curprev00:2900:29, 10 January 2011 CJLL Wrighttalkcontribs 3,890 bytes−17 rv -- quotes *are* required here, since the interpretation of events as presented in this partisan source can be, and are, disputed by numerous scholars, including some who took part in the studyundo
6 January 2011
curprev17:3717:37, 6 January 2011 Mamalujotalkcontribs 3,907 bytes+17 Quote not necessary here, paraphrase. Also "Asserted" here is a weasel word, it makes a totally unwarranted implication of falsehood.undo
curprev07:2807:28, 19 February 2010 203.16.9.138talk 3,786 bytes+419 Undid revision 344577280 - the Codex Escalada does not qualify as an "extraordinary claim" but is merely a piece of physical evidence, uncontested on physical grounds.undo
curprev08:0908:09, 17 February 2010 203.16.9.138talk 3,786 bytes+419 Undid revision 344439265 Sarcasm is what it is, but hey, let the reader judge. Reliable source? Please point me to the rule that distinguishes "reliable" from "unreliable"undo
curprev01:4101:41, 24 April 2008 CJLL Wrighttalkcontribs 3,345 bytes+29 restore category (actually exchange with a more specific one) - pls see any of sources given in the references section, the authenticity of this MS. has been seriously questioned by historiansundo