I'm sorry, but if you don't think that the assertion that someone was involved in both the JFK and the RFK assassination is not some sort of lunatic fringe claim that at least deserves some sort of cursory verification, then I don't think the suggestion that you should not be editing an encyclopedia is all that outrageous. The articles that get a lot of Wiki attention are great, but on the fringes we take too much on faith and too much slips through the cracks. Collectively, we need to develop more of a critical eye and letting these sorts of things can be slipped through without acting upon them is, as we have already seen, going to cause lasting harm to the usefulness, reliability, and public image of this project. In the end, it does not matter if this error was "obvious" or not, though it clearly was. However you define obvious, it is a definition that needs to include this sort of claim, otherwise new pages patrol will be an exercise in uselessness and futility. Delirium delirium at hackish.org: This was not (except in retrospect) obvious to me either, because I am not an expert in the Kennedy assassination. I have a vague recollection that it took a long time to come up with the official determination of what happened, so for all I know there may have been hundreds of suspects in the earlier stages of the investigation, and I do not know offhand all their names, or whether Mr. Seigenthaler was one of them. Quite frankly, if you have nothing better to do than insult Wikipedians and tell us we are not fit to participate in your project, I should think we need new leadership. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com