, 29 January 2015 (UTC) 
 :::That would be true if you were proposing a simple calculation. You're not. You're proposing that numbers you decide (which, let's be honest, rely on what are almost certainly fuzzy numbers to begin with) are significant be mentioned as significant, when the RS you are taking them from specifically portrays them as not significant. You are asking that we interpret data in specific opposition to how the RS interprets it, and to cap it off, you've even made it very explicit above that your intention is to "thrash" the RS. Your whole argument, in fact, hinges on the assumption of Newsweek's incompetence in interpreting data based on Newsweek's interpretation alone, when you admit you haven't looked at the actual original data they draw their conclusions from. 
 :::I'm frankly bewildered here, as this seems to be the exact behavior that WP:OR is intended to prevent. When and if you decide to take a look at the original study, and can demonstrate from actual evidence that Newsweek's analysis is misleading, that would be absolutely worth discussing. But a citation to Newsweek for what would essentially be "Hey, Newsweek is stupid" seems the very worst at misrepresenting a citation.  18:45