Sorry, Dennis, but this doesn't convince me. You're saying that a Wikipedia visitor can "check facts" for themselves by checking the sources, but this simply presupposes that the source is correct. It sounds like you're telling me that if I write an article referencing the Sump website, then that's just my opinion and it's unverifiable. But if someone else writes an article referencing the Sump website, then that IS verifiable, and that makes it okay. Well that sounds daft to me. It makes more sense to examine the preponderance of evidence and listen to counter arguments, albeit in the form of links). I simply don't accept the assertion that just because something is published, it's reliable, and if it's not reliable, it's a "soft fact". It's just opinion. Yes, published articles are verifiable, but so what? An alternative system would be one where the Wikipedia author looks at other (offered) articles, examines them for credibility and rationality (even if the article contradicts the existing orthodoxy), and then decides whether to include a given link. But the boot-strapping system as employed by Wikipedia is illogical and is not likely to produce accurate or reliable articles. It's just as likely, if not more likely, to propogate misinformation. I won't be editing the Ariel page. Ultimately, faith underpins everything, not least the credibility of verifiable sources. If the Ariel page is wrong now, which it is, then it's will stay wrong for some time - and if that doesn't illustrate the fundamental weakness of the "verifiability" dogma, then I don't know what does.