Pogonatos2

crossbow

You made an edit to the first evidence section, however, not in an appropriate manner. A reference is for providing a source not for a statement telling the opposite of what it is supposed to source. For provinding additional statements use {{hcref}}. That in 2006 one author writes a theses that something is not a crossbow because of whatever reason does not mean he is right, it just means he has voiced an opinion that contradicts other published work. As long as you don't source that this new theses is communis opinio you have to present it as the opinion of one author and not state as a fact. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Crossbow and Diodorus Siculus

That was a very reasonable discussion where you presented your points very well. However, for minimizing the disruption for our readers, I suggest we draft a proposal for rewriting this section on the talk page of the article. When we both think it is OK, we replace the old text with it. I strongly suggest that you use as many sources as possible for presenting this dispute, even if this means sourcing the same thing twice with different sources. This gives the reader the impression that a statement is well researched and not the brainchild of only one author. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you make progress with your proposal to point out that wikipedia reflects only a fringe opinion in the crossbow article? Wandalstouring (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)