"

 Verifiability 

Wikipedia:Verifiability states that ""3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it."".  Until such time that this policy is met, the section currently entitled 'Scientist' should be removed for lack of verifiability coupled with reliance on weasel phrasing as the support for the entire section.  This is further born out by the cite your sources section that states ""If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information"" (emphasis mine).  This is mandatory policy.  Please adhere to it until such time as editors can provide sources and/or rewrite the section with appropriate sourcing.  Thanks  

The information that you are complaining about isn't about a person.  It's about critics/supporters.  You are wilfully misinterpreting policy.  Please stop.   

 That is an incorrect assessment.  The unsourced information is about Sarfati.  That it is attributed to anon critics/supporters and is unsourced is the reason that it is unverifiable.  Can you provide sources for the assertions?  If not, it should be deleted according to the verifiability policy.  (Also, I respectfully request that this discussion be about content rather than personal commentary directed at mei.e. ""willfully""Thank you)  

No, you are wrong.  What there could be libel?   

 (1) The anonymous assertions are unsourced and (2) the anonymous assertions are, well, anonymous.  This alone puts it in the range between gossip and libel.  Furthermore, as there are no sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability is violated. Please tell me how you believe I am wrong.  With all the text on this talk page, no one has supplied even one source that verifies the anonymous assertion. cite your sources: ""If you doubt the accuracy or origin of an unsourced statement that has been in an article for a long time, delete it or move it to the talk page.""  
 Can you improve the section, including sources and lack of anonymous weasel phrases, rather than reverting it back to this original, disputed form?  

 Verifiability 

Wikipedia:Verifiability states that ""3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it."".  Until such time that this policy is met, the section currently entitled 'Scientist' should be removed for lack of verifiability coupled with reliance on weasel phrasing as the support for the entire section.  This is further born out by the cite your sources section that states ""If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information"" (emphasis mine).  This is mandatory policy.  Please adhere to it until such time as editors can provide sources and/or rewrite the section with appropriate sourcing.  Thanks  

The information that you are complaining about isn't about a person.  It's about critics/supporters.  You are wilfully misinterpreting policy.  Please stop.   

 That is an incorrect assessment.  The unsourced information is about Sarfati.  That it is attributed to anon critics/supporters and is unsourced is the reason that it is unverifiable.  Can you provide sources for the assertions?  If not, it should be deleted according to the verifiability policy.  (Also, I respectfully request that this discussion be about content rather than personal commentary directed at mei.e. ""willfully""Thank you)  

No, you are wrong.  What there could be libel?   

 (1) The anonymous assertions are unsourced and (2) the anonymous assertions are, well, anonymous.  This alone puts it in