Talk:Lloyds Bank coprolite

message: The article does indeed contain a citation for "fossilised", and the citation is here. That is The Guardian: "Paleoscatologists dig up stools". The Guardian is a respected and authorititative source. If you have a reliable source which says it is not fossilised, please show it here, and we can add it to the article saying that there are two views on the matter. Please do not start an edit war. And by the way, this is a British English article, where the word is "faeces", not "feces". Thank you.  Storye book (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This article, for lack of a better word, is shit. Newspaper sources, which this article entirely relies on, are unreliable for discussing scientific topics per WP:SCIRS. There's zero attempt to engage with the academic sources that have actually discussed the stool, showing a lack of effort in constructing the article. Reading the academic sources,  the original paper indeed says the stool has undergone mineralisation, making it reasonable to describe it as fossilised in the strict sense of the term, but this is currently not explained properly in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue here is the WP guidelines. We cannot write facts which are not clearly written out in the sources. There is no mention of this particular specimen in the document that you link above. Using a document search, I cannot find any reference to mineralisation or mineralization. If it is there, please let us know the exact page and quotation, so that we can add the source and update the article. We cannot use sources which do not mention the specific subject of the article, when dealing with the question of whether or not it is fossilised. I am not saying that you are wrong about whether or to what extent it is fossilised. I am saying that regarding this issue, we need a clear source which mentions this particular specimen. If you have a better source which mentions this specimen, please let us know. Storye book (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Some parts of the document are not character encoded properly. The actual paper (which is towards the end of the document) is only 5 pages, so it's somewhat lazy of you not to have tried to read it. It very clearly states on the opening page of the paper:  emphasis mine, with mineralization clearly mentioned again on page 226 (as labeled in the header of the document), where it is contrasted with dessicated native American stools. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, will you please stop using insults on this talk page. You have already called the article "shit" and you have called me "lazy", which is unacceptable on this platform, and it does not forward any discussion. Secondly, no-one here is obliged to trawl through long scientific or specialist documents, where the editor offering that reference has not previously included a page number and/or quotation. Many editors here already work very long hours for no material reward. It will not help you to make unreasonable demands. Storye book (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossilised