I seem to be experiencing an increased number exchanges where evidence that challenges long established entries and other site data is simply ignored or not considered seriously enough. Even for less established entries, evidence that conflicts with the status quo is often ignored (data inertia I suppose). Skepticism is justified; unwavering devotion is another. This is a concern.
For something well established (e.g. an iconic song, album or artist), I would never question without reason and would have already attempted to examine in some depth before starting any report. As a result, some of these entries have been revised, but even when no changes are needed, the matter should have been investigated.
I used to think that editors exerted best efforts when researching new additions and submissions, while I only exerted reasonable efforts. Frankly, best efforts is expecting too much given the quantity of work on site, but now I know that most editors exert only reasonable research efforts. For some aspects more than I personally do, for some aspects less.
Nevertheless, sometimes when a matter is researched far more than usual resulting in more than usual sources and details, personal experience and observations has led me to conclude conflicting evidence is often not considered resulting in questionable if not incorrect site data.
There are no closed questions in an open society; there is no "settled science"; and there should be no SHS entries immune to challenge.