: Sorry, one more issue.. the current condition of the WP:LEDE itself is enough to fail the GA. Please see my GA review. Thanks! Ling.Nut 05:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any better? AvruchTalk 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede, folks.. 

message: Folks - I've made some changes, per suggestions above, to the lede section. Can you take a look? I'd suggest that we might consider slimming down the wording - as long as we can preserve the basic summary information.  The lede doesn't have to be 100% qualified as to each point. It is, after all, just the introduction to a fully formed article. I've also removed the emphasis added to the Bartov quote, and removed the scare quotes from the paragraph above it (they weren't cited as quotes). I've added a CN tag to the claim that they recognize his brilliance and grains of truth, as well. It may be simpler and appropriate to remove that part, as I think their general emphasis isn't on his brilliance or truth (as they are criticizing, well, both). 19:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworked section

message: * I applaud the excellent work that's being done here. I'm hoping the dedicated editors of this article can settle on a lede within the window of two days left on the GA review. Again, I am not knowledgeable about Finkelstein. However, the lede is looking far, far better than it did when I first encountered it. At that time it simply omitted the main points of the article itself! Perhaps that was done in order to avoid conflict among editors, I don't know. But after reading the lede I should know what he has written about (added Zionism, demographic hist. of palestine, Holocaust industry allegations) why it is controversial (added section about politically-charged), etc. I am very, very impressed by the rewrites of my own first draft of the lede. I applaud your work.
* I'm still unhappy about the gargantuan quotes and the (in my humble opinion) infelicitous reference formatting. But this is GA, not FA. If the editors of this page can settle on a lede, I'll pass the article as GA.
* Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more days on Hold 

message: I had it in mind to go through all the links in the references section and rewrite that section in its entirety (or alternatively, to place a rewrite in my userspace and see if others agreed to its use).
The first link I went to was dead (the Chicago tribune article, "DePaul, embattled professor settle dispute"). I tried to track it down via the 'net, and found it on Finkelstein's own site:
DePaul, embattled professor settle dispute
..and the last sentence jumped out at me in full 3-D:
"Finkelstein has been noted for his support of the Palestinian cause."
Ummmm, don't you think that observation is important to this article? It is given in a reliable source.. I think it should even be in the lede... as that single sentence casts a bright light onto the whole reason why his work is controversial. [Note that my comments should not imply that I am taking any position in the debate; I merely note the debate itself].
I guess I had it in the back of my mind all along that this was true, simply because of his approach to the topics at hand. Seeing it in black print, however, brought it out of my subconscious & to the fore. Sorry to reverse course from my earlier assertions that all was well. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops! hiding in plain sight. reverse course . 

message: See comments above, plus: The first reference link does not contain the information which precedes it. There is no mention of Dershowitz writing a letter to contravene Finkelstein's tenure process... Ling.Nut (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed ref using Chron. Higher Ed. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops again 

message: I suck at wikipedia but the quote appears to come from this interview at roughly 22:40 - 23:20 : http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/24/scholar_norman_finkelstein_calls_professor_alan
Hopefully someone smarter than me can edit in the reference appropriately. Apologies if I did this wrong.98.224.242.9 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "citation needed" for Democracy Now! interview quote re:Turnspeak

message: Please do not bring the broader conflict here. This article is tangentially related, and if it becomes a new focus of activity from the group of folks involved in the questionable conduct related in the RfAr it will be pointed out in evidence and could subject you to additional (more severe) restrictions based on spreading the fire. Avruchtalk 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Caution to editors involved in RfAr for Israel/Palestine

message: This article seems to be so caught up with Finkelstein's hysteria and desire to portray him as a serious scholar of great merit, that it fails to catch the basic flaws in his polemics. 
This interview of Finkelstein is a case in point:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1676.htm
He not only intimidated and tried to shut up his Lebanese interviewer (who attempted quite plainly to tell him that as a visitor to Lebanon, he was essentially interfering in the internal affairs of the Lebanese by so blatantly issuing polemics expressing solidarity with Hizbullah), he also presented opinions as though they were facts and made numerous factual errors. 
He presents a slogan "Never forgive and never forget" as though this were some kind of slogan of the Jewish people, yet this is a perversion of the truth, as the usually quoted line is , "We can forgive, but never forget", as shown in this article on the website of the Jewish Defense League, not exactly known for its docility:
http://www.jdl.org/misc/forgive.shtml
He also presents "the Communist resistance" as a distinct object of particular veneration during the struggle against Nazism in World War II, which is a clear attempt to stack the deck. The Red Army was heroic in its defense of the Soviet Union and defeat of Nazi Germany after Operation Barbarossa, but what about before?, and what about its post-war occupation of Eastern European "satellite nations"? Winston Churchill, an avowed anti-Communist, spearheaded a virtually lone struggle against Nazi Germany at a time when the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were adhering to their infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. When the Wehrmacht marched into western Poland and ignited the War, the Red Army merely adhered to their side of the bargain by marching into Eastern Poland and claiming it for the Soviet Union. Communist parties outside the Soviet Union towed Stalin's line by adhering to "neutrality" and denouncing the declaration of war by Britain and France as "imperialist". This policy resulted in the Communist party being banned in France in 1939. 
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRcommunist.htm
On a somewhat tangential note, it might interest Finkelstein, who rails vituperatively against Zionism, to note that the Jewish fighting organizations that led the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the ZOB and the ZZW, were Zionist in orientation, and that initially the non-Zionist socialist Bundists and Jewish Communists objected to the setting up of armed Jewish resistance, for fearing of creating a rift with the rest of the Polish population, until ultimately they were absorbed into the left-wing Zionist ZOB.
Getting back to my original point, Finkelstein also displays a rather unjustifiable position, rather alarming for someone who is considered a great scholar, when he says "I do want to express my solidarity with Hizbullah", immediately followed by "I don't care about Hizbullah as a political organization. I don't know much about their politics." But if those "politics" are based on the elimination of the state of Israel, or on the directives of the Iranian Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guards, or on importing the Iranian Islamic Revolution and imposing its dogmas on the Lebanese majority that are not privy to it, or on initiating a cross-border military attack against Israel without the approval or consent of the Lebanese government, then on what account does Finkelstein consider Hizbullah a "resistance organization", as he puts it?
The Lebanese interviewer pointed out, in response, that Hizbullah could be considered as such before 2000, but then, "In 2000, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon. There was a rift within Lebanon betwee the internal political players on the issue of the future of the weapons and the issue of the resistance...You are now taking sides. After all, you say you are only visiting Lebanon, but you don't see the ramifications of the July war for the people." 
to which Finkelstein responds curiously that she is "closing her eyes", and Israel began "planning for a new war right after they were forced to leave in 2000. They found their excuse, their pretext, in July 2006. But there was no question among rational people that Israel was never going to let the Hizbullah victory go by.", to which the interviewer responds, "The war could have been avoided."
It is not that Finkelstein ignores the fact that Israel did not allow numerous Hizbullah cross-border incidents and provocations to descend into a full-scale war between 2000 and 2006, but rather that his comments betray his real attitude, i.e. THE NEED FOR A PERPETUAL WAR AGAINST ISRAEL UNTIL ISRAEL IS DEFEATED, EVEN IF IT IS ACROSS A RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY SEPARATING TWO INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATIONS.
The interviewer pops the big question, "Is there no other way than military resistance?" , to which Finkelstein gives his "piece de la resistance":
"I don't believe there is another way. I wish there were another way. who wants war? Who wants destruction? Even Hitler didn't want war. He would much prefer to have accomplished his aims peacefully, if he could. So I am not saying that I want it, but I honestly don't see another way, unless you choose to be their slaves". And finally, "There will be a leader who comes to power in Israel, who is willing to make the concessions after the conditions have been created, namely, Israel has to suffer a defeat."
It is now possible to read Finkelstein like an open book. This is not about Israel living in peace on one side of the international Blue Line border, and Lebanon on the other, and everything being hunky dory. Such a border already exists. Neither is this about a minor border issue dispute, like the Shebaa Farms issue, as Finkelstein never even brought it up. This is about what Fidel Castro called "the war of ideas", and it is clear that Finkelstein harbors a deep-seated hatred against Israel and everything it represents to the extent that he is willing to see the territory of a neighboring country, which Israel does not occupy (as confirmed by the UN), be deployed as a spring board and a launch pad for a perpetual war against Israel, until it is "defeated", in order to execute an idea, HIS idea, regardless of the ideas of the Lebanese people themselves, and regardless of the ideas of the striking arm which he is goading into waging this war. But of course, conveniently, he will not be the one involved in the execution and realization of this glorious idea, and the inevitable death and destruction it will lead to across the board.
This is not scholarship, and the Wikipedia article should stop trying to sugar coat Finkelstein as some sort of great guru or scholar. This is indoctrination and preaching of incitement, and Alan Dershowitz should be commended for confronting him in debates and taking him to task for his endless polemics.   
J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Davidson (talk • contribs) 
:Speaking of polemics, don't forget to sign yours. Pinkville (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to "Never Forgive, Never Forget", this jewish journalist seems to contradict what you're saying when she says the advice "never forgive, never forget" was from her upbringing in an article unrelated to Finkelstein. Is she lying too? You seem to be using an interview as an attack on all the work he's produced throughout his professional career. Furthermore, you're commending Alan Dershowitz, a man who's constantly tried to smear his opponents by calling them anti-semites, holocaust deniers, etc, for the slander he's committed against Finkelstein. Coeus (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finkelstein in interview with Lebanese Future TV: "Israel has to suffer a defeat". 

message: Ah, just a reminder of the 3 revert rule... let's not spin out of control. Having looked again at the cited source - and the interview itself, the assertion that Finkelstein supports Hizbollah is simply inaccurate and shouldn't appear in the article for that reason above any other. Pinkville (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph of this article discusses how he is an expert on Israeli-Palestinian affairs... you don't think that he knows about the politics of Hezbollah?  That line at the end was bs.  But the fact that he "WANTS to express solidarity" suggests that he stands by them and what they stand for. -Brad 128.175.121.46 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't assume anything about what he knows of Hizbollah. Of course, we can include anything notable and citable that demonstrates what he does know. Expressing solidarity with a people - or a group - does not necessarily mean that one "stands by them and what they stand for" - stands by them, sure. But one may sympathise with a resistance movement without supporting its political or religious, etc. programme. Unless Finkelstein says something more on the subject, there's not enough information to draw any conclusions or to coherently deal with the issue in his biography. Pinkville (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and one of the things I noticed about that MEMRI piece is that it appears to be heavily edited - and not just the video, but the transcription as well. In such circumstances, it's easy to take one or two comments out of context and use them to give a distorted picture of the speaker's views. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Notice that the Fox News excerpts further cut what Finkelstein said, so that the quote above ended with, I don't care about Hezbollah as a political organization. I don't know much about their politics and anyhow, it's irrelevant, leaving out the reason why Finkelstein's thoughts about Hizbollah are irrelevant - that he doesn't live in Lebanon and that Hizbollah's political standing in the country depends on the Lebanese. Of course, Fox News goes on to quote him out of context several times more, and even to completely misrepresent what he said about the Resistance and Communists in WWII... par for the course where that Media Organ is concerned. That source should probably be removed as fatally inaccurate. Pinkville (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself have been tempted to take this rambling material out, but have not acted, because while it looks poor compared to the rest of a reasonably chiselled article, clearly it tries to record information of some interest. To avoid an edit war, I suggest we vote, and I hope most of those who have a record of editing on the page to produce a relatively good article participate, vote whether or not to relocate here the gallimaufry of recentist data patched into the article, so that its merits can be discussed. User:Avruch has bannered it under Wikipedia:Recentism, and I too at a glance thught it violates WP:Undue, and at the least it does require the kind of severe controlled editing to concise paraphrase much of the article has achieved. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, let's move it to the talk page - or vote to move it to the talk page - or whatever. Mind you, I think it can be removed immediately - first, because the quotes have nothing to do with the section heading: Political activity; second, because the information/quotes are decontextualised, vague, and (without more context and further research) trivial; third, because the sources are verifiably faulty (e.g. FoxNews's fractured transcribed excerpts, MemriTV's edited clip of the interview, etc.); and fourth, because the material fails the tests of Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:Undue. Pinkville (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not a matter of deleting anything. The suggestion is to remove to this page a poorly worked, badly sourced patchwork of material. I will now do this if it has not already been done. A formal vote hasn't been taken, but old hands familiar with the page seem to agree that it is simply not up to snuff for presentation there in this form, and need extensive review and reworking, perhaps by the originator of the edit.    Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Political activity" section

message: Political activity
*Finkelstein has reluctantly supported a Two State Solution as a "necessary step" towards resolution of the conflict. In an interview with Jelle Bruinsma in Groningen on 6 December 2007, he stated: No, I do not support a two-state solution. I don't support states. I remain an old-fashioned communist, I don't change my views so radically. I see no value whatsoever in states. If the borders were to disappear between every state in the world, I think it would be a much happier place. I don't support it, in the sense that I support it as a principle. I support it in the sense only that in terms of trying to reduce the suffering and the harm of the Palestinians (and, actually, to prevent Israel from self-destructing), it seems to me a necessary step towards trying to create a better world, a more humane world.Finkelstein in The Netherlands 
*In January 2008 in an interview with Lebanese Future TV, Finkelstein said, "leaders come last. There will be a leader who comes in to power in Israel who is willing to make the concessions, after the conditions have been created - namely, Israel has to suffer a defeat". http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1676.htm
*In January 2008 Finkelstein made a lecture tour of Lebanon during which he met with high-ranking leaders of Hezbollah and defended the organization saying that Hezbollah represents "hope."http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/942454.html
*On January 20, 2008, an interview with Finkelstein was conducted in Arabic in which he announced his support for Hezbollah.  "I have no problem saying that I do want to express solidarity with them, and I'm not going to be a coward and a hypocrite about it," Finkelstein said to the interviewer. "American Professor, Ousted from Depaul University, Declares Support for Hezbollah in Lebanon"http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1489
*After that, in the same month, he made a series of lectures in British univerisities to present his points of views. Among these views he suggested that Palestinians should destroy the separation wall by picks and hammers and say "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said this wall has to be dismantled".
*In February 2008 in an interview with Al Jazeera English he described Israel as a lunatic state and said: "(Israel) has gone berserk. The whole world is yearning for peace, and Israel is constantly yearning for war." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/59FEE2A5-1461-4119-B852-1045D235566C.htm
*Finkelstein rejected an invitation to participate in Tehran's Review of the Holocaust conference in December 2006.http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/59FEE2A5-1461-4119-B852-1045D235566C.htmNishidani (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text removed for reworking

message: Why isn't there a more balanced praise section for Norman? The people criticizing him, like Dershowitz, have been proven to be frauds. In Dershowitz's case, the 33-page report by Frank Menetrez showcased how Dershowitz copied Joan Peter's garbage book to the extent where he even had HER errors. 
Not to mention that the criticisms listed here are all ad hominem. No one of them provides a counter-argument.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.104.139 (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than complaining, why don't you guys contribute to the article if you find that it's missing something of importance. You do know this article is free to be edited right? As long as the edits pass Wikipedia guidelines then there would be no reason to remove them. If there is anything in particular that you feel shouldn't have been removed then please point it out. Please be specific in regards to the "various legitimate academic criticism". Look at the article history and point out what has been taken out without reason. C'mon people, this is an open process. Coeus (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Such a Great Guy

message: While the Holocaust is a Jewish issue, the Arab-Israeli conflict isn't. As its name implies, it is a conflict between Israelis and Arabs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TippTopp (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Arab-Israeli Conflict is not a "Jewish-related issue" 

message: I'm semi-protecting the article for a while to try to quiet this persistent and tedious vandalism. Pinkville (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protecting 

message: Checking through all the links in the vitriolic Frontpage piece by Steven Plaut which depaulicize has attempted to showcase in the lead, I found the following link informative, David Klein, 'Why is Norman Finkelstein Not Allowed to Teach?'. Perhaps editors might look it over and consider its merits for inclusion. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my report at ANI, where I note that depaulicize is clearly yet another clone of the Runtshit/Truthprofessor/Zuminous/Borisyy serial vandal. RolandR (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clown, clone, same difference. Thanks Roland.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits by User:208.89.209.153 make it clear beyond any possible doubt that this is indeed another manifestation of the Runtshit serial vandal. RolandR (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no problem with this link. It's published in a verifiable academic work. Pinkville (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible link 

message: The protection of this article is indefinite yet the protection template has an expiration date (28 September). A recent Twinkle glitch, I gather. At any event, the date should be removed. Waltham, The Duke of 03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the article should not be indefinitely fully protected. The protection placed on 21 September, to prevent defamatory attacks, should be removed now. But, given the nature of the constant vandalism, it would be appropriate to put the article under indefinite semi-protection. This would allow serious, logged-in editors to work on it, but would prevent the drive-by vandalism by anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts which has marked this and related articles. RolandR (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incorrect use of the template.  Please go to Requests for unprotection and ask there next time. Vandalism once or twice a day isn't enough for full-time semi protection in my mind.  I'll keep watch so inform me if I'm being too lenient.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not request unprotection; I only wanted the misleading expiration date to be removed from the template. (One note... Why is there this strange code above? I thought people simply used  to "invalidate" the template.) Waltham, The Duke of 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I accidentally subst it for no reason.  I also seem to have misunderstood your request.  Either way, indefinite full protection isn't necessary and from the looks of it, the vandalism has finally died down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Waltham, The Duke of 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection template