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