Talk:Lano and Woodley

Weasel words
Can anyone please identify passages with the weasel words? There are a couple of dubious statements, but otherwise it seems fine. Comments from Rob.au would be good. Stu 10:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article has been improved since I tagged it, but there's an obvious one still there: however supposedly according to the group boasting a total of 21 audience members throughout the 3 week run.


 * Reading it now, all that stands out is the complete lack of citations. There's nothing controversial and in need of removal, but there are a number of claims made that really should be referenced, especially considering Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons.  Might need to replace the  tag with.


 * –Rob.au 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I cut the tag. Saying a whole article "may be compromised by weasel words" is the most weasely statement imaginable. The article may have weasel words. Or not. Maybe. Stevage 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I've removed the unsubtantiated and unlikely claim, which let's face it, was probably just a self-deprecating joke by the pair.  No need to get personal.  –Rob.au 11:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good call Stevage; the weasel words statement is indeed weasley! Stu 01:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Settle down guys, the "weasel words" tag isn't a reflection on the subjects of the article... not sure what the drama is... there was some dodgy text and it has been dealt with... sheesh. –Rob.au 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand Rob.au, I was suggesting that the actual tag, which is Wikipedia's responsibility, is weasley. The tag should be more definate - "this article contains" rather than "may be". I don't question your original motivation in tagging the article. Stu 02:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)