In a message dated 10/28/2008 12:52:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
Please point to which part of that article is a source for the claim that he is a filmmaker.>> ------------
Okay I retract my claim that it was sourced. However the article has no footnotes whatsoever, so that same claim, i.e. that nothing is sourced, could be made about every sentence in the article.
I don't see have this side-issue advances the situation however. Which still remains, that we cannot verify that a particular editor is the BLP subject.
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
WJhonson wrote:
Okay I retract my claim that it was sourced.
Thank you.
However the article has no footnotes whatsoever, so that same claim, i.e. that nothing is sourced, could be made about every sentence in the article.
Sure. So any sentence in that article, if contested, could reasonably be deleted until a source was found.
I don't see have this side-issue advances the situation however. Which still remains, that we cannot verify that a particular editor is the BLP subject.
We have no need to verify that a particular editor is the BLP subject.