I noticed that Rob now added a notification on original research or verification This is better than simply removing the text but there remains a confusion You all must distinguish me  as a scientist who for you is a third party and who provides sources eg see me as the writer of VTFD in  b as a scientist who helps you just now to get this article straight You should note that the verifiability condition concerns facts that need be checked by various sources But the text that I provided in the disputed criticism section contains a reasoned argument that you can check by the logical faculties of your minds Thus the condition does not apply in that sense Also the reference to original research doesnt apply since I didnt enter original research The research originated in  and was published in  The only thing I do now is correct the misleading element in the article and provide the reader and you as editors with a condensed reasoned statement that you again can check by using the logical faculties of your minds Also the verifiability page mentions that the sources should be unreliable Well again this is a nonissue for this paragraph For the point is that a reasoned argument is provided so that it doesnt matter where it is from and you have to use the faculties of your minds If the washing lady says  then this has the same value as when the bishop says so even when the bishop doesnt know what he talks about Which is exactly why I added the suggestion above that when the reasoned argument is understood the criticism might perhaps best be included in the main text revising the main article I didnt do that myself since all of you would be completely shocked not having digested that reasoned statement Some other comments PM  I doubt whether you will find many other sources on criticism other then I already included in the list of literature in the links that I provided If someone feels like unpacking those links and transferring those references into the main body feel free to do so PM  Now that Rob has eliminated that one sentence that he agreed was nonsense perhaps the header Criticism is too strong and it may be perhaps Evaluation or something like that PM  If the consensus is that this group of editors cannot take responsibility for using their logical faculties of minds on the reasoned argument then you may also attribute it to me see Colignatus at wikinfo and perhaps research a bit how reliable I am Simply a Google scolar is not enough though PM  If all this fails I would like a comment from someone who follows the logic of the reasoned argument and have suggestions how it can remain available for readers then in another format or place