User talk:62.99.89.51

Comment
Hi, I have not presumed Lluch was correct. I was just merely stating the obvious and sticking to what the source says. The El País journalist was not doing an "new investigation" and it is not relevant as context, he was rather reporting the several theorisers for such story, but bar the fact that the journalist believe in those theories that fact (that that was published in El País in 2010) is a insignificant historiographical one. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, again. I don't understand what you are trying to prove. You don't need to convince me of anything. I was not the one introducing that historiographical controversy in the article, I've just refined per what the cited sources say (general media stance is absent in the source and the meta-context of "as held in 2010 in El País" is utterly non-notable; at the very least much much less than the author echoing back the (unfounded) hyphothesis in 2000, Lluch).--Asqueladd (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)