And here on the David Kelly article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104716069he alters
"Kelly did not believe Iraq had retained biological weapons after the end of inspections. "
to "Kelly believed it was most likely that Iraq had retained biological weapons after the end of inspections. "
This may be true. Are we comfortable with people involved in UK government editing articles pseudonymously to present that government's case in a favourable light? Are we comfortable with them being elected pseudonymously to one of the most powerful committees on the eighth biggest propaganda site in the world? Silly question actually.
And this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104716069has the comment "Clearout some rubbish and POV, the David Kelly conspiracy people are almost as bad as the '9-11 truth'ers)"
Sure, I hate conspiracy theorists as much as the next person, but this surely has to be some great ammunition for their cause.
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: