Misplaced Pages

Talk:GEO Group: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:07, 10 July 2015 edit164.82.32.13 (talk) →Please do not start unnecessary edit war← Previous edit Revision as of 15:30, 10 July 2015 edit undoNiteshift36 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers41,776 edits →Please do not start unnecessary edit warNext edit →
Line 74: Line 74:
:*Lied? I mistakenly said 3 when it was 2. Big deal. Let's act like you've never made an error in your lifetime. Second, you're selecting the part of the law that doesn't apply while ignoring the part that does. They committed a crime when they entered illegally at a location other than designated by immigration officers. This wasn't a case of overstaying a visa or entering under one visa and trying to ignore the status. However, your personal interpretation, and my interpretation, mean nothing here. That's ]. Two reliable third party sources call them "illegal immigrants". It happens more than once in the sources. It is NOT your (or my) role to interpret their intention. It's clear you have ideological issues here about the term and you're making up a faux "grammar" complaint. I won't waste time refuting your incorrect legal analysis because it means nothing in the end. We go by what the source says. I'll seek community input at the appropriate noticeboard. ] (]) 14:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC) :*Lied? I mistakenly said 3 when it was 2. Big deal. Let's act like you've never made an error in your lifetime. Second, you're selecting the part of the law that doesn't apply while ignoring the part that does. They committed a crime when they entered illegally at a location other than designated by immigration officers. This wasn't a case of overstaying a visa or entering under one visa and trying to ignore the status. However, your personal interpretation, and my interpretation, mean nothing here. That's ]. Two reliable third party sources call them "illegal immigrants". It happens more than once in the sources. It is NOT your (or my) role to interpret their intention. It's clear you have ideological issues here about the term and you're making up a faux "grammar" complaint. I won't waste time refuting your incorrect legal analysis because it means nothing in the end. We go by what the source says. I'll seek community input at the appropriate noticeboard. ] (]) 14:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
::Mistake? You said "all 3 sources" and put emphasis on it, including the "all." You then continued to attempt to claim that all 3 had it by questioning which one didn't (which you should have realized if you had actually looked at all 3 sources before making your statements). Also, two reliable sources use "illegal immigrants," and one of those two sources uses "undocumented" far more than "illegal." So the term is already in the sources. So what is your complaint again? ] (]) 15:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC) ::Mistake? You said "all 3 sources" and put emphasis on it, including the "all." You then continued to attempt to claim that all 3 had it by questioning which one didn't (which you should have realized if you had actually looked at all 3 sources before making your statements). Also, two reliable sources use "illegal immigrants," and one of those two sources uses "undocumented" far more than "illegal." So the term is already in the sources. So what is your complaint again? ] (]) 15:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, mistake. I clicked on one twice and didn't click on the primary source (the one that doesn't actually address this specific incident). Mistake. The two sources that ''actually talk about the incident'' being reported use the term illegal immigrant. If one uses "undocumented" more than "illegal" (as if that matters), then that means the other one uses "illegal" more than "undocumented" , doesn't it? So why is one source more important than the other one in terms of a count? So what is your complaint again? Oh yeah, your complaint was originally grammar.....take that up with the editors of the two reliable sources. As I said, I'll get community input from the appropriate noticeboard. ] (]) 15:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:30, 10 July 2015

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GEO Group article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCompanies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMiami Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCorrection and Detention Facilities (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GEO Group article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
An email has been received at VRTS concerning some or all of the text on this page, and can be read as ticket:2011110210006921 by users with a VRTS account.

However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for the text. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published.

For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, someone else with a VRTS account, or the VRT noticeboard. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by a VRT volunteer, the text will be deleted.
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Company edits

  • The company PR manager edits Misplaced Pages to show favorable info then, when called on it, admits they are his edits. Where is the controversy? Misplaced Pages gets new editors, editing articles about themselves or their company every week. They try to make it sound good, people call them on it, explain COI etc and then they usually either get with the program or go away. In this case, he went away. This is classic WP:RECENTISM. There is nothing enduring about the coverage and since GEO is no longer buying the naming rights, it's pretty unlikely to be an issue again. The "controversy" is really little more than Misplaced Pages editors getting upset over a PR guy doing what a company pays him to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's editors should get upset when a corporation's spokesperson has been spending a great deal of time scrubbing the page in question of any negative content. Abraham Cohen is not the spokesperson for GEO, Pablo Paez is. Paez set to scrubbing the GEO pages years ago, if memory serves. The pages of course had massive deletions of well sourced text that were replaced by a roughly equal amount of corporate boilerplate, I'm guessing to conceal the prodigious amount of changes. Cohen at first denied making the changes, the first he'd ever made anywhere to Misplaced Pages pages. Then he claimed that he had allowed others in his shop to use his log in, though it had never been used before. You've presented yourself as a neutral editor, in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, but in fact you seem to be adamantly opposed to balanced presentations of this corporation, and you minimize the corporate whitewashing engaged in by others for GEO. You'll recall that after he was outed, Cohen used the corporate IPN to do further editing, only to get caught again by some observant editor(s?). Activist (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I note, Niteshift36 that you've made 38 of the last 107 or so edits to the GEO TALK page, since Cohen was outed. If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us? Activist (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I further note that you've made 32 edits to the GEO Group main article, with the last signed edit by Abraham Cohen being made February 20th, 2013, though the GEO IPN was used to make subsequent sock puppet edits not long after but before you started your signed edits. Activist (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • First off, I've edited only a few article lately due to off Wiki events. If looked you could see that my edit history covers a wide range of topics and articles. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to see that. Second, you are counting numbers of edits without context. For example, if I remove the a word and fail to change the "an" to "a", then correct that, there are 2 edits but really only one change. Third, reverting your POV edits shouldn't count. Lastly, if you have an allegation about sockpuppetry, then go to SPI. I'll expect a public apology when that investigation shows I am not editing under any other name or IP. My edits are always signed. There was no "before you started signing". So take your baseless allegation and go fuck yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read what I'd written once more. Cohen and/or GEO clearly engaged in sockpuppetry when he or some other company hack made the edits. I never accused you of doing so. If you would like me to examine all those edits you made to see how many were geared to cleaning up the corporation's image, I'd be glad to run up a chart. I would urge you to abandon the gross vulgarities and insults to other editors to which you seem inclined. Activist (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • And I'd suggest that you back up your allegation at SPI. You've made the allegation here with your bullshit implication. Analyze whatever you want. And at the end, when SPI clears me, I will expect your public apology. And if you don't want to hear vulgarities, then clean up your act. Again, back it up at SPI or apologize. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yours is a "straw man" argument. I've never accused you of sockpuppetry. Others rightfully accused Cohen/GEO of engaging in that behavior. There's no need for me to go to SPI to have something I haven't done arbitrated. The edit I made about "for-profit" prisons clarifies the issue for those for whom the situation is novice, and the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to inform, is it not? The edit about the CSC purchase is indisputable: The corporation was faced with a mid-eight figure judgment for a negligent death in Texas and the solution for the seller was to unload, declare bankruptcy or liquidate. He chose the former which enabled him to cheaply salvage the youth component, a deal sweetener I'm guessing GEO offered to ameliorate the sting of the corporate collapse. That youth component is one of which reporter Chris Kirkham has recently raised the public awareness regarding the continuing abusive nature of that management. That rump corporation is linked right on the Misplaced Pages page if you'll bother to take a look. Stop reversing legitimate edits. They are res ipsa loquitur. I should not need to laboriously explain each clarification to you, one who apparently may not be listening, to justify reversing your whimsical or otherwise motivated reverts. Lastly, stop using abusive and/or obscene language toward me and others, or I certainly will ask administrators to take a look at your behavior. Activist (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Blah, blah, blah.....Whether by implication or directly, you are making an allegation that I am editing at the behest of GEO. I'm not. Go to ANI and make the allegation and when you find a gross lack of support, you can apologize publicly. I don't give a crap about your threats. DO something about it. If you want to actually discuss the specific edits, start an actual discussion on them. Trying to shove them in the middle of you false, bullshit based allegations about me working for GEO isn't productive. Just to be clear: I do not work for GEO or any of their subsidiaries, never have and have NEVER made an edit on behalf of ANY company. Now, either get off this crap or take it to ANI. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You made your first edit on the GEO page on 4 March, while the controversies over the GEO whitewashing and the FAU brouhaha were swirling. Activist (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • And? Do you think that maybe I ended up at the page because I saw something in the news and came to see what the article reflected? Are you seriously so dense that you never considered that? Again, take it to SPI. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So Niteshift36... are you suggesting that you are a private citizen who is so impressed by the good work of GEO group that you monitor the page in an attempt to improve its public image? Simnel (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • There is no suggestion, except for agenda driven editors who want to make allegations they can't provide any evidence for. I am stating, very clearly, that I have never worked for GEO in any way shape or form. What I have done is put this page on my watchlist. I'm not impressed by anything GEO does. Nor am I impressed by POV warriors who think Misplaced Pages exists to help further their agenda. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, you've been reverting my edits, and you certainly haven't claimed that I'm making allegations I can't provide any factual evidence for. (as you know there's ample evidence of them... on this page's logs!) In fact, your reversions seem to be more than a bit agenda-driven yourself. Now, you say that you haven't worked for GEO in any way shape or form... which means absolutely nothing. So I'll ask again, and you can answer the question I'm asking or not - are you saying that you're a private citizen who has chosen THIS PAGE - about a company with a known history of attempting to whitewash its wiki page - and you are protecting it in a way which purely coincidentally matches that company's viewpoint? Simnel (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What? I have stated that you're making allegations you can't provide evidence for. I have no connection to GEO. I came across this article sometime back because of a separate issue. I have had the article on my watch list since then because it has become a magnet for POV warriors like you. You can try twisting verbiage about "private citizen" or whatever. I'm making these edits 100% on my own, not at the behest of anyone. If you bothered to pay attention, you'll see I've cooperated with other editors to retain notable things and present them in a NPOV manner. Now, if you want to persist in making these false allegations, then do it officially. Take it to ANI. If not, then cease your allegations, since they amount to an attack. Personally, I don't think you have the stones to do it. You know it's a bunch of bullshit. So I'm calling your bluff. Make the allegation official or prove you know it's baseless crap. Your choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reeves Detention

There is nothing indicating that this facility is notable. If it isn't notable on it's own, then why is it being shoved into a list of notable facilities? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What are the criteria for notability? Th Reeves facility has been in the media a lot, just like Broward has, for example. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • So then let's discuss how much coverage and for what. Right now, it's simply being shoved into the article with no apparent reason. Is there something notable happening there? Is it something that will be of enduring relevance or is it more of an issue of being in the current news cycle? Broward has had some more enduring coverage, so I haven't really had an issue with the inclusion. I have taken issue with some POV language and trying to make it a play by play news story. But the inclusion and substantial reasons for it are sound. To be honest, I kind of question the detention facility in Colorado being in here too. The "source" really only mentions GEO as part of an email address. Seems a little like grasping to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The Reeves Detention Center apparently had some previous enduring relevance that has quelled. It seems to have revolved around a serious riot that was well covered by the media at the time, and the death of an epileptic inmate due to malpractice, Jesus Manuel Galindo. Here's an idea of it:
http://www.texasobserver.org/the-pecos-insurrection/
https://sites.google.com/site/transborderproject/medical-claims-and-malpractice-at-west-texas-immigrant-prison
http://www2.sacurrent.com/printstory.asp?id=72044
And here, the former warden brags about cutting medical costs at the facility, second story:
http://www.pecos.net/news/arch2002a/112502p.htm
The facility is at least worthy of mention in the article, both because of its size and because of its prominence in the media. I'm not sure if it merits a paragraph in the Controversies section, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be at least mentioned. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • And see, this is how progress is made. You actually presented a reason and discussed it. So it makes more sense now. I appreciate you actually discussing instead of just telling me it's notable and never truly articulating why. I would question that last source. That's a 2002 story and trying to tie it directly to something 7 years later is going to take some work. Did any of the 2009/2011 sources reference that warden as a contributing factor? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the first link mentions him: "Four months into their (Physicians Network Association, PNA) contract, then-warden Rudy Franco lauded PNA at a county commissioners meeting for drastically reducing the number of surgeries, X-rays, outside visits and other medical services, the latter of which had dropped from 3,148 to 222." But this point is more about PNA than GEO, although GEO was administering the facility at the time, as it is currently. Anyway, there was a massive riot and at least one negligent death that were reported, and I think at least a mention of the facility in the Facilities section makes sense due to its media prominence. I'll make this change soon unless anyone has any qualms. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Geo Group's Board of Directors

Geo Group Expands Its Stable of Former Top Federal Officials (2014-07-23). Is anyone aware of additional sources that discuss the issue of the board of directors? IjonTichy (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

Criticism sections are generally to be avoided in articles. This should be broken down and included in a corporations history section, as appropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not start unnecessary edit war

I removed improper grammar from the article. I don't see the need for someone to start reverting this. "Illegal immigrant" is not grammatically correct, regardless of whether the sources in the citations use it. We rely on the information from the sources, but we do not need to repeat their incorrect grammar. Also, one of the two sources uses the term "undocumented detainees," which also captures the fact that they were incarcerated. This is the same reason why we don't say "illegal doctor" for a doctor practicing medicine without a license. Illegal immigration (a grammatically correct term) is about crossing a border without proper documentation. Therefore, a term like "undocumented immigrant" precisely defines a person who has immigrated illegally (without proper documentation) across a border. If you have another term you prefer, then I would request we discuss it here, rather than you simply reverting changes in support of a grammatically incorrect term based on what seem to be ideological reasons rather than reasons that are valid for making changes on Misplaced Pages. 164.82.32.13 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • First, the source uses the term. It's not up to you to correct the source. That's OR. Second, an unlicensed doctor is not the same thing. Third, all 3 sources in the paragraph uses the term "illegal immigrants"? One uses "undocumented immigrants" in another part, but not in reference to these two illegal immigrants. Want a different term? Then call them illegal aliens. But their action isn't simply not having documents with them. Their crime is entering and remaining in the US contrary to the law. Trying to gloss over it by removing the "illegal" part is really POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Crossing the border without documentation is NOT a crime. It is a civil offense (illegal conduct but not criminal conduct). Crossing the border again after being caught in this country without proper documentation and deported pursuant to official deportation procedures is when the conduct becomes a crime, and none of the sources comment on this aspect of the cases. But as you say, it is the action that is illegal, and not the person. Using "illegal" to describe a person is simply grammatically incorrect. The action that is illegal is (1) not having proper documentation and (2) immigrating to another country. (1) is covered by "undocumented" and (2) is covered by "immigrant." I hope I have adequately explained this since you seem to not be understanding. Also, one of the three sources does NOT use the term "illegal immigrant," and one of the other two sources uses the term "undocumented detainee." So not only are you misrepresenting what the sources say, you are also misrepresenting what OR would be (as well as being wrong about whether all illegal immigration is a crime). 164.82.32.13 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you even look at the sources before making your false statements? http://www.geogroup.com/Maps/LocationDetails/4 164.82.32.13 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Even the GEO Group uses the term "undocumented" rather than "illegal" to describe the immigrants held at Broward. So stop with the lie about OR, too, please, especially since it's in one of the two sources that actually reference immigrants at all. http://www.geogroup.com/documents/geoworld_pdfs/final-4q-2010everything.pdf 164.82.32.13 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The primary source doesn't use it, the two third party sources do use it. So acting like I'm fabricating the term is ridiculous. And you're wrong about the term illegal. Civil offenses are still illegal. And 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien says that it is crime "the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months". You're wrong. Regardless of your interpretation of the law, the reliable third party sources use the term, several times. Your attempt to re-write the facts, pretend to be a legal expert or make a big issue over whether 1 source didn't use the term while ignoring that the others did, is simply wrong-headed. And please don't pretend like you're trying to avoid an edit war while violating the 3RR. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
First, I never acted like you're fabricating the term "illegal immigrant." You were the one who lied and said all three sources had it, when only two of them actually did, as I had pointed out. Additionally, I also specifically said that civil offenses are illegal. They are NOT a crime. If you had read either what I said or the actual law you referenced, you would have seen that: "(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of - (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed." There can be additional criminal penalties (such as violating a deportation order if you have already been found in this country without proper immigration documentation), but crossing the border without documentation in itself is NOT criminal conduct. It is illegal, it is a civil offense, but it is not a crime or a criminal offense, since it only provides for civil penalties. Finally, not only have I never said that two of the three sources use the term "illegal immigrant," but I also pointed out that one of the two sources uses the term "undocumented detainee" (more than twice as much as "illegal immigrant" no less), and so your attempts to act like the term "undocumented" is either original research (which you have specifically lied about several times) or does not apply adequately (which you have also been wrong about, although this seems to be a misunderstanding on your part rather than a purposefully misrepresentation) are disingenuous. It seems increasingly clear that you are trying to fight an ideological battle, rather than basing your arguments on valid reasons for editing Misplaced Pages, which include the grammar concerns I have used to explain my change, not to mention that half (one of two) of the sources that reference the two individual at all use the term "undocumented." 164.82.32.13 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Lied? I mistakenly said 3 when it was 2. Big deal. Let's act like you've never made an error in your lifetime. Second, you're selecting the part of the law that doesn't apply while ignoring the part that does. They committed a crime when they entered illegally at a location other than designated by immigration officers. This wasn't a case of overstaying a visa or entering under one visa and trying to ignore the status. However, your personal interpretation, and my interpretation, mean nothing here. That's WP:SYNTH. Two reliable third party sources call them "illegal immigrants". It happens more than once in the sources. It is NOT your (or my) role to interpret their intention. It's clear you have ideological issues here about the term and you're making up a faux "grammar" complaint. I won't waste time refuting your incorrect legal analysis because it means nothing in the end. We go by what the source says. I'll seek community input at the appropriate noticeboard. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Mistake? You said "all 3 sources" and put emphasis on it, including the "all." You then continued to attempt to claim that all 3 had it by questioning which one didn't (which you should have realized if you had actually looked at all 3 sources before making your statements). Also, two reliable sources use "illegal immigrants," and one of those two sources uses "undocumented" far more than "illegal." So the term is already in the sources. So what is your complaint again? 164.82.32.13 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, mistake. I clicked on one twice and didn't click on the primary source (the one that doesn't actually address this specific incident). Mistake. The two sources that actually talk about the incident being reported use the term illegal immigrant. If one uses "undocumented" more than "illegal" (as if that matters), then that means the other one uses "illegal" more than "undocumented" , doesn't it? So why is one source more important than the other one in terms of a count? So what is your complaint again? Oh yeah, your complaint was originally grammar.....take that up with the editors of the two reliable sources. As I said, I'll get community input from the appropriate noticeboard. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories: