What's going on here is SamuelRiv is asking for a do-over of a consensus that was not to his liking, a consensus that involved MORE than two editors, I might add An explanation of that consensus can be found in this edit. I've said it on the talk page, but I'll say it again: I believe the statements in the article pass verifiability. I also believe that Samuel's verifiability "check" wasn't thorough enough to justify a claim of "fails verifiability" to the tune of removal of 2K of text. ( That sentiment is echoed by Drmies here). Samuel hasn't delineated here exactly what statements he's challenging and why. Samuel admits to NOT reading the articles he's checking in their entirety; he mostly just Ctrl+F and he may not have been Ctrl+F'ing the right search terms, he hasn't really said what terms he searched, though he was asked repeatedly.
| If anybody cares, here is an explanation of how several of the statements are supported by a particular source |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Consider this article by National Public Radio. Information in the article can be used to:
|
- Remedies/Resolutions
IMO, there are only two acceptable remedies:
- SamuelRiv stands down from this topic everywhere and accepts the consensus, or,
- The verifiability checks are redone and more thoroughly this time. For starters, whoever's doing it (either Samuel or an independent editor) has to explicitly identify what statements they're challenging and why. They need to explain the process they are using to verify. If it's a ctrl+F, they need to state all the terms that were ctrl+F'ed and be open to suggestions about additional terms. And they need to operate in transparency and with good faith, which Samuel hadn't
What's going on here is SamuelRiv is asking for a do-over of a consensus that was not to his liking, a consensus that involved MORE than two editors, I might add An explanation of that consensus can be found in this edit. I've said it on the talk page, but I'll say it again: I believe the statements in the article pass verifiability. I also believe that Samuel's verifiability "check" wasn't thorough enough to justify a claim of "fails verifiability" to the tune of removal of 2K of text. ( That sentiment is echoed by Drmies here). Samuel hasn't delineated here exactly what statements he's challenging and why. Samuel admits to NOT reading the articles he's checking in their entirety; he mostly just Ctrl+F and he may not have been Ctrl+F'ing the right search terms, he hasn't really said what terms he searched, though he was asked repeatedly.
| If anybody cares, here is an explanation of how several of the statements are supported by a particular source |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Consider this article by National Public Radio. Information in the article can be used to:
|
- Remedies/Resolutions
IMO, there are only two acceptable remedies:
- SamuelRiv stands down from this topic everywhere and accepts the consensus, or,
- The verifiability checks are redone and more thoroughly this time. For starters, whoever's doing it (either Samuel or an independent editor) has to explicitly identify what statements they're challenging and why. They need to explain the process they are using to verify. If it's a ctrl+F, they need to state all the terms that were ctrl+F'ed and be open to suggestions about additional terms. And they need to operate in transparency and with good faith, which Samuel hadn't