==Less than neutral opening sentence (continued)== 

 Logicus to Tony Sidaway: Would you please kindly explain why you have taken the apparently pointless action of 'archiving' the previous discussion about the opening sentence, whatever that means. What is it intended to achieve ? 

 * I most strongly object to the following false claim you make and request it be immediately withdrawn.  

 "This discussion, originally on that subject, has veered off to discussing one editor's personal disbelief in the longstanding scientific consensus on common descent, contrary to WP:FORUM. " 

 I object that the discussion did not veer off topic, but stayed tightly focused on the subject of the opening sentence and the failed verification of its false OR claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence for his common ancestry hypothesis. That editor apparently referred to, presumably me, expressed no personal disbelief whatever in "the longstanding scientific consensus on common descent", whatever that consensus may be, if any. Rather that editor simply pointed out that Darwin never presented any compelling evidence for either of his two common ancestry hypotheses raised in Origin, neither for his multiple ancestry hypothesis, nor for his mono-ancestry hypothesis, and moreover that the sources cited for this claim, and the Coyne source in particular, do not in fact claim he did either, and are thus failed verifications. Most particularly I challenged Cashman to say what Coyne claims that compelling evidence was, because it is unlikely Coyne cites any. Cashman did not respond, suggesting Coyne cites none, as I suspected. But in his personally rude and mistaken comments souza notably failed to say what the compelling evidence Darwin presented was according to Coyne, but claimed there is a Bowler source for such on pp120-123 of his 1996 Charles Darwin . So it seems this now raises the issue of whether the justifying source for this claim should be Coyne or Bowler ?  However, the choice seems academic, since contrary to souza's imagination, nowhere on those pages cited does Bowler claim Darwin presented any compelling evidence for common ancestry. So presumably souza should now quote the passage(s) where he thinks Bowler does make this claim ? For as things stand, the opening sentence is left with two failed verifications for its mistaken claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence for common ancestry, which thus appears to be Wiki OR.  

 Whatever, contrary to your claim, there was no breach of WP:Forum. I would therefore be grateful if you would kindly withdraw this claim if you cannot substantiate it.  

 *  On 2 November you claimed "The wording of the opening sentence is currently supported by policy and consensus." 

 Is that true ? In response to my criticisms of it, the opening sentence has been variously significantly changed in the last year,  and most recently and most significantly of all its wording was most crucially changed by Cashman on 1 November, when its claim that Darwin presented compelling evidence for natural selection, whose withdrawal I have persistently campaigned for without sucess hitherto, was withdrawn. So are you claiming that by 2 November the new wording of the opening sentence introduced on 1 November had achieved consensus within 1 day ? And what was the number of readers/editors who logged on to see it and changed their consent overnight such that the consensus about its wording changed ? 

 And does your claim that the new wording is supported by policy imply that the previous wording was not? Or do you claim both the previous wording and also the new wording were/are supported by policy ?