Originally Posted by alnorth
I don't see what is objectionable about that link. Without poring through that massive entry and the nitty-gritty details, it seems like they did the best they could with the information available, said part of the e-mail chain was true, part was false, and part they were not sure about, and they cited 7 books at the end plus other cites within the article.
Its not like they stamped it with a big red false and moved on.
That's not the point. They failed to debunk that quote. Best information they had? Well they failed to note it was from an interview which has often been included where I've seen that quote before. They still missed it. So it shows they are not fool proof which some seem to think. As far as not stamping it with a "big red false" you can see that some still rely on it as if it had.