`  ::Skol Fir - wow...we're actually compromising.  I would still argue, however, that introducing what you've claimed as ``FACTS`` are based on ``original research``?  Where do we link for those not familiar with the situation?  I can't accept what you've proposed as ``Facts`` unless you agree to allow additional ``Facts`` to be included - that Reid plead guilty for his role in the illegal importation of 15 tons of marijuana and that the State of NY had a warrant when he left on his trip for his back child support, and post departure said they could seize his boat.  Those are ``facts`` too, Skol Fir.  Put those in as a compromise?  ::Your desire to leave the OR statement in completely contradicts your use of OR in what you claim as ``facts``.  :: You write - ``We are debating whether or not to include them in the article, not the facts themselves.``  What are we debating again?  What do we expect other editors to base their comments on?  The facts which are not to be considered facts for the article, but only to be considered facts in consideration of whether they can be mentioned in the article....but if based on the facts in the discussion it is determined that the facts are accurate, those facts can't be included in the article itself because the facts are based on OR?(read it again - it does make sense)    :: Doane didn't provide references?  So what?  He and Reid are friends in a COI kind of way!  You're the guy who fights the words ``alleged`` and ``claimed`` when they are proposed before anything Reid himself says!  This is seriously out of control, Skol Fir.  If you want this to be an autobiography where everything comes straight from Stowe quotes, go for it.  Might as well just delete all the text and put a link to his website.  Or write the article whatever way you want, so long as at the end of each statement there's the following  ``Reid Stowe concurs``.  :: The claim that evidence in our ``extensive discussions`` is relevant is fallacy.  Where's your evidence that it is relevant?  Cite please?  Both pro and con have introduced info that isn't source-abled.  I have no intention of introducing OR, do you?      :: If you leave it as is, with the strike-throughs, and without the balance I've suggested, you are loading the deck.  That runs counter to what this next exercise is all about.    Comments?   `