the issue originally was the word change which i imagined would be entirely uncontroversial a separate issue then became the attacks on me from all sides led by dave to which i responded angrily my anger has then been used to justify the original attacks the issue here is still the word change the other issue you can discuss elsewhere if you like on the word change it still seems very simple to me slavishly adopting the wording of the source is wrong the word said is entirely neutral while the word explained carries connotations that the article should not be carrying it doesn't matter at all if the source said explained insisting that a word must be used because it appears in the original source makes a complete mockery of the concept of writing an encyclopaedia the aim here is a bit higher than a massive copy and paste exercise is it not anyway it seems to me from the source that lee did not explain or say but the singapore government did so where it says lee explained it could say the singapore government said this is accurate and neutral incidentally i think the protection of this article is a disgrace and looks to have been done simply to gain the upper hand in this strange dispute there is no persistent sockpuppetry