Talk:Marietta, Georgia/Archives/2015

The frequent reverts

A surprising number of users (including me) have decided to push their version of the Marietta article without discussing the changes on the talk page. Though I'm not stunned that everyone spends so much time on such an distinguished and flavorful suburb, and frankly I don't expect an honest or thoughtful dialogue from the other side on this issue, I'll break the ice and explain my reverts.

My original revert on 2004-09-21 was of a change that added only two things: an objective claim I believed to be false based on my own direct personal experience, and an angry screed against suburbia that I believe has no place in an encyclopedia.

The objective claim was that Marietta was primarily known as a speed trap on I-75. (I regularly drove 75 or 80 mph on I-75 in Marietta, moving with the flow of traffic, when I lived there, and I was never stopped.) Recent embellishments have expanded this to say that the speed limit on I-75 drops from 65 mph to a rigidly-enforced 55 mph on entering Marietta. This is provably false, as Georgia law forbids rigid enforcement of speed limits by all state and local police. Fines may not be assessed in Georgia for driving at 5 mph over the speed limit or less. Five mph might not seem like an especially generous buffer (unless compared with speed limits in most of Europe), but Georgia Code 40-6-9 also provides a system for challenging speed traps used as revenue-generation devices. The Governor may, at his discretion, strip localities of the power to enforce speed limits if they abuse that power. This would suggest to me that if, in fact, Marietta is such a notable speed trap, there must be some documentary evidence of that fact to be found. To the best of my knowledge, speeding tickets in Marietta have not become a political issue.

I will say that I think parts of the most recent anti-Marietta version are gradually getting more realistic. I think it would be nice to see some of the criticisms incorporated into the article in a way that follows the NPOV policy. For example, Life University is unaccredited, and I think that's a fact that bears mentioning if one is to use the name "Life University" which, by itself, implies that the school is something that I would argue it is not (i.e., reputable).

I added back a "further reading" section added by 66.20.28.21 which has since been deleted again by someone else. I would like to see that remain. Including references to other articles about Marietta are, as far as I know, entirely appropriate, even if it is an article that argues a particular point of view. I don't think an aesthetic critique of the Big Chicken and of gross suburban sprawl is particularly controversial. (Nor should it be controversial to state that such content does not belong in the encyclopedia itself, even if references to it are fine.)

--dreish~talk 19:07, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

• Actually, Life University is accredited, and technically (thanks to an injunction granted by Judge Charles E. Moye, Jr., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia) has never lost its accreditation. I would probably agree with you that the school is something less than reputable, but that's strictly my personal opinion. NPOV demands that we tell the story of the controversy that very nearly cost Life's accreditation in accurate terms, and I have done so on the article for Life University. -- SwissCelt 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• As far as the Big Chicken goes, the site does have international fame, and has been featured on many television specials on Americana. It's as worthy of an article in Wikipedia as most of the featured subjects. -- SwissCelt 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You have encountered user GreatLeapForward, aka 66... and several other aliases who has a fixation on Phil Gingrey, medical torture, and Marietta. He is unwilling to discuss or negotiate and is here solely to enforce his animosity against these targets. He has no respect for you or any other editors here and has been banned from editing those articles and should be blocked here as well. See [1] Shall I protect this page? alteripse 00:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That picture is not of Marrieta. Marrieta does NOT have MARTA running through it.

How Offensive?

For you to say that is very offensive and ignorant. Marietta is perhaps the cheif city in the Metro Atlanta area. The unincorporated Marietta estimated at 204,506 larger than any other suburb. Marietta has managed to plans activities and to keep suburban life to the fullest for its residents. Establishing perhaps the only metro city with a sizeable Downtown and Skyline.

i luv marietta cuz it rox my sox till the cows cum home

What about Sandy Springs? That city certainly does have a skyline. Also, by "unincorporated Marietta", I believe you're including the area around I-75 and the Perimeter? Isn't that area actually closer to Smyrna? -- SwissCelt 20:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To Correct that, unincorporated Marietta's true population is actually 387,456, which includes all of east cobb, portions of west cobb, central areas of cobb and parts of Kennesaw, Acworth, and even Woodstock(postal codes which are in Cobb county). Barrett Parkway, the majority of HWY 41 running as far north as McColumn airfield. Marietta like so many Atlanta suburbs and the city of Atlanta; has failed to expand its city limits to major population center due to the lack of ability to provide city resources to its residents and a low desirability to be incorporated to the city for tax reasons. The Marietta city council enacted regulations in hopes that the city would not develop a skyline such as the 10 story commericial building limit. Perhaps you were thinking of the Vinings buisness districts skyline, rather than Mariettas. Sandy Springs is a newly incorporated city. Perhaps a better move would be for the city of Atlanta to annex the area. To simply state Marietta into one statement: Overgrown Suburbia.

education

ok, i looked under education and clicked on marietta school district. it came up as an ohio school district. this has absolutely NOTHING to do with my hometown of Marietta, georgia! now, if someone could change that, then that would be great.Harrison71392 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harrison71392 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Famous Mariettans

Isn't she a "Famous Mariettan?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.224.87.238 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

Do we even need a Famous Mariettan's section? Do we need to list everyone who has ever had a band, is an actor, or is a pro wrestler that once passed through Marietta? Does this really make them famous, and does that really have a place here?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.254.206.4 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

I just did a minor clean-up of the "Famous Mariettans" section. It had grown to include a "professional Transformers fan/nerd". It should be closely monitored, as it is an attraction for vandals. If it grows too large, I think it should be moved to its own page, in the style of List of people from Atlanta.
--JKeene 22:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not sure that any of these people qualify as "Mariettans". If reliable sources are not provided, I'm going to delete the section.
--JKeene (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Infrastructure

Probably needs some words about US 41 and the TP in history and infrastructure. Student7 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate

The addition of a colored climate table is a great improvement. Would like to point out that I cannot read the October precipitation very easily. Maybe a different color is needed? Student7 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

LeoFrank

The MG entry states, "Leo Frank was lynched at Frey's Gin, just east of Marietta in 1915. (Frey was the county sheriff at the time.) Although it was for the alleged murder of Mary Phagan in Atlanta, it was primarily motivated by religious intolerance, as Frank was Jewish. This incident led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League".

Leo Frank was not alleged to have murdered Mary Phagan, he was indicted by a grand jury including four Jewish members and convicted at trial. Two years of appeals upheld his conviction. No charges of Antisemitism were brought up during the appeals process in any majority decisions.Carmelmount (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The existence and relevance of antisemitism in the Frank case, especially in the lynching, are not seriously disputed by reliable sources. I have restored the previous language and added three reliable sources, with quotations, to make the case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the inaccurate alleged part. Typos have been corrected. Carmelmount (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Prominent citizens

One book apparently claims (not available to the rest of us) that only prominent people were allowed to lynch Frank. They had to show credentials to get in. While some "prominent" citizens may have urged the mob on, I doubt that attendance was limited to "prominent" people only. Frank's lynching is well-documented and something online should be available to document the general acceptance of the fact that only "prominent" (but non-notable?) citizens were allowed into the lynching. Also should document the reason for the prominence. President of the local Rotary? Sheriff? Justice of the Peace? Otherwise the claim is WP:VAGUE and not really encyclopedic. Please supply something that the rest of us can audit. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The above was posted on my talk page -- I moved it here. I agree the existing language is vague -- it should reflect that the prominent citizens were the leaders of the effort. However a source was provided, the widely available book by Steve Oney (which also is available on-line -- see the bibliography on the Frank article). The leaders include the mayor, two state legislators, a judge, a former governor, and the v-p of a family owned regional furniture manufacturer. There is also a larger list including about 40 people that is not included in Oney's work. Leornard Dinnerstein in "The Leo Frank Case" (also available online) states:

The men who kidnapped Leo Frank had begun to plan their adventure after Governor Slaton had commuted his sentence. These men represented the "best citizens" of Marietta, Georgia, the hometown of Mary Phagan. In fact, the so-called riffraff had been deliberately excluded. A clergyman, two former Superior Court justices, and an ex-sheriff were included among the planners and executioners who were later described, by the Dean of the Atlanta Theological Seminary, as "a sifted band of men, sober, intelligent, of established good name and character-good American citizens." The leader bore "as reputable [a] name as you would ever hear in a lawful community. He was a man honored and respected." The abductors were the same men who, a month earlier, had postponed their plans to kidnap and lynch Frank when news of the conspiracy had reached Governor Harris. On August 16, 1915, however, they carried out their task with order, precision, and dispatch.

I'll go ahead and add the references and more detailed text as you have requested. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

PS For further info and sourcing, you can check out Leo Frank#Knights of Mary Phagan. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite giving Student7 EXACTLY what he asked for, it seems like he still refuses to accept a conclusion that no reliable sources question. The people of Marietta who lynched Leo Frank were prominent members of the Marietta community. This is adequately documented in THIS ARTICLE and is even more fully documented in the Leo Frank article. His claim, made in his recent edit summary (good info! Let the reader draw the conclusion about "leading" though. that is pov, even though in citation), is a strange interpretation of NPOV. Isn't the whole purpose of that policy to present what the reliable sources say?

This is the sentence in question (with the part Student7 wants omitted in bold:

The ring leaders of the abduction of Frank from prison and the lynching represented the leading citizens of Marietta and included two state legislators, the mayor, a former governor, a clergyman, two former Superior Court justices, and an ex-sheriff.

The list of persons is not complete and in order to fairly represent the extent of the involvement a description of the group is necessary. Only 8 are included as an example but there are 28 listed at the Leo Frank article and, I beleve, there is a larger list that includes 40. Failure to do this makes t seem that the number of involved leaders was relatively small.

Rather than getting into an edit war, perhaps Student7 can suggest other language that makes it clear that the leaders were in act very numerous and very well-respected in the community. We shouldn't hide the HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT FACT that this lynching was not some sudden explosion by the worst elements of the society but was a carefully planned operation by the "best" of Marietta society. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed list. I had no idea.

Having said that, we do not use the attention-grabbing adjectives that books and periodicals use. We are not "selling" anything. We do not have to "lead" the (stupid) reader. Our readers are presumed to be able to draw their own conclusions. Having listed the people by rank, allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusion about the "prominence" of the lynch mob. Not all were prominent BTW. Even today, the mayor would not necessarily get an article in Wikipedia. Nor would various business people, the electrician, for example. There were people who were not recruited but showed up for the actual hanging.

We do not say (I hope) that Obama was a "prominent" member of the Illinois Senate. We allow readers to draw their own conclusions from his legislation, etc. Adjectives are great for journalism, not a good idea at all for encyclopedias. People are supposed to be basing their research on the material we write, and draw their own conclusions in these papers, depending on the "level" of their paper. A high school journalism student will probably infer "prominent," a college graduate student of sociology will probably not use that adjective. Let them decide. Student7 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually we use adjectives all the time in wikipedia. As far as using the "attention-grabbing adjectives that books and periodicals use", since we base our articles on these same books and articles (reliable secondary sources) it would be very surprising if we didn't use the same or very similar adjectives. The particular adjective we are discussing is "leading" (as in "leading citizens") and your idea that the use of this rather bland word is about "selling" something comes across to me as rather bizarre. Using descriptive adjectives to characterize groups of people or a series of events is a key tool in any writing and is done all the time in Wikipedia.

We don't have an article Some guys who participated in the American Revolution but we do have an article titled Founding Fathers of the United States. We reflect in our choice of article title and article content the analysis and conclusions reached by reliable secondary sources that some people were more important than others.

When we use adjectives we are not assuming "stupidity" of our readers anymore than the authors of reliable sources are assuming "stupidity" when they use the same words. These authors are expected to provide analysis and draw conclusions in their works. Wikipedia, in turn, is obliged to incorporate the analysis and conclusions of these reliable secondary sources into our articles.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We are often forced to quote WP:POV sources, since most of them are often the media. The media is trying to get people to rent time or space in their media and therefore usually exaggerates to "grab" people's attention. We omit those adjectives in an encyclopedia.

I am working now on a 3rd world country article where the media is a) biased, b) afraid to gather the story first hand and gets it second hand. Editors, working with good will, have managed to determine that the biased media does have a grain of truth in there somewhere (via an unbiased third party which was vague on details). So we are bumbling along. What we don't do is use an unedited (or quotes) from the heavily biased media. We try to filter it. It's the worst I've ever seen. While this hardly fits that category, it's biased enough and should be omitted for that reason.

It seems like an appeal to pity. With all the facts at our disposal, it seems hardly necessary to overemphasize them. A careful reader is put off by overstatement. With the summary list of people, a reader can pretty well figure out that the local government and legal establishment were opposed to Frank.

Adjectives are frequently out of place in an encyclopedia. It is one thing to say "the witness was wearing a red dress" only if the dress is germane to the article. It would be wrong, even if in the NY Times, to say "the witness was wearing a colorful dress." It would not be objective. Extra adjectives should usually be avoided except when absolutely mandatory. It means that we have not supplied the necessary facts and is trying to "paper over" lack of facts. This is not the case here, thanks to your research. Student7 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You wander off topic. There are no cites to the popular media. Oney's work is printed by Vintage Press, a major publisher, and is reviewed favorably in journals. Dinnerstein's work is a serious academic work and is an expansion of his PhD dissertation. The person who originally published the list of leaders, Stephen Goldfarb, has a PhD in history. There is no indication that any of these works has a POV problem. Are you aware of any work that suggests a different POV (i.e. that the leaders of Frank's kidnapping and lynching were NOT community leaders but were a spontaneous uprising of the common folk)?

The fact that community leaders participated in such illegal and violent activities should not merely be hinted at, leaving it to the reader to "figure out". This is an important part of the story -- not because I say so but because reliable sources say so.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

PS You mention WP:POV. The most relevant statement to our discussion can be found at WP:YESPOV. It states:

Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

The description of the ringleaders of the kidnapping and lynching used in the article is clearly "uncontested information". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Three points: 1) were these people socially prominent? No debutantes, no holders of soirees. Were they artistically prominent? No artists or sculptors. Were they scientifically prominent? No physicists or chemists. Were they academically prominent (there were sufficient teachers then)? No teachers or professors. Were they religiously prominent? No ministers or priests. Were they athletically prominent? No football or baseball players.

The media tends to slant things their way, which is to presume "prominence" when they receive publicity in stuff the media is interested in and generates articles (and sells advertising space) in their journals. No one else need apply.

2) Many of these attendees were not prominent in anything in particular.

3) It is fairly easy to hold office in tiny towns. One that I am familiar with has nearly everybody who can read or write doing some local job. Is the entire town then "prominent?" Probably for a journalist. npov would not have been understood in the leading yellow journals of yesteryear. And this was about the right timeframe. "Anything that sells" was their motto. Encyclopedias should not follow their example. Student7 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you wander off topic.

Your point one -- First off, the word "prominent' appears nowhere in the article. It was changed to "leading" a while back. I think the phrase "leading citizens" is sufficient detail since we do have a link to the main article where curious readers can go if they want it clarified further. Most of your questions are answered by the phrase "included two state legislators, the mayor, a former governor, a clergyman, two former Superior Court justices, and an ex-sheriff" which modifies "leading citizens". If you want, you can link leading citizens in the article the way I just did here.

Your point two -- Totally frivolous. You made this objection earlier which is why the section now ONLY refers to "the ring leaders of the abduction of Frank from prison and the lynching". If you want to give the spectators their due, we can certainly mention the that over 1,000 attended, but they arrived ONLY after the lynching had occurred. The kidnapping and lynching themselves were done by the inner circle of the conspiracy.

Your point three -- Again, you attack the media -- ignoring the fact (which I've already explained to you) that the article DOES NOT USE THE MEDIA AS A SOURCE. In fact, the media never attempted to name individuals involved in the planning and execution, despite the fact that everyone knew who they were. The actual names were not published until the turn of this century. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tried rewording the sentence. A bit wordy and could use improvement. I think it is more accurate. I don't know about then, but today, the smartest, cleverest and "leading" people in my area do not necessarily run for public office. Most narcissistic, egotistic and thickest skinned, maybe! See what you think. I'm sure the language could be tightened. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you edit, but it appears that "prominent" has been added back by another editor. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Prominent past, current and future politicians, maybe, but hardly prominent citizens in the normal use of the word.

A little less argumentative, we need to tighten paragraph to include necessary/avoid unnecessary phrases. I suppose they were at Frey's mill because they knew Frey would approve, but was Frey actually there? It may be unnecessarily distracting. The time doesn't seem useful here. Reading the Frank and other articles, we know they drove all night and lynched him just after they arrived, but seems distracting out of context IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom North Shoreman is correct, the lynchers were prominent when you look at the names of who was involved. A number of sources back up this claim, including the Phagan-Kean list published by Goldfarb. Carmelmount (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Top Employers?

One wonders what criteria is being used to define the "top employers" listed. As the number of employees is shown, it would appear to supposedly be based on the total numbers of employees, but then that pesky Columbian Chemicals shows up #4 with only 100 or so (this probably isnt' a typo - the facility that CCC runs in Marietta is its world headquarters and technical center and indeed the number of employees at that site is probably only around 100 or so). While CCC may not have much in numbers, these are mostly professionals and executives, so their salaries are probably add up quite well - but, while it is conceivable if payroll dollars is the basis of this list that CCC might rank disproptionately high, it would still seem doubtful that those 100 people are making 10x what the average employee at these other places are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.11 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently someone corrected the employment for that company. Note that these are local companies only. The list only includes a thousand or so Cobb County School Board employees. This is way too small for the entire county, so only includes local employees! And Lockheed Marietta, a huge employer, was omitted because they aren't "local." Tried to change the wording. Not sure we should use this list by itself - doesn't really reflect local employment that well IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Student7

I'm the "someone" who updated the information you mention. The source can be found at reference #17. It is an official and RS. Don't know what their criteria were, but they are the folks who would be in the best position to know the facts. If you look at the reference (in edit mode) you can see the specific page number of the citation. Like your work! Gulbenk (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

One problem: We are not particularly interested, per se, in the number of people hired by locally headquartered companies. We are interested in 1) notable companies with headquarters here, and 2) companies who employ the most people regardless of where they are "headquartered."

This list #17 appears to be local WP:BOOSTERism. Okay to publish it, but not quite right to use it, chamber of commerce style, as though it was the ne plus ultra of the statement of the economy.

BTW, are you associated with the local cofc or other local entity? Student7 (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Student 7:

I think you might be looking at this in the wrong light. Reference #17 is an official budget document from the City of Marietta. There is no "boosterism" tainting the document (although I will certainly agree that it isn't very stimulating). It simply identifies revenue sources, such as companies (local or otherwise) who hire Marietta taxpayers, and thus contribute to the local economy. The official title of the document includes the word "Comprehensive", so that should be cited in the reference. It is not a weasel word or an editor's descriptive opinion of the work. If you think "Comprehensive" is a deliberate lie, you should take that up with the Marietta revenue folks. I am disheartened to think that my work on this article would appear, to you, to be nothing more than Chamber of Commerce fluff. I had hoped to improve both the appearance and content of this article, and I believe that I have. But, to answer your question directly: (1) NO, I do not work for the Marietta CofC (or any other CofC, since I generally do not get along with such folks) (2) NO, I do not now live (nor have I ever lived) anywhere in Cobb County. (3) No, I have never been employed by any government, business, or individual in Cobb County. (4) Neither I, nor my employer (who doesn't even know that I edit at Wikipedia), benefit in any way from my edits to this article, or from the way Marietta or Cobb County is perceived. In other words, like you, I'm just trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Gulbenk (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Your refutations of personal ties is reassuring.

I am not concerned with "stimulating" copy. (I distrust "stimulating" as boosterism, as well).

While you profess objectivity, we are still missing the largest employer Lockheed Marietta, and there may be others. Why are locally headquartered firms the only ones considered? What other answer can a disinterested observer arrive at other than deliberate WP:BIAS?

How can the survey arrive at the fact that (for example) teachers employed in Marietta schools also work and pay taxes in Marietta? Those sorts of statistics are nearly impossible to arrive at, particularly with the private firms which certainly wouldn't release such data. Nor is the fact of residency used in other articles on economy. Towns used to "like" police to live locally, but that has given way to late 20th century reality. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know how the City of Marietta arrived at these facts. I only know that the source is reliable, and that the facts are faithfully reproduced in the article. Sgt. Joe Friday couldn't ask any more than that. The city finance department must be doing some form of data mining. You keep mentioning locally headquartered companies. Are all the listed employers headquartered in Marietta? I didn't bother to look into that because, frankly, it hardly seems noteworthy. I agree with you that Lockheed is a large employer. Quite a number of folks work at their Marietta facility. However, I do not believe that many of those workers live in the city of Marietta. Quite a few are highly skilled (and highly paid). They can well afford to commute some distance to the job. That may be the reason that the city finance department did not include them in the list, since commuters would not pay taxes to the city. You appear to be an accomplished editor, so you probably know that inflammatory words like "lie" and "censor" do nothing to promote communication and civil discourse. It would be best to save those for the hard cases. Gulbenk (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

here is a list from Cobb County of the largest employers in the county. [2]. I find no other source for data about just the city. The county chamber of commerce has a slightly different listing. [3]. I leave these just in hope of calming the rhetoric here. hopefully you guys can find a compromise. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Gtwfan52 ! Those are two interesting lists. Home Depot doesn't even show up on the Cobb County Government list. Perhaps that means that the Cobb Chamber is using a Georgia-wide or global data base. I think that was the information that Student7 was asking for. Again, thanks for the information! (cucumber-like)Gulbenk (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't seem to get to the link http://www.mariettaga.gov/departments/finance/docs/CAFR_2010.pdf. I can appreciate that some menu stepping is required. Not sure myself what to do for that sort of link. The pdf does NOT come up, just the city menu which is extensive and (by itself) not enlightening. I would appreciate suggestions. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)