Please read before editing
Edits like this  are not helpful. I know there is a call on Reddit to "piss off Christians" but please take the time to at least read the sentence, if not the paragraph, before editing. The claim is extensively substantiated through multiple references.Jeppiz (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- What? Someone attempted canvassing on reddit? Could you link me to it? Feedback 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- All right, I found it. Whoever did this should be blocked on Wikipedia. I do not browse Reddit, but I found my way to the article from WP:RPP. A weasel statement made in a reliable source is still a weasel statement. Read WP:WEASEL before reverting my edits. Whether you can back up that someone said it or not is irrelevant. It has no place in the encyclopedia. I will make no fuss about this article considering the controversy surrounding it, but this statement is not okay. I will refrain from copyediting myself, but the tag needs to be placed. Removal of the tag without properly addressing the concern is considered vandalism. Assuming good faith, I shall replace the tag, and if you or anyone else wants to fix the statement, you are welcome to. But as of now, I have no choice but to re-add the tag, and hope that a 5-year-veteran like yourself doesn't begin an edit war. Feedback 20:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am in no way saying you came from the canvass, though it's a matter of fact that 95% of users new to the article today came from Reddit. Furthermore, always post your talk page post before reverting, not the other way around. There is nothing from you on the talk page to explain why you insert a tag despite sources.Jeppiz (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- WP:WEASEL uses "many scholars state" as one of it's principal examples of weasel words. If the weasel statement has been made in a reliable source, it's irrelevant. Per WP:WEASEL's definition, that phrase "creates an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated". It's ambiguous, vague, and it has no place in the encyclopedia. The statement should be corrected. Someone who's been on Wikipedia since 2009 should know this and not be defending a blatant weasel statement like this one. Feedback 20:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RS/AC. I agree with you, it's a strong statement, but one we can make in clear cases "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." That is precisely what we have in this case.Jeppiz (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- The whole sentence is troublesome and is impossible to source correctly. RS/AC does not contradict my stance on the matter. I believe that the message that you want to convey can be made with far better language than the one currently utilized. I feel we are getting somewhere, but the twice-removal of the appropriate policy tag is troublesome. Unless someone fixes the statement, it should be included. In fact it is considered vandalism to remove such tags. Assuming good faith, I have no problem explaining exactly why these specific words are weasel words despite the sources. I told you above that I did not want to fix the statement myself due to the controversy you brought to my attention. However, the sentence still needs to be fixed for many reasons. "Virtually" means absolutely nothing. It is vague, ambiguous and adds nothing of value to the statement except to create an impression that there is an uncountable sizable amount. It should be removed. There will never be an appropriate amount of references to support that "virtually all scientists" agree on something, because the nature of the word makes it unprovable. "Consider" is another word that has problems. What does the article mean by "consider"? If a scholar considered Jesus to have existed, but doesn't anymore, is he still counted as part of "virtually all scholars"? All these are problems covered in WP:WEASEL and the tag is most certainly appropriate. I'm not one for edit wars, so before readding the tag, I want you, @Jeppiz: and @Bill the Cat 7: to confirm whether your response to the tag will be to remove it a 3rd time or to actually fix the weasel statement. Feedback 21:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- It appears your argument is with WP:RS/AC which explicitly say we can say that there is a near unanimous academic consensus when that is the case and we have sources saying that that is the case. There is nothing troublesome with the removal of the tag, as you insist, given that the statement conforms exactly to what the sources used for it says. My response if you readd the tag would be to warn you for edit warring. You have not even discussed the issue at the talk page, just reverted and insisted that you're here with the WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I believe you're having a different argument. I have no problem with communicating that there is a consensus that Jesus exists. I have a problem with the weasel-wording. I still don't understand where your confusion is stemming from since I have made this very clear. The statement can be made without resorting to poor language full of weasel words. Is this a case of WP:JDL or a case of simply not "getting it"? Feedback 21:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- The current formulation conforms very well with the sources used, but if you have a suggestion for a better formulation that is equally true, I'm sure it would be welcomed.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- It does not "conform very well".
- • "Virtually all"' means nothing. Who are the exceptions? How many are there? How much of a majority is necessary to be considered "virtually all"? If you just want to communicate a majority, then you would use "most", but "virtually" is impossible to source correctly due to the unencyclopedic nature of the word.
- • '"Various disciplines"'. Which exactly are the various disciplines? You can't just use a word like "various", "some" or "many" since they don't specify anything. If you want to list the different disciplines, you are welcome to, but opening with "various" is weasly. Phrases like these are probably the most popular violation of WP:WEASEL.
- • '"Who have commented on the subject"'. This is redundant, unless we're supposed to expect sources from people who have never talked about the subject. Not a weasel word, but just a very dumb phrase in the middle of the sentence.
- • '"consider Jesus to have existed"'. Like I said above, consider is not precise enough to communicate what wants to be said. Anyone who has ever pondered the question of his existence has "considered" it. "Recognized" would be a far better word.
- As for my creating my own alternative, I feel like it will be shot down no matter what. You've already admitted that you will remove the tag if added, and that despite knowing the policy behind it, you're determined to revert it. There is not much more I can do to help orient you on the problematic language. Therefore, if you revert the tag once again, I will have no choice but to go to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Feedback 21:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- So first you say it can be better stated, then you say have no intention to provide another way to state it because you assume bad faith, and if you aren't allowed to WP:OWN the article on which you already edit war, you will go to WP:ANI? I wish you the best of luck with that ANI-report.Jeppiz (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was waiting on your actual response to the specific examples above before going ahead and adding a tag. And wow, you just ignored them. I'm not assuming bad faith, but making an educated guess on how you've responded so far. I just listed each problem and provided examples as alternatives ("most", "recognized", etc.) and your response was a sarcastic "good luck on ANI" without any type of response to my careful and in-depth explanation as to why the language currently in the article is poor. If you can't even be bothered to respond to the actual arguments above, why should I expect you to welcome my copyediting? Feedback 22:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Marvel vs. DC.png
Thanks for uploading File:Marvel vs. DC.png
. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use
. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)