User:Purplebackpack89/SamuelRiv

What's going on here is SamuelRiv is asking for a do-over of a consensus that was not to his liking, a consensus that involved MORE than two editors, I might add An explanation of that consensus can be found in this edit. I've said it on the talk page, but I'll say it again: I believe the statements in the article pass verifiability. I also believe that Samuel's verifiability "check" wasn't thorough enough to justify a claim of "fails verifiability" to the tune of removal of 2K of text. (That sentiment is echoed by Drmies here). Samuel hasn't delineated here exactly what statements he's challenging and why. Samuel admits to NOT reading the articles he's checking in their entirety; he mostly just Ctrl+F and he may not have been Ctrl+F'ing the right search terms, he hasn't really said what terms he searched, though he was asked repeatedly.

If anybody cares, here is an explanation of how several of the statements are supported by a particular source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Consider this article by National Public Radio. Information in the article can be used to: Identify a link between Bryan and right-wing populist Donald Trump Apply a populist label to both Bryan and Trump Equate populism with nativism and cultural conservatism ("Populism has also often had a strong admixture of nativism, resistance to cultural change or diversity and outright racism.") Link Bryan specifically to creationism, Prohibition and Christian fundamentalism. (For this, start reading at "Bryan served as Wilson's secretary of state for two years and thereafter..." and continue reading to the end of the section.) Supports a claim that right-wing populism is racist and anti-intellectual (with the quote "As Oscar Winberg, an international scholar and a student of U.S. political history, has described it, there have been "anti-intellectual and, at times, overtly racial appeals" that characterized "right-wing populism."") Supports labeling George Wallace a right-wing populist. There were concerns about the affiliated idelogies of right-wing populism, but this article alone ties RWP to nativism, Christian fundamentalism and segregation (Anti-Semitism already had a source)

Remedies/Resolutions

IMO, there are only two acceptable remedies:

1. SamuelRiv stands down from this topic everywhere and accepts the consensus, or,
2. The verifiability checks are redone and more thoroughly this time. For starters, whoever's doing it (either Samuel or an independent editor) has to explicitly identify what statements they're challenging and why. They need to explain the process they are using to verify. If it's a ctrl+F, they need to state all the terms that were ctrl+F'ed and be open to suggestions about additional terms. And they need to operate in transparency and with good faith, which Samuel hadn't