Content deleted Content added
necessity of weasel words? |
|||
Line 1,028:
So it is not just "claimed" that the evidence was known to be of doubtful value; that is a fact. Note - at issue is not whether the evidence was of doubtful value -- that is another debate that I will not get into here -- but rather whether it was known by the Bush Administration to have been so. Either that intelligence assessment by the Bush Admin exists or it doesn't, and the NYT says it does. Let's either say "The NYT reports..." or leave it out. There is no reason to question uncontested facts with weasel words just because you don't like those particular facts. If someone contests them in the news or scholarship or whatever, that is of course a different story. But if nobody contests the fact in every published account of an event, there is no reason for people on wikipedia to do so.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
: Sorry, but for far too many people what comes out of the NY Times is very much contested, especialy on the Niger urainum deal. [[User:TDC|DTC]] 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||