Their word, not mine. It’s worth ‘capping for posterity; click the image for full size.
Have I misunderstood lo these many years or isn’t one of the core virtues of Wikipedia supposedly that entries can be revised to reflect current events? That would seem to warrant a short section noting at least the facts of the Enquirer story that have been corroborated, secure in the knowledge that if it falls apart the offending material can be blissfully deleted and ne’er spoken of again. I must have misunderstood. P.J. Gladnick wondered this morning at Newsbusters how, per Wikipedia’s stringent “no rumors” policy, unconfirmed rumors of Tim Russert’s death were allowed to stand while the world wondered. Good question, but here’s a better one: Anyone want to take a shot at explaining this?