Sorry for the weird formatting in my last talk comment. I haven't tried to make edits directly because, like many involved in the controversy and this editing issue, I have a strong point of view on this. However, it would be helpful if the editor complaining about the changes made by Pres. Botman's supporters would admit his own bias, evident especially from his comments in Talk. They also appear in his edits. Even the desire to shorten Botman's term in office by using a later, not actual, starting date,reflects this point of view. It might also be helpful to acknowledge his (I think but I could be wrong) participation in the events being discussed, and take that into account. Historians know that subjectivity is not necessarily a bad thing but it shouldn't just be attributed to other people. My comments here are certainly shaped by my position on that conflict. There is room for some degree of objectivity or at least fairness. It would help, for example, if he (I think)would self edit and remove tendentious comments , e.g. one attached to note 9. Let people go read the source and decide for themselves.
The blog to which the editor is referring, while supporting President Botman, does indeed include documents from both sides of the issue. Check it out. Readers could read the individual documents posted there and decide for themselves. The whole controversy was just one part of an administration which was just one part of the subject's life. The continuation of this whole controversy here seems disproportionate. I think taking a person's biography and adding lots of negative stuff beyond what is needed to make a factual point is not a good use of this reference source. Emeagan (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)