User talk:Hal987

Talk about weasel wording and editing, the whole ‘Daniel Craig controversy’ was rife with it. Part of the controversy is the Boycott and petition. These guys don’t stand much of a chance. I’ve read up on the subject for my upcoming article, and the facts I listed are absolutely correct. They are part of the story and need to be at least given a correct telling in one place. Why not the Wikipedia? The parts I edited out were factually wrong. And some were rumors spread by rivalry. Lets fix that and leave a careful correct telling. It’s not going to matter much in the end when you consider the multimillions going into the Royale advertising campaign.

Problems: misleading and erroneous wording prejudicing this part of the entry and thus all subsequent information. 1st major source is from a "pro Craig" website and is not confirmable, the next major source is from a movie producers in a interview with "Variety" and is used to cover answers to topics not address in that interview. The only refutation of the stories comes from the movie producers, it is According to them “many news sources made false reports about Daniel Craig after his casting”. No secondary confirmation has ever been given, it should be listed as such.. Neither has proof a unrestricted licence been furnished to spite numerous requests.