Changes

::What I added was a simple, sourced fact. "Spin" ''might'' have been if I had rephrased the first part of that entry to remove the "most vile hate speech" bit. And I still don't see the "controversy" - especially when sites like WikiScanner have been [http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22315991-5001031,00.html doubted] in the past. But thanks for the recommendation, I might apply for a NYT job later ;)

::What I added was a simple, sourced fact. "Spin" ''might'' have been if I had rephrased the first part of that entry to remove the "most vile hate speech" bit. And I still don't see the "controversy" - especially when sites like WikiScanner have been [http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22315991-5001031,00.html doubted] in the past. But thanks for the recommendation, I might apply for a NYT job later ;)

::And no, it would be the fact of the editor who MAKES THE CLAIM. I happen not to know that guy, and he doesn't seem to have an article. So to casual readers, it's not a truism, it's an unsourced claim. And from what I see, the claim becomes "true" with the reasoning "The NYT is liberal because the guy is liberal, and the guy is liberal because he's the chief of the NYT". But fine, I'll do the job of whoever made the claim and do his/her research. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::And no, it would be the fact of the editor who MAKES THE CLAIM. I happen not to know that guy, and he doesn't seem to have an article. So to casual readers, it's not a truism, it's an unsourced claim. And from what I see, the claim becomes "true" with the reasoning "The NYT is liberal because the guy is liberal, and the guy is liberal because he's the chief of the NYT". But fine, I'll do the job of whoever made the claim and do his/her research. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT)