Talk:Pentagon to explain, or deny, new spy plan
January 2005[edit]
I've made a few changes here, the original story was.. well, pretty one sided really. I couldn't figure out how to change the title of the posting though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.197.155.6 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 26 January 2005
It was only one sided because there was only one side to get it from at the time. Cameron 17:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No insult intended, I merely felt it needed a bit of a rewrite to conform to the neutrality standards put forth in the posting guidelines. Did you have any objection to the article as now written? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.197.155.6 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 January 2005
- The original story was posted after Report: The Pentagon's new powers, which was a much more balanced treatment of the story. (Also shows a lack of research on the part of the original author.) However, this has become a larger story, in need of severe editing and wikifying, but has some good resources. - Amgine 18:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Um, Amigine, I wrote both stories, they were covering different stages of the Pentagon event. I'm kind of sick of this blind-sighted lashing AND the clones being made of my stories (although that does not apply to this story in perticular) Cameron 17:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Category[edit]
{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:Washington Post. Green Giant (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
