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  Id 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 heres what I have to say about the matter  I know its 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 dont really apply here  The full process you linked to involved escalating from some say to BUshs critics to Michael Moore followed by accounts of a specific statement namely Moores 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 doesnt 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 havent 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 doesnt bother to support the sentence  Read it for yourself  They just throw it out there  Verifiability doesnt mean you can find it somewhere else it means Its been or can be verified to be true  Perhaps it can be but this article doesnt do it  Do you see the difference between this case and the example provided in the WPAWW guideline  In the guidelines 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 selfverify 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 Ill just repost what I said before Its not a neutral article nor is it a notably important surce Its 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 articles 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 kneejerk criticism and a political tool lacking any merit We shouldnt be able to throw political commentary into articles without restraint based on the premise that its sourced This entire statement contains nonneutral commentary about the performance I dont care if it came from somewhere else its 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 opinionscriticisms but not for supporting the Wikipedia articles opinionated claims which see above shouldnt be in there in the first place This article is not notable to the subject matter  Its very broad compared to the narrowness of the articles subject and even narrower its notability and the cause of it  The specific criticisms are not uncommon and the articles themselves are not controversial  They are not important enough to be set apart as evidence pertaining to the performances notability and Bushs reputation  Additionally the source is more focuse