Talk:Golden plates
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golden plates Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
| Template:Search box |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Message box".Template:Template other Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Script error: No such module "Article history".
User:MiszaBot/config User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Recent reverts
Template:Ping I feel like the version where I removed the second link to the church was an improvement. Can you explain why you reverted ([1]) since your edit summary failed to do so? Do you feel like the extra prepositional phrase helped? How so? 107.116.165.18 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do with it as you wish. Vsmith (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
MOS:CLAIM
@Jgstokes Yes hi! I'm aware of MOS:CLAIM, I cited it in my edit summary. However, in this case it truly is a claim, something stated without particularly strong evidence by a given group of people who have a vested interest in it being true. As far as I am aware, this supposed "translation" isn't exactly supported by a wealth of scientific-quality sources. Or even regular reliable sources, for that matter. Like I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is one such claim. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't change the fact that the word "claim" should be avoided. It is a weasel word, which is clearly against Wikipedia policies except in reference to legal matters. With all due respect to you, I couldn't care less whether or not you are aware of any evidence of the translation. This matter solely relates to your usage of the term claim, which, per what we both cited, Wikipedia deems inappropriate. Therefore, unless a consensus decides your usage of the word "claim" is consistent with Wikipedia policy, which it doesn't appear to be, the term should not be reintroduced into this article. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 21:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, this is not a weasel word, that's an entirely different category of word. Weasel words are words that avoid providing attribution in a sentence, I'm not doing that. I'm arguing we should actually dispute this claim in wiki-voice. MOS:CLAIM does not forbid the use of "claimed" it just warns against loaded terms because they can imply a certain degree of judgement. Since I'm arguing that some value judgement about the veracity this particular claim here is probably appropriate under WP:DUE, MOS:CLAIM is not directly applicable here, and you'll need to actually engage with the WP:DUE part of the discussion --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)