Changes

:The question now is, this '''must be attributed to anonymous CIA sources''' and not simply ''ABC News''.  Secondly, I would proposes Brian Ross and Richard Espisito also be held accountable as sources of these claims, because of this, and ''other'' controversial material in their article.  Thirdly, simply citing to "anonymous CIA sources" presents problems in itself, as a possibly unwarranted and non-credible source.  And fouth, ''ABC News'' past record of credibility must also be taken into consideration.

:The question now is, this '''must be attributed to anonymous CIA sources''' and not simply ''ABC News''.  Secondly, I would proposes Brian Ross and Richard Espisito also be held accountable as sources of these claims, because of this, and ''other'' controversial material in their article.  Thirdly, simply citing to "anonymous CIA sources" presents problems in itself, as a possibly unwarranted and non-credible source.  And fouth, ''ABC News'' past record of credibility must also be taken into consideration.

:So, for the claim "according to ''ABC News''", (a) how would you rephrase that properly, and (b) how can we phrase a guideline to deal with future problematic citations to possibly questionable sources for extremely controversial and inflamitory claims?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:So, for the claim "according to ''ABC News''", (a) how would you rephrase that properly, and (b) how can we phrase a guideline to deal with future problematic citations to possibly questionable sources for extremely controversial and inflammatory claims?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

 

I am fine with everything EXCEPT the ref to Eminem. I think that inclusion is what is so wildly distorted. the list in the article as is, is fine otherwise. Could be expanded, but that's premature [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)