User talk:RayAYang/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Mike Signer Page

Hello, I was hoping you could further explain the COI and Notability tags that you posted on the Mike Signer page, which I created.

As you probably saw on the discussion page or my own user account, I am volunteering for the campaign. As I understand the COI guideline, the important thing is to make certain that I do not put the candidate's interests above Wikipedia's interests. It's for this very reason that I wrote the page very conservatively, keeping it strictly factual. If you have a specific content issue with the page as it is written, please let me know.

As for Notability, I do not see where the issue lies. I have linked six separate sources, including 2 where Signer is the direct subject, and these stories are from the Washington Post and Roll Call. I'd appreciate if you discuss how the page can be improved, or if these tags were added in haste, please consider removing them. Thanks. Patrickottenhoff (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Patrick -- I've replied over at the Talk:Mike Signer. Best, Ray^Talk 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RayAYang. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi - I've fullfilled your request. Please remember to take a look at WP:RBK to fully understand when to use the tool. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ray^Talk 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WWVH sources...

I'm a newbie to wiki edits, but the links provided to the sound recording was actually the only sourced piece of information on that page... The whole article has no "original research" except for the links I provided.

Cheerio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.121.19 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, you want to be careful. A YouTube clip does not count as a reliable source. But if you can find such a source that talks about it, your addition would be most welcome. Cheers, Ray^Talk 07:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see what I can find, it's bit of an obscure topic. I actually made the recording myself some time ago; there's only one other one like it on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHnYBoKx0dw , which is the only other example of discussion. So unfortunately, it would be using YouTube as source either way, which I accept as not being reliable.

Thanks again :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.121.19 (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

L'Hopital's Rule

The example I put was a case where it fails, and I noticed that the article doesn't cover the reasons why, and thus, these reasons should be included.205.250.76.39 (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fail. The theorem remains completely correct. It just doesn't give you a useful answer, since you're left with another limit with infinity on the top and bottom. Ray^Talk 07:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield

Thanks so much for the excellent review :). Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It really was a pleasure to read :) Best, Ray^Talk 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

User_talk:121.54.29.22 being me, I actually do have an account, User:Almkglor, I just don't generally use it logged in. 121.54.29.22 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I see. You really should log in; it will keep you from being mistaken for a novice editor and place your edits under less scrutiny. It also makes it easier for people to contact you. Best, Ray^Talk 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Meri

Honest to god, he IS dead. I can currently only give you reliable ESTONIAN sources, since the story of his death is rather fresh, if you know what I mean.

Then reference those. But Wikipedia cannot report somebody's death without a cited source. Ray^Talk 09:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Allright, I added a reference. Better? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.39.23 (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks :) Ray^Talk 09:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help too. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatirull (talk • contribs) 09:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Khalil al-Wazir work

Hey RayAYang! Thanks for copyeditting the Khalil al-Wazir article. I particularly appreciated that even though you added the CE tag, you were also the one to rectify the problem. Very noble of you. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats to you -- it's a very good piece of work, and I'm glad to have helped on it in some small way. Ray^Talk 23:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA Mentoring

Sure. I'm short on time at the moment, but I'll check it out tomorrow morning. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job for your first review! I like the way you compared the article against each of the criteria. Hopefully you'll be reviewing more articles as time goes on. :) Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas R. Cornelius‎

Thanks for the GA review. I addressed your concern, but also wanted to mention that it isn't required to check all the sources. Its sort of a AGF thing, especially if the sources you do review check out. It is simply too difficult to require that reviewers do that as many sources are not available for free or online. Not even FA requires this. But, if you do go to check out the Dict. of Oregon History, note there are two versions, a 1956 original and a 1989 re-print. Both contain the exact same information even down to the page numbers, only the introductory text is different. So you can look for either copy. Though I think most of the info is also in the Lang source and the Evans source, though it may vary slightly. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Sorry about that. I'm pretty new to the Good Article review thing. I'll go take care of it now. Ray^Talk 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and keep up the good work. In time the GA reviews will become easier. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rumsfeld quotes

I'm sorry, I'm multitasking at the moment, I've noticed you're involved in work there. My edit summary suggested improvement of the wording, the edit itself was taken from the history of the article (2007) and I didn't change it much. My only concern was vigorous and exhausting debate we had long time ago surrounding that section, I agree it deserves improvement, and if you would like to put it in historical contexts than I'd suggest you add a pieces of history with regards to Mr. Rumsfeld's involvement in RAND and PNAC, along with that famous letter about Iraq. I'm not sure when I'll find time to dedicate to that article, but I don't think that the sentence which stood there was any better with regards to our guidelines. I don't perceive the edit to be smear, it's just fact stating, I'm more inclined to let readers draw their conclusions but I do understand your point. Either way, that section stood in manner similar to present edit for years, imo, Mr. Rumsfelds remarks from 9/11 should not be excluded from the section named 'Run up to Iraq'. You could have leave your note at the relevant talkpage. If you would like to discuss this further, I's suggest we take it there. With best wishes. DawnisuponUS (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I see that you've taken it to talk yesterday. Sorry about that; I hadn't seen that. I'll address it there. Ray^Talk 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

J. C. Watts

Hi, thanks for introducing yourself. How polite! :) Hekerui (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Santa Barbara

Hi RayAYang! I've noticed that recently you started tagging Santa Barbara articles for notability. It's an ol show and I can't exactly give 20 different sources for the articles. I created over 15 articles with almost everything included in it and put a lot of effort into doing it. Should I just delete them all? I can't put them all in the same article because it would go over 150 in size. I don't want all of them to look like they are not notable, especially a character like Sophia Wayne Capwell that was there during the entire 9 year run. What should I do? Dmarex (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a reference or so for each article to a secondary source that goes beyond trivial mention for the subject of the article would do. And you needn't be too hurried -- put an {{Underconstruction}} on the article and take a week or two to handle it. Nobody's in a hurry to take the stuff to deletion; the notability tag is just a warning that you can't leave the article forever in this state. Best, Ray^Talk 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks back!

I am such a blind squirel, I didn't even notice that you were editing the article at the same time until I just looked at the edit history now, thats funny. I usally reply on my talk(I did) and copy the thread here, but will just leave this note. Thanks for my 1st Barnstar, cool :) Anyways, keep working and use the talk page. I skimmed the talk page and already saw that one of my old time "nemesiss" is there so it should be interesting. Anyways, cheers and thanks again! Tom (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

J. C. Watts hold

Hi, I replied to your comments on the review page. Hekerui (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... I'll get to it pretty soon, I hope. I'm quasi-distracting myself from real work at the moment ;-) Ray^Talk 21:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ray, if you think my 2nd opinion is going into too much detail pl let me know. BTW why did you ask for a 2nd opinion? --Philcha (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I think your 2nd opinion was great. I asked because I'm relatively new at this Good Article Review stuff, and this was the first article where I was a little undecided -- I thought the prose on his early life was a bit ugly, and I worried about whether the coverage of his political career was good, and I didn't really know where the GA standards fall on those things. Ray^Talk 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It turns out there's a lot more accessible info about Watts, see my comments at the GA page. I'd give it couple more weeks. --Philcha (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ray, what happened? I see the Talk page says it failed GA, but no explanation at the review page. The history shows that the nominator added the "failed GA" template, and I see it's also no longer listed at WP:GAN. I think the review should have a summary of the reason(s) for failure, for the benefit of anyone who later tries to improve the article. If you know more about this than I do, please add it. If not, message me and I'll add something like "Withdrawn by nominator. Would have failed because of gaps in coverage noted at (date & time)". --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I don't know. It looks like it was withdrawn by nominator; your supposition looks good. I think that's common practice, when it'll take more than a week to locate the sources needed to bring the article up to standard. Ray^Talk 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"more than a week to locate the sources"? I provided some, plus a link to a Google search. (sigh)

In "legal" terms you should post the closing comments in the review as you're the initial reviewer. OTOH I know where to find the evidence re gaps in coverage. I suggest I post the comments and message you so you can sign them off. --Philcha (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, back to the questions that prompted you to ask for a 2nd opinion:

• FA requires "brilliant" prose, GA "good" prose". Generally I'm happy if it's grammatical, clear, fairly concise and nothing strikes me a downright ugly.
• FA requires "comprehensive" coverage, GA requires "broad but focussed" coverage. "How broad?" is a tricky issue that appears from time to time at WT:GAN, and experienced GA reviewers can't define it and sometimes disagree. However the issues I flagged in J.C. Watts were no-brainers that jumped off the page at me, e.g. it goes from "fathered 2 bastards" (my summary) to "ordained Baptist minister" (article text) in successive paras w/o explanation. The switch of party raised obvious questions about reasons and reactions. The deal-killer was the article's failure to recognise who his uncle was - a famous civil rights campaigner. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ray. I've noted the result at Talk:J._C._Watts/GA1#Result_of_review, with my own comments. Would you please add any other comments of your own and then sign it off. --Philcha (talk)

Done. Thanks again for your opinion, and see you around. Ray^Talk 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol. No need for exasperation, it was just a comment :) Hekerui (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't exasperated. Sorry if I came across that way -- it's pretty late over here. I was apologizing for messing up :) Ray^Talk 10:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 25 April 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I feel weird, giving a reply to a bot, but my archiver might not work w/o a second timestamp. Ray^Talk 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Would like your input.

I had noticed your involvement with the discussion about the use of terrorism in articles. I happen to agree with you that we need to call a spade a spade, but I also wanted to address others concerns. I have been wrangling with an editor on the Theodore Kaczynski page. I initially used domestic terrorist in such a way as to assert 100% that he was but I think I have acceptably changed the wording to include that he considered by many as a terrrorist. I was wondering if you, as a more experienced editor with the kind of thing, would look at it tell me what you think. I have been more than willing to lessen the assertion, but it seems I am up against and editor who only wants to look at the letter of the guideline and not the intent. I happen to think it is an open and shut case that the Unabomber is a domestic terrorist, but I have been willing to accomodate. Its seems to me that the article as the editor wants it, and as it stood was downplaying his crimes for the purpose of some agenda. I am seeking your advice and assessment. Thanks for listening (or not-that's the beauty of choice ain't it?) Meph Yazata (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in my 2 cents at the talk page, for what that's worth. Good luck -- it looks like the other editor has a strong point of view on the matter. Ray^Talk 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that. I was trying to avoid and edit war and for some reason the editor kept referring to the guideline as a rule. You articulated what I was trying to say much better. I think we have found a decent compromise. Thanks again.Meph Yazata (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hits! by Boz Scaggs

I am puzzled by the redirection of the album as I believe it does fit in the criteria of WP:MUSIC. A simple check on Google will provide you with links to the album, as provided on [[1]], a compilation album which has been rated high by other internet users. The edit is fine with me, but others may beg to differ in the future. Try0yrt (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC requires that there be significant coverage of the album in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. As there is no editorial control on internet forums, they can't be used for that purpose (see WP:RS). If you find such coverage, feel free to insert it and undo my redirection. Best, Ray^Talk 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you where you are coming from. Apart from the reviewers on Amazon.com, sales too are obviously a good indicator of whether the album is notable, as I saw also how well its sales figure is on cduniverse.com . Here is a suitable hopefully 'independent' review that I've found [[2]]. The article under the subheading "Famous album", mentions the album in question as a 'famous' album. Though it takes a fair amount of time spent to find such information too. Anyhow, this album seems to have been surpassed by its 2006 edition, and I do not feel it is worthy to restore the page and think that maintaining the status quo would be fine. I am sure some other editor or 'espousing musical historian' would be keen to the extra work to 'rebuild' the page and make it interesting, which I feel I don't I have the capability in doing so. Thanks for your input, and I'm sure we'll bump in each other in the somewhat not too distant future again. Try0yrt (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome

You are most welcome. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Parodies of sarah palin is going up for deletion.

Hi, you commented in Parodies of Sarah Palin so you might be interested in its deletion discussion here. Thanks.

Thanks for the notice. Ray^Talk 17:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

conversation w/ IP author

sorry forgiv mi pleese, my also english very not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.16.220 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Read through the documentation carefully, and ask for help if you are confused. Cheers, Ray^Talk 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

john pemberton

Ray,

If you would have looked, the changes made were his dates of birth. Did you *not* notice that the first sentence shows January, and under his picture it shows June? He could not have been born in two different months. Also, findagrave lists July. So please explain to me how this is wrong when wikipedia is flat out wrong giving two different months he was born.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.64.125 (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the discrepancy in the two dates to my attention. I have corrected them; apologies for the templated warning. I saw only that you had changed the birthdate away from the one cited in the encyclopedia w/o reference. Ray^Talk 01:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama

Thanks for your note & link re Obama & Churchill. Sca (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Minor Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thank you for all your much-needed minor, but major, contributions. -download ׀ sign! 04:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks! Ray^Talk 05:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Obscurity (band)

Hi Ray, thx for your offer to help improving the Obscurity (band) article. It would be great if you could give me a helping hand or advices on improving the article. I don't know how can can improve the article except for adding sources. I just don't find any sources to create a reflist. I am absolutely willingly to do my best for the improvement. PLease could you send me a link or something which explaining ho to set up a reflist and sources? My english is quite good but the sheer mass of input in and around the english Wikipedia is a bit too much for me. Some criterias are also a bit different to the german wikipedia on which I already created the Obscurity article. Best wishes Bergischer Löwe (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bergischer -- I recommend you use Google. Alternatively, German-language sources are acceptable if alternatives are not available. Cheers, Ray^Talk

Oops. :)

Smile

You're on candid camera!

Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone makes /.  :) Protonk (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Gah. I got taken in, no doubt about it. I wonder what I could have done differently, though. I suppose I could sandblast everything in a BLP not immediately verifiable into oblivion when on RC patrol, but short of that ... those quotes weren't obviously vandalism .... Ray^Talk 07:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything you could have done. I would have done the exact same thing. Protonk (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

Could you please explain the basis on which you are including individuals in various "al qaeda members" categories, as you did here? Geo Swan (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In that particular case, I believe the summary of evidence memo was my reason for the categorization. In general, the categorizations were based on information contained in the body of the article. Ray^Talk 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But those allegations are completely untested. Geo Swan (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For our purposes, we can verify that the United States government considers the person a member of Al Qaeda, which should be sufficient for inclusion. After all, these guys don't exactly publish their membership lists. Ray^Talk 02:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree this would be sufficient to add an individual to something like Category:Saudi Arabians alleged to be members of al Qaeda. Geo Swan (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get to include my personal conclusions in article space. I do my best to keep my personal conclusions out of article space. And I raise my concerns when I see what looks like someone else's personal conclusions have slipped into article space. Geo Swan (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another instance. Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this instance, I refer you again to material in the body of the article, specifically the section "One of the detainee's known aliases was on a list of captured al Qaida members that was discovered on a computer hard drive associated with a senior al Qaida member." Ray^Talk 02:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And why do you consider this sufficient? Why should a serious reader regard this as an allegation that should be taken seriously.

Many captives faced the allegation: "your known alias was found on a suspicious list". And when the captives who attended their Tribunals asked what "known alias" the allegations referred to -- or when they told their Tribunal that they couldn't have a "known alias", because they didn't have any aliases -- they were given essentially the same response. The captives would not be allowed to learn what drafters of the allegation memos claimed was their "known aliases", because the alias was considered classified.

I've read all the allegations memos. Dozens of captives faced the allegation that their name, or "known alias", was found on a suspicious list. 39 captives faced the allegation that their name, or "known alias" was found on a list of "324 Arabic names". Some of these allegations were specific enough to make clear that this is a list of passports. Prior to attending an al Qaida training camp trainees surrendered their passports. So, this explained how some of the captives names got on the list. Other captives, who were not alleged to have attended a training camp, or who claimed they had not attended a training camp, said they had left their passport in their hotel -- because Afghanistan was too lawless to travel around carrying one's passports -- and then left them there when the American aerial bombardment began. They offered various reasons why it was not safe for them to return to their hotel to retrieve their passports. So would these passports have held value for actual al Qaeda? They could assume that the identities -- and passport numbers -- of the more senior members had become known. But the passports of new trainees would be safe to use. Even better would be the passports of foreigners who died during the American aerial bombardment.

What the record establishes is that the matching of captives to the names and aliases on the suspicious lists was loose -- very loose. If you look at the allegations you will see multiple instances where two guys whose names were only slightly similar faced the same sets of allegation that they were named on suspicious lists. Consider Abdullah Kamel Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari and Faiz Mohammed Ahmed Al Kandari who were two of the twelve Kuwaitis who ended up in Guantanamo. I suggest that, at most, one of these individuals was OBL's spiritual advisor. If two out of twelve Kuwaitis have "Al Kandari" as part of their name Al Kandari might be a very common name component. Personally, I think skepticism is merited that either of these individuals was the Kuwaiti who might have had "Al Kandari" as part of his name, who may have been OBL's spiritual advisor.

The two paragraphs immediately above are full of my personal conclusions -- full of material that I couldn't include in article space -- because it would lapse from WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER. I work hard to keep my personal conclusions out of article space. I don't get to allow my skepticism to slip into article space. And, in fairness, you shouldn't get to allow interpretations that accept the allegations at face value to slip into article space either. Please understand that your conclusion that when the author of an allegation memo claimed a captive was named on a suspicious list, this unquestionably established they were a member of al Qaeda is the same kind of personal conclusion that I don't allow myself to put in article space.

As I have written elsewhere, I have no objection to populating something like: Category:Yemenis alleged to be al Qaeda members or Category:Suspected al Qaeda members from Saudi Arabia. Geo Swan (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Feel free to leave the category off in this case. Regarding your more general remarks - I don't view our categories as absolutely definitive, requiring near criminal convictions-levels of certitude. For initial categorization, I think it is sufficient that a source of reliability equivalent to, or better than, a mainstream media publication (such as the US Government) states facts that are sufficient for categorization. That seems to go better with the spirit of WP:RS and WP:V. Of course, if there is dispute between sources in a position to know, then some judging of the merits of categorization, in a case by case fashion, on the basis of what our sources say, would be appropriate. Ray^Talk 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always done my best to comply with our policies -- even before my contributions acquired a tough set of observers. Some of those observers think my contributions are too sympathetic to Guantanamo captives -- who they sometimes characterize as "terrorists", and too tough on US officials, or GIs. Sometimes I have lapsed, and they are right. Most of the time I do not find their arguments convincing. But I can assure you, they would never let me include US officials or GIs in a category that implied individuals had been proven to be criminals, based solely on untested allegations. They would cite WP:BLP. And, while I think WP:BLP is often interpreted too broadly, I would agree that if I had done so, it would have represented a lapse from WP:NPOV.

Even if, for the sake of argument, policies did not proscribe inclusion inclusion in categories based on untested allegations -- what advantage do you see in this particular case? I just checked half a dozen articles in Category:American murderers. I was surprised that some, like Leadbelly, whose lives I thought I was familiar with, did belong in the category because they had been convicted of killing someone.

If an individual has merely been accused of being a murderer, or if they were tried, and acquitted, they do not belong in a murderer category. You and I may believe that OJ Simpson was really a murderer. The majority of those who have read about his case may believe he was really a murderer. But WP:VER says our goal is "verifiability, not truth".

WP:VER requires leaving people out of categories based on speculation. But leaving them out is also best for readers. It is misleading to categorize individuals based on speculation.

I believe that this applies as firmly to membership in al Qaeda as it does to murderers and alleged murderers. Geo Swan (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Untested allegations? I'm using findings of fact made by reliable sources. I agree that I misread on a single case -- the US military authorities had not, in fact, found that that detainee was a member of Al Qaeda. In general, where such findings of fact exist, I would prefer not to insert my opinion, except possibly in a discussion of the facts as presented by various sources. A finding by a military investigator, taken as a position by the United States government, is not "speculation." Ray^Talk 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)