User talk:Valdez007

Wikipedia should be used to organize factual events that can be backed by evidence and should not be based on partial evidence subject to personal interest in a matter. Neutrality is a must while presenting the facts of an item. For example while the 2007 legal issue is a fact, your corrections presented a defense argument, while deleting the fact the Honduran Government closed the school for discrimination. This is not a chat room, or opinion forum. Both sides have to be presented and backed if the case facts are being detailed. Maybe an "arguments for and against" should be created. If this is not possible only the factual event should be included. Terms like "proud member of.." or "in 1950's parents who wanted a superiour education...", denote first lack of neutrality and more anecdotal if any evidence. The fact is that no evidence is presented as to the state of mind of the people who created the school, not that this would be an easy task.

SqueakBox 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)