So now Wikipedia (and reading the author/editor's own words first hand for yourself) is/are an unreliable source(s) as well -what source is authentic and reliable ? None, I take it, for the obviously biased media monitors and sesnors with an agenda, I am sure.

Witness in the editing history of the following page(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kelly_O%27Donnell#Controversy ,
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SummerPhD#Work_in_progress  ,

that SummerPhD is a plainly and clearly biased sensor with no regard for undeniable truth or (compellingly conclusive) facts which would otherwise be admissible and uncontrovertibe in courts of law and/or equity, should they be so offered (and yet they may). SummerPhD and his/her editorial co-conspirators have, in effect, undermined the credibility of wikipedia through use of circular nonsenical argument (if one can fairly even call it argument - it's more in the nature of a bi-polar / borderline personalty type rant, as aparent) and unbridaled use of the editors' pen, which power ought to be withdrawn or at least suspended , with public repremand , by officials of Wikipedia , if there are such persons.

If not, the intentional destruction of others' intellectual property rights , given unto the public domain , ought to be actionable under some legal writ , whether sounding in tort or criminal law.

Keep it up SummerPhD and win yourself a heaping helping of litigation , all over the world , starting in Dallas, Texas.
As a result of SummerPhD's sensoring editorial practicies, SummerPhD has interjected him/herself into a growing controversy over what exactly it is that SummerPhD is trying to cover up , and why.

Unethical, self dealing hacks are all you and your little group are.