I wrote this a long long long time ago I wrote this after 4 tedious months of discussing the MHP on Wikipedia None of the people I was arguing with had mentioned to me that the only thing that mattered was the reliably published sources Armed with this knowledge I have revised my estimate Maybe 10 of the current argument fits within Wikipedia policy not the 5 I originally estimated Not a single other word requires change Conventional Wisdom I ve been re reading some past postings According to Rick this article has been reviewed on 2 occasions as a Featured Article and that much of what I find inessential actually was a by product of those reviews Rick is proud of shepherding this article through at least one of those reviews So in some ways I seem to be arguing against Conventional Wisdom But I don t feel that way I have a few college courses on this topic over 30 years ago and a lifetime of being a data analyst My viewpoint is There is no possible way I am wrong about this To me this whole discussion has as much to contribute as a discussion of whether the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning How does a single voice effectively confront the Conventional Wisdom This is a question not just for Wikipedia but any societal system In the US a swindler set up a Ponzi scheme on Wall Street Individual investors went to the regulatory agency numerous times but to no avail The guy didn t actually get caught He turned himself in How does a minority but important voice get heard Yes I look at this entire article excepting maybe 5 of it as an elaborate hoax I think everyone went along because they did not want to admit to limited knowledge of the subject matter Everybody drank the kool aid And the emperor is wearing no clothes 2 3 of the time I will select a goat Therefore I should switch Glkanter talk original diff posted on my talk page