The list of signatures on the “counter-letter” has been called into question by editors here, but not, that I am aware of, by any outside sources. While I appreciate the concern, it is not our place to cast aspersions on petitions. (I also don’t think there’s much reason to linger on it. It’s hardly pivotal to the letter itself.) However: I was not paying much attention to this controversy at the time, and I cannot now tell if the Google Form was open to signatures broadly or limited in any way. If anyone who was paying attention can confirm this, it might be reasonable to add that fact to the article. Consider, as a sort of compromise: By 30 July, Hendy and Wiles' counter-letter, which was open to public signatures via Google Forms, had received more than 2,000 signatures.
— HTGS (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- My apologies, I missed your comment here before making the previous edit. I feel the mention of any quantity and the "more than" is too editorial in itself; e.g. "more than" is often marketing speak. It's probably better to remove the statement about number of signatures and let readers examine the link. 2407:7000:A227:1400:E4C9:57F0:370C:BC54 (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Have you been reading these sources? That statement is sourced (word-for-word) by Spinoff: “More than 2,000 people, including numerous prominent academics and other public figures, have put their name to an open letter …”
- I’m happy to consider rewrites here, and maybe we don’t need to get into number of signatures, but the exact phrasing of “more than 2,000 signatures” is entirely reasonable in itself. Other than being cited to a secondary source, it’s also entirely verifiable, as the page is still there, and sits well within WP:CALC. If you have issue with the number of signatures being WP:UNDUE or something, then say that. Otherwise, “more than” is fine. — HTGS (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, I read that reference, and counted the signatures in the source which is indeed just over 2,000. The source would be a more direct reference than the Spinoff article, which doesn't appear to link the source.
- Regardless of the number, there is an absence of evidence establishing the authenticity of those signatures, so I cannot see good justification to include the fact. Any arrival at a number between 100% bot-generated/fake and 100% authentic will be the reader's probabilistic interpolation. We should not knowingly include quantities that have no certainty figure attached and leave the reader to impute probabilities; that would do a disservice to factual presentation. 2407:7000:A227:1400:E4C9:57F0:370C:BC54 (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Do you have issue with the Spinoff as a reliable source? Because the fact that the petition gained more than 2000 signatures was reported; what was not reported was the veracity of those signatures. The fact that we have a media outlet noting the number of signatures is good evidence that the statement is due the weight of mentioning it. — HTGS (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
