I don t have the time or interest to get deeply involved in this article It seems to have been a battleground for those wishing to ridicule birthers and the birthers themselves But I will say this if you compare the WSJ piece to a lot of the sources in this article it seems quite neutral Looking at the lead alone footnotes 8 11 and 14 look pretty opinionated to me And note that I used in text attribution for the WSJ piece as is commonly done for other opinion sources later in this article but you removed the in text attribution Anyway rather than become a bigger target for relentless charges of POV quote mining and all the rest which I think would be more aptly hurled at much of the existing text in this article I ll not reply further I m not betting that Chris Matthews will be mentioned for long in this article