"

As you know, having replied there before, this matter is already being discussed here, two headings up.  Perhaps the two heading should be merged to prevent confusion.  I'd hate for someone to stumble on this ""Recent Karwynn deletions heading and, by no intention of your own, think that I deleted disputed material without discussing it on the talk page.  Either way, here's what I have to say about the matter.  I know it's long, but bear with me - you might find the rambling actually makes some sense.

Weasel Words
Your examples of improving weasel statements should be appreciated for what they are, but unfortunately, they don't really apply here.  The full process you linked to involved escalating from ""some say"" to ""BUsh's critics"" to ""Michael Moore"" followed by accounts of a specific statement, namely, Moore's letter to Bush.  Here, that process has not been fully employed.  Unlike the specifically referenced Moore letter to Bush, which was direct and obvious in who it represented, these sources themselves still contain weasel words; take this sentence: A White House long accused of squelching internal dissent and ignoring outside viewpoints.  Accused by whom?  As I said before, just because weasel words are sourced, even directly quoted, doesn't make them ok.  n your example, the weasel words were eliminated by referencing the source of criticism directly.  ""Michael Moore said whatever"".  In this case, we still haven't discovered who is doing all the accusing.  To say that the Washington Post is making the accusation is inaccurate.  To say that the Washington Post says that Bush has been ""long accused"" is an accurate weasel statement, not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.  It fails verifiability as well, come to think of it: the article certainly doesn't bother to support the sentence.  Read it for yourself.  They just throw it out there.  Verifiability doesn't mean ""you can find it somewhere else"", it means ""It's been or can be verified to be true"".  Perhaps it can be, but this article doesn't do it.  Do you see the difference between this case and the example provided in the WP:AWW guideline?  In the guideline's example, the weasel words were overcome by citing.  In this case, they still remain, because they are inherent in the source itself.

Citing the opinions of these articles
Well, this problem should speak for itself.  Opinions, including those of journalists, should not be cited as support for a claim.  It would be one thing if these criticisms were being mentioned to verify their existence (see Laura Ingraham, an article in which numerous criticisms are used to self-verify, but not used to support a claim within the article that Laura Ingraham is good or bad or this or that), as they are for many public figures, but they are being used as support for this ""particularly notable because"" statement.  As I said before, which was ignored this... well, I'll just repost what I said before.
It's not a neutral article, nor is it a notably important surce. It's just another source. I could find an article that says something along the lines of ""Stephen Colbert proved that he is a manipulative, arrogant polemicist who cares nothing for social graces and only wishes to make a name for himself by being extreme and controversial"", and if I stuck that sentence in the article's main body and referenced it, it would be (rightly) reverted before long. The same if I found an article saying that the accusations against Bush being intolerant of dissention were just a knee-jerk criticism and a political tool, lacking any merit. We shouldn't be able to throw political commentary into articles without restraint based on the premise that it's ""sourced"". This entire statement contains non-neutral commentary about the performance; I don't care if it came from somewhere else, it's still not neutral to include it.
So here are my thoughts on this point, summed up.
Citing opinions is fine for verifying the existence of those opinions/criticisms, but not for supporting the Wikipedia article's opinionated claims (which, see above, shouldn't be in there in the first place).
This article is not notable to the subject matter.  It's very broad, compared to the narrowness of the article's subject (and, even narrower, it's notability and the cause of it).  The specific criticisms are not uncommon, and the article's themselves are not controversial.  They are not important enough to be set apart as evidence pertaining to the performance's notability and Bush's reputation.  Additionally, the source is more focuse