Talk:Iraq disarmament crisis timeline

There is an individual who continues to replace one poorly written and unsubstanted assertion into one section of this timeline. He continues to assert that "The memo's authenticity was questioned by many within the US, including conservative pundit Matt Drudge", without describing 1) who these other people were, or 2) what the basis of their doubts were. To claim that others, independently of Matt Drudge, came up with a set of objections to the Observer report, without specifying any details about the nature of those doubts, is incredibly shoddy writing and unnecessarily vague. If there are people who publicly raised doubts independently of Drudge, then they should be cited and their doubts should be posted. Otherwise, his text should be replaced, as I have done, with something more accurate and precise. What I have attempted to do, but without success because this invididual keeps undoing this effort, is to describe the fact that Drudge raised specific objections, which then made their way in the news media and were cited elsewhere. It is not the business of this encyclopedia to allude to vague and unspecified objections without giving the reader a chance to evaluate them for themselves. The fact is that you can find "many people" who doubt anything, including the moon landing, but that is no reason to make such a vague reference here. Unfortunately, as one who actually has a life and who doesn't go around checking this article every half hour, I actually don't have the will or the inclination to engage in a petty edit war 50 time during the day. But would hope that others who participate in this encyclopedia will be take note of this matter.

Originally, I might add, this individual attributed the doubts originally to a Washington Times report. However, the Washington Times was only citing Matt Drudge's originally published objections, so I made a change to correct this point. When this individual cited in a general sense the nature of Drudge's objections, I again edited the article to describe specifically what those objections were, so that the reader could judge them for themselves and decide how credible Drudge's concerns were. Yet now this person insists on refering to some mystery "many others" who came up with concerns independently of Drudge, without saying what their objections were or who these people were. I am therefore going to change this text one more time, hoping that others will be alerted to the situation once this person inevitably comes in and replaces the improved text with an inferior one. Thanks. soulpatch