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