(outdent) So if I understand things correctly the editors involved have presented two contradictory pieces of evidence, each from a reliable source.  Is that correct?  If so, it seems that we need additional evidence independent of those sources or we need to reach a compromise of some sort.

While I empathize with the arguments made by 165.123.30.95, I remind him or her that our standard here is reliability, not truth.  Your arguments appear sound but they are also original research and we can't rely on that here.