"

Frankly this is a waste of everybody's time.  It serves no purpose to repeat the arguments against inclusion over again, full in the knowledge that you will not accept them.  Your spiels of wikilawyering have demonstrated very little on the whole.  You have consistently failed to assume good faith, and you have not convinced anyone that your biased original research belongs in the article.  You claimed that four days ago you did not know what a talk page was.  Yet, you are now lecturing users who are far more experienced than you in these matters on your beliefs on Wiki policy.  We haven't moved on significantly.

If you cannot accept that on controversial articles the standard of ""challenged, or likely to be challenged"" is higher than elsewhere, then you are in no position be lecturing policy to us.  WP:UCS is a guide - an essay, not policy.  In any case, common sense dictates that on controversial articles, material is more likely to be challenged than on non-controversial ones.  This is challenged material and you require a better cite than the ones you gave us.  The material has implications for NPOV.  These are the facts that are relevant here.  A long circular argument on talk helps no-one.  '''' talk "