[jibal]

I removed the "claimed" weasel wording, and now others have followed up. The editors that don't understand math and don't realize how easily this counterexample can be confirmed have lost the debate -- not that there really ever was one.

[kzrdude]

Wikipedia has policies and it needs to use reliable sources. This rule is often skirted and a lot of facts are cited to self-published and fast moving web sources. Those who are braking the progress on the article here are doing the right thing, trying to uphold the editorial standard.

Luckily there is now a New Scientist article to link to, so, the issue should now be resolved.

[handoflixue]

The problem is, "dozens of mathematicians have independently confirmed this, and no one in the community has made any credible objections" is actually a much more reliable source than a link to an article. It's just less legible to administrators.

[tptacek]

It's not really the job of an encyclopedia to be an up-to-the-minute reliable news source. Over the long term, the benefits of the reliable sourcing policy likely outweigh temporary issues like this.

[jibal]

I know what the policies are and I followed them. I also read the entire discussion on the talk page before making my change ... I doubt that you did. WP:BASICMATH says that this is not OR.

If this were OR then even the "claimed" statement would have required RS. No one was willing to remove the counterexample altogether, so my edit to remove the "claimed" weasel word was perfectly valid.