On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
You might be justified in saying this if he was really
told he wasn't
"credible". If he was told that he wasn't a "reliable source" in
WP's
terms, that is a different kettle of fish.
How's he supposed to know the difference?
Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source. The
issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had
preference.