Talk:Disappearance of Suzanne Lyall

Latest comment: 3 months ago by 2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 in topic Editorializing?


Editorializing?

edit

Right before typing this post on this talk-page, its article contained the sentences

QUOTE
Over the years, 75 psychics have contacted the Lyalls with tips. Many of them have involved water, suggesting that Suzanne is dead and her body has been submerged somewhere."
UNQUOTE

That is poorly worded. It makes it sound as if the FACT that 75 psychics tips' have involved water does of itself suggest that water is involved. Well, no it doesn't. The fact that 75 psychics (or in fact only many tips from some or all of the 75 psychics) involve water does NOT suggest that water is involved. Wikipedia shouldn't be taking a stand on whether the things that psychics say (even if its not 75 but 75,000 psychics pronouncing in unanimity that water is involved) are credible. I'm sure that to most Wikipedia readers, the utterances of psychics are NOT credible. But if I were writing this article I wouldn't let MY view be injected. Now, if the writer had wanted to say that it's the PSYCHICS who are suggesting that water is involved, that's fine, but the way the sentence is worded it sounds as if they writer wanted to say that the FACT that the psychics say water is involved DOES suggest that water is involved. That's not encyclopedic.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence SimpsonReply