Talk:¿Por qué no te callas?

Categories

Any ideas of which categories this should be in? its not only an important political event but also a cultural one. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability/Merge

I would argue that this article may not meet the notability requirements. In any case, it should only be a part of the Juan Carlos I article. Cheers.--Burzum 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As one of the refs says, 665,000 Google refs, and that is a sign of notability as indeed is much that then BBC Mundo article alluded to. To merge into Juan Carlos I would be totally inappropriate as he was only one of the protagonists and the spreading of this incident through video clips, jokes etc is also clearly not solely related to Juan Carlos, indeed such a merge would go against neutrality as it would indicate he was the main protagonist, especially given that it is Chavez and Venezuela who today said the incident is not settled. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This has now more than a million google hits and has clearly turned into a very popular meme. Cattus ^talk 05:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the WP:N article the notability cannot be just temporary. And Google hits are not a very useful reference to a phrase commonly used in Spanish. As WP:N discusses "a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." Until the notability can be determined it should only be a footnote in the Juan Carlos I article and a quotation in WikiQuote.--Burzum 07:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the strong evidence indicates this is not temporary and ¿Por qué no te callas? looks set to pass into the Spanish language related to this incident. I thought long and hard before pressing the edit button on this article and if I had thought it was only going to be a temporary meme I would not have submitted it. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe be moved to Ibero-American Summit? The Ogre 15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no article for Ibero-American Summit 2007 and I looked at the Ibero-American article before creating this one and concluded it would be inappropriate there as that article does not deal with specific summits. The only reason to create a 2007 article would be because of this event, it is that notable, and I am certain the article will expand as its one of the most notable events in the Ibero world of the last few years. While I oppose a merge IMO if one were to occur it would necesitate creating an article on 07 Summit, which has various other notable events such as Juan Carlos walking out while Ortega spoke and the conflict between Argentina and Uruguay, and merging into that. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Google hits

[1]

As of November 14, 2007, Google generated 665,000 webhits on the phrase and YouTube had 610 videos.

(edit summary) Restore text cited to a reliable source

Just because the text is cited to a reliable source does not mean it merits inclusion. There is no encyclopedic value to citing how many Google hits a term gets, for a number of reasons. First, the source does not appear to give the exact way the phrase was entered, and thus the result is meaningless -- it is very easy to manipulate Google results. Second, because the date is past and we cannot view the results, there is no telling how many of those hits were relevant to the topic and how many were not -- the phrase is not so uncommon that it is unfeasible that many of them would not be relevant. Third, it is not really relevant -- if the subject is notable in itself, then its presence on the Internet should be more or less a given and a Google test tells us nothing.

As I said, just because there is a citation for something doesn't mean there is a reason to include it. If there is a compelling reason why this information should actually be included, please produce it. - Revolving Bugbear 17:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're questioning a reliable source (the BBC) and since a very focused google search currently returns even more hits, I can't see the logic in questioning the source. It also seems that you're not understanding that Wiki reports "verifiability, not truth"; it's not ours to question per WP:V. Of course we would not want to include it if it seemed ridiculously wrong, but since there are clearly more than that many Ghits, I don't see the reason to mistrust the BBC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Often in notability debates here we get people saying it has so many Google hits and actually that is original research but in this case it is properly referenced and should stay. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not questioning the source. I am saying that it doesn't matter. The number of Google hits it gets is a legitimate argument in AfD. It is not legitimate article content. - Revolving Bugbear 18:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. The number of ghits is most often irrelevant at AfD, but when the BBC cites it (a reliable source) it is relevant to the article. Not that it matters; I'm not going to edit war over a trivial matter anyone can easily verify, but you should not have deleted relevant, sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't disagree for a second that the BBC is a reliable source on a great number of things. But I fail to see how it is at all relevant to the article. The fact that the BBC said something does not make it worth repeating. As a matter of fact, the BBC says a great many things that would not be at all appropriate for inclusion. You are misconstruing WP:RS -- the guideline is a guideline for exclusion, not for inclusion. For something to come from a source, that source has to be reliable; but not everything that comes from a reliable source merits inclusion.

WP:GOOGLE, while a meta-how-to and not a content guideline of any kind, makes a very good and very relevant point: "Measuring is easy. What's hard is knowing what it is you're measuring and what your measurement shows." Sure, you can prove that, for some arbitrary permutation of the phrase, on some arbitrary date, there was an arbitrary number of Google hits, and you can back that up with a reliable source. But how is that relevant to the article? What does that add? Nothing meaningful, really.

And for the record, I find that saying "I'm not going to edit war ..." over a single revision is contentious and borderline not-assuming good faith. I hold myself to the 1RR. - Revolving Bugbear 18:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't hold yourself to 1RR; you removed it twice. Demonstration of the popularity of the phrase is relevant because it is the phrase itself that is under discussion in this article as much as the incident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of what constitutes a revert belongs in a different forum. The way I saw it, I edited once and reverted once. But that's a digression.

Second, I agree that demonstrating the popularity of a phrase is relevant. But it ought to be done in an encyclopedic way. Google hits and YouTube videos aren't that. See, for example, the "publicity" section of series of tubes. To reference something's Google hits as a measure of its popularity gives a vague idea, but it's not enlightening in anything but the most oblique way. - Revolving Bugbear 18:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For your future clarification, What is a revert? "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." You reverted twice. It's not important here, but you should know it for future reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For a demonstration of why Google hits have to be taken in context (which they can be in an AfD, but not in an article like this when sourced historically), see the Google results for the English-language equivalent (the version of the phrase that was reported on English-language media, including on CNN). Note that, on the first page, 6 of 10 hits predate the incident. - Revolving Bugbear 18:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Researching Google for the purposes of this article is original research and is thus not relevant, we are encyclopedia writers who use the referenced content of others, we don't create content ourselves. Besides, why is the English speaking Google in any way relevant? Its a Spanish meme, this is not an encyclopedia of the English speaking world but of the entire world, written in English, so the fact that this isn't notable in the English world is irrelevant19:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox 19:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Researching Google for the purposes of this article is original research and is thus not relevant, we are encyclopedia writers who use the referenced content of others, we don't create content ourselves.

I think you're misconstruing "original research". It is the responsibility of encyclopedia article writers to ensure that what they write is meaningful in the context it is written in. It is evidently a fact that the phrase had that many hits on that day. However, that is only meaningful if that says something directly about the subject of this article. At best, it says something only tangentially about the subject of this article, which a quick parsing of Google demonstrates.

Besides, why is the English speaking Google in any way relevant? Its a Spanish meme

I don't speak Spanish, that's why. However, I would be very willing to bet that results would be similar on Spanish-language Google. Note, by the way, that, although the incident received significant press in English language media, they reported it in English, not Spanish.

this is not an encyclopedia of the English speaking world but of the entire world, written in English, so the fact that this isn't notable in the English world is irrelevant

This is the same type straw argument as from above regarding whether BBC is reliable. I'm not claiming that the subject of this article isn't notable. Please stop trying to argue that I am. I'm not. What I am saying is that this single bit of information is irrelevant. Please respond to that point instead of other ones I haven't made. - Revolving Bugbear 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your original researc h is not relevant, we focus on edits not editors so your not speaking Spanish can have no relevance tot he article itself. You can easily check results on Spanish Googles, eg google.es or google.co.ve, you don't need to speak Spanish to take a look. Using ref'd material is not a straw argument, it is how we work. Please try to familiarise yourself more with how we actually write articles here, both Sandy and I have substantial experience of this. As for notability I do not know why you think the google hits mentioned in the BBC article fails the notability threshold, can you please explain. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you have misconstrued every single sentence of my last comment.

Your original researc h is not relevant,

I am not trying to include anything, so original research isn't relevant. I'm trying to say I don't think something is relevant to an article. That has nothing to do with WP:OR. The fact that I poked around Google for a few minutes means I took the time to look somewhere other than the cited source ... if that's OR, then every single article on Wikipedia is in breach of the policy.

we focus on edits not editors so your not speaking Spanish can have no relevance tot he article itself. You can easily check results on Spanish Googles, eg google.es or google.co.ve, you don't need to speak Spanish to take a look.

I don't need to speak Spanish to count the hits, that's correct. But I'm not arguing about the number of hits. I'm arguing about whether the hits are relevant to the incident. I would need to read Spanish to know that. Note that, by including the count in the article, the article makes a direct claim that they are relevant. Is it verifiable that those 600+thousand are relevant? Remember, burden of proof lies on the person who wants to include, as per WP:V.

Using ref'd material is not a straw argument, it is how we work

I never said it was. Again, you're taking two entirely different things and putting them together. I said that saying "this is not an encyclopedia of the English speaking world" was a straw argument, because I never said that it was an encyclopedia of the English speaking world. That comment had nothing to do with the reference itself, and your attempt to link the two here is downright baffling. And it's also a straw argument. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Please stop implying I am making arguments I am not making.

Please try to familiarise yourself more with how we actually write articles here, both Sandy and I have substantial experience of this.

I find this offensive. Please take your own advice and "focus on the edits not editors". For the record, I have been a member of Wikipedia since April 2005. Your "substantial experience" ought to extend to WP:CIVIL as well.

As for notability I do not know why you think the google hits mentioned in the BBC article fails the notability threshold, can you please explain.

Once again, I never said that. In fact, I never would say that, because, if you read WP:N, you will find that notability guidelines do not directly apply to article content. You and Sandy have both accused me of making this argument, and I quite frankly have no idea where this idea came from. What I did say is that it's not relevant because it's not enlightening. Google hits out of context are a meaningless statistic, whether they are sourced or not.

Cheers. - Revolving Bugbear 19:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Verify whether something is notable? I don't believe we can ever do that or need to. Why is this fact not notable. it is from a good source and is indicative of the popularity of this meme. Google is a very popular search engine that is highly relevant to modern life so I think this is entirely notable. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the last paragraph (the one regarding WP:N) of my previous comment again. - Revolving Bugbear 20:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is highly enlightening, how not so? How is it out of context? Just because we use google in afd style arguments does not make it irrelevant in other contexts. I simply do not understand your objection to this encyclopedic, educational ref'd information. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This comment explains why it is out of context and therefore doesn't necessarily say what one might think it says. - Revolving Bugbear 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think your arguemnt holds any water. You claim there is no encyclopedic value to google hits. Why? As I said above it is encyclopedic, educational and ref'd. Your claims about Google being easy to manipuilate are original research with no relevance whatsoever to the article, and the fact that it is in the past meaning we cannot verify this for ourselves is again relevant, we trust reliable sources we do not engage in original research researching whether are ref'd sources are saying the truth or not, as if we were the experts. For the same reason we do not need to check to see if the Google hits all referred to said event (impossible anyway as Google only reveal the first thousand hits for any term). We are not claiming that Google hit proves anything we are adding sourced and relevant information. It is sourced and interesting and on-topic, we have more than enough justification for its inclusion, your argument seems to amount to not liking it, which is not an argument that holds weight here. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced edit

This is an unsourced edit, which was left attributed incorrectly to a previous source, and which introduced a commercial external jump into the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this as spam and linked T-shirt internally. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There were two of them; I removed the second. The 10,000 Euros remains uncited, and may be original research. Really, the entire edit should be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed as likely COI, if it gets sold and we can ref that then we could consider re-adding. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

request for comment

See the above section #Google hits for prior discussion on this matter. - Revolving Bugbear 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the only thing at issue here is whether the Google hits and YouTube videos belong in the article content. - Revolving Bugbear 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Squeakbox. After reading the article, the fact that this phrase has become a worldwide phenomenon makes it notable, rightly or wrongly.Ngchen (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a question about notability. I agree the phrase is notable. All I disagree with is the mention of Ghits and YouTube videos. That's it. Nothing more. - Revolving Bugbear 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes but why? Notable concept, sourced ref, helps illustarte the article and I fail to understand your opposition. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with it, I think I explained it at great enough length above that it should be comprehensible. - Revolving Bugbear 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well no you haven't, and nor so far have you found anyone to agree with you. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have time to engage in original research. The BBC cited Ghits (665,000) that were demonstrably lower than anything I can come up with; there's no reason not to include a reliable source to indicate the notability of the term. When searching on the exact phrase "por que no te callas" and adding the must include word Chavez:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22por+que+no+te+callas%22+Chavez&btnG=Search

returns almost 2 million hits, there's no reason to discard a BBC source indicating one-third of that days earlier. Engaging in original research when we have a reliable source defies WP:V. There are more important ways to spend time on this article, with information that still needs to be added. Wiki is not a forum: let's stick to policy and move along to completing the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, once again, you are boxing the straw man. I'm not doubting whether it's true. I'm doubting whether it is relevant. - Revolving Bugbear 21:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But nobody else is, there is a consensus, you might say, that it is relevant. Why would it not be?. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You might say there is a consensus. I count two people who think it's relevant, one person who doesn't, and one person who appears to have misunderstood the question. I put up the RfC in order to gauge consensus. If there emerges a consensus from the RfC that it is relevant, I will accept that. - Revolving Bugbear 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Three people (I disagree with your rather patronising abd bad faith assertion that another editor misunderstands the point) and the point is only you are complaining about a perfectly uncontroversial and straightforward inclusion of ref'd material. You have posted the Rfc and a consensus is emerging. I agree with Sandy that we have better things to do, this is becoming disruptive. Please drop it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad faith -- I posted on his talk page that his answer seemed misaligned with the question, and clarified my question. The discussion above was long and complicated, and it would be easy to miss exactly what the point of the conversation was. That's not bad faith, that's realizing that people make mistakes. If he says it wasn't a mistake, then it wasn't a mistake. I fail to see bad faith in that -- it's just an attempt for clarification. I expect that a consensus will emerge from this RfC, and whatever it is I will accept it. - Revolving Bugbear 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to assume he made a mistake just because you say so. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After finally understanding the dispute, I must say that I can see both sides. Side 1: the number of google hits and youtube videos is really meaningless. We already know the topic is notable. Side 2: the referenced note on google hits is relevant, because it helps demonstrate notability. In addition, the google hits and youtube videos illustrate the fact that this phrase has become a worldwide phenomenon. I agree that the number of google/youtube hits is not central to the article. Nevertheless, I feel that including it does not hurt. There is no point in fighting this tiny point out, unless I'm still missing something. See lamest edit wars for what not to do.Ngchen (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got it (particularly the lame part). And, the article was in AfD until this morning, so the source added notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Move without discussion

CieloEstrellado (talk · contribs) moved ¿Por qué no te callas? to ¡Por qué no te callas!—contrary to every source I can find, leaving double redirects, and with no discussion. Now admin intervention will be needed to move it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add that, unless an admin can move this back, the article will need a POV tag, since this new title—contrary to every source I've seen—implies a demand rather than a query from the king. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Grammar-wise, it is wrong to use "Por qué" in a sentence that does not involve a question. Since the issue here is that the King of Spain made a question (he didn't say, "Cállese", for example), the previous title was inaccurate as well. I've moved it back. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

When I created the article I inaccurately called it Porque no te callas till i realised that every source was saying ¿Por qué no te callas?. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

¿Por qué no te callas? is the correct form in Spanish for a question, which is implied in the form "Por qué" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It was more an exclamation than a question, that is, we can bet the king was not expecting an answer. Perhaps the best way to render the phrase in written Spanish is "¿...!" or "¡...?"; unusual but correct combinations of the orthographic signs. However, printed press in Spanish almost always use ¿...? JRSP (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not for us to figure out the king's alleged motivation but to use sourced refs, everyone else uses question marks so we will too. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And I don't bet on the king's motives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious the phrase is an imperative, not a question. That doesn't mean that the question marks are wrong, in fact, I agree the title should use question marks as it is the most common version in printed press. JRSP (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't obvious to me at all, but if we're going to engage in original research, I saw it as a rhetorical question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We can interpret it however we want really. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

La frase no es una afirmación, es una pregunta, tal y como se escucha, aunque no se sepa español. Puede consultarse en internet, en google, en español. Y ver cual es la forma que aparece, o consultarse diarios digitales. es en definitiva: ¿Por qué no te callas? a las interrupciones del presidente de Venezuela Hugo Chavez, al presidente de España, que tenía la palabra Rodriguez Zapatero. Hubiera exclamado sino un: ¡Callate! mucho más sonoro. Anselmocisneros (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't read Spanish, this is in favor of the question marks: "the phrase is not an affirmation, it's a question". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I moved the articled based on the following sources, which address the issue from the perspective of experts of the Spanish language, not based on how every news outlet wrote it:

• (Fundéu, Spain) The Urgent Spanish Foundation clears this up by answering to a user's question on whether it should be written ¿Por qué no te callas?, ¡Por qué no te callas! or ¡¿Por qué no te callas?!. It says all three are correct, and adds another correct version: ¿¡Por qué no te callas!?. It says that if only one sign is used, then, because of the situation in which it occurred, it should be written as: ¡Por qué no te callas!
• (Las Últimas Noticias, Chile) The director of the Chilean Academy of the Spanish Language says (translation): "The king's phrase is correct. Even though it has the construction of a question, it is not. By form, it should be written with question marks; however, in semantics, it must be written with exclamation marks." That is, ¡Por qué no te callas!

I believe the article should be moved back to ¡Por qué no te callas! and I'm making a note of it in the main article. ☆ CieloEstrellado 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Refer to the consensus in the section above. If you would discuss moves beforehand and arrive at consensus with other involved editors, you would save everyone a lot of work. Can you please explain 1) how your first source is a reliable source, and 2) why your second source takes priority over every other source used? I'd also like to know how the author can arrive at the conclusion, "Even though it has the construction of a question, it is not." Did he ask the king? By the way, your second article appears to be a copyvio, so I don't believe we can link to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Fundéu is very influential on Spanish language media. The fact that it is supported by the Royal Spanish Academy and the Cervantes Institute should be enough to convince anyone, and it conforms with WP:RS. 2) My second source takes priority over every other news source simply because it addresses the issue of how it should be correctly written, something none of the other sources do. Regarding your third question, you don't need to ask the king anything, the expert is simply reproducing what he heard the king say. Wikipedia doesn't analyze motives or intentions, it simply compiles what has been observed and documented by others. And, lastly, I don't understand what you mean by "your second article appears to be a copyvio, so I don't believe we can link to it." If you meant that linking to a copyrighted article is a copyvio in Wikipedia, then you're wrong. You can most certainly link to copyrighted articles in Wikipedia. What you can't do is reproduce copyrighted article in Wikipedia. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read Restrictions on linking. Since you weren't aware of that, I'm still wondering how you justify your first source as reliable; please explain. I didn't ask if it was "influential"; I asked if it has editorial oversight, a reputation for fact-checking, and other elements of WP:RS and WP:V. Yes, Wiki reports what reliable sources say, and virtually every reliable source reports the phrase as a question. You have produced one author who decided, apparently on his own, that what he heard was not a question. He is entitled to his opinion, but how does that outweigh all of the other reliable sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the second link does not violate WP:EL and every other wiki policy you'd want to throw at me. You're just being a nuisance, instead of being helpful. Fundéu does have editorial oversight. Go to their site and inform yourself. And above of all, instead of acting in a pedantic way, try to BE NICE! :) ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

CieloE, if you don't want to answer the questions, that's fine, but please don't say anyone else isn't "being nice" for asking them. The second site links to a copyvio; it violates WP:EL. For the first site, you haven't explained why you consider it reliable. I don't. And you haven't explained why your *one* source should trump all other sources that it disagrees with, because its author takes a differing, personal opinion. Of course, if you don't plan to discuss these matters, you should probably remove the tag from the article. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do explain how the second link violates WP:EL. Also explain why you don't consider the first site reliable. And as for your last question, I already answered it above. Cheers! ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a photocopy of the actual paper; is the website the same owner as the original paper copyright owner, and is it a photocopy or is it just the quality of the site that makes it look like a photocopy? Also, I like your addition of a new section to the article to explain the issue, but calling a particular site "authoritative" likely violates WP:PEACOCK and WP:WTA. They are all "authoritative". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'd bother to do a little research yourself, you'd find that going to the main site (www.lun.com) shows this is the newspaper's official site and their way to present their content consists of photocopies of the actual printed edition. I may change authoritative as it may be indeed fall under WP:PEACOCK. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Further point (edit conflict) independently of whether a message board post to Fundeu is a reliable source, they do not indicat a preference, they specifically say all three are correct, so your text "should be written" does not appear to be correct. You have one source that claims this, based on one person's opinion. We don't usually include message board posts as reliable sources, so perhaps your text could be revised to reflect that you appear to have one source that prefers different punctuation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What Juan Carlos asked was a Rhetorical question! And so the title just remain as is. The Ogre (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)