Talk:Suetonius on Christians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tiny minority views

The Latin text section includes the statement: "Chrestus instigated Claudius to expel the Jews". This statement seems to be a really tiny minority view, advocated by perhaps less than a handful of scholars.

After literature searches, this view seems to require accepting that Chrestus would have had access to Claudius and would need to be part of the inner circle, leading to hypotheses for who he was. No scholar seems to have accepted any hypothesis, and suggestions such as this and this seem far from mainstream - pretty much lost weather balloons.

I think per policy, a view supported by less than a handful of peopel among hundreds and hundreds of scholars of the antiquities, should be identified as a tiny minority view. Is this not a tiny minority view? It certainly needs discussion and clarification. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather interesting piece of WP:OR. There's a reason why it's discouraged. By the way have you ever heard of Ronald Syme or Anthony Birley? (That's a rhetorical question.) --spin^control 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR applies to content in articles, not talk page discussions to determine status of opinions. But I see no response to the question. So is "Chrestus instigated Claudius to expel the Jews" a tiny minority view or not? It looks like a tiny minority view to me. So that needs to be discussed and clarified. If there is no response from anyone , we will have to assume it is a tiny minority view. History2007 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm, what you are supposed to put into the article is based on your sources, not OR or NS. You've already done some ad hoc research. Your aim seems to be for that to spill into the article. On that basis it is prohibited. -- spin^control 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not prohibited to discuss and determine if a statement in the article is a tiny minority view. Indeed policy requires that they be identified. History2007 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just stick to citing your sources. -- spin^control 12:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the determination of "minority view" and "tiny minority view" is part of the process of article development. That process needs to be followed. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Use your sources. Everything that you put in an article comes from your sources. If you don't have the sources, then you don't say anything. -- spin^control 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We are going in circles here. You need to read WP:Due and tiny minority there. History2007 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User connection to article

A number of times it was suggested that I have a WP:COI with this article or topic. I have twice emphatically stated that I have not even crossed any scholars listed in the article on the street, as far as I know and have zero connections here. I did make two invitations to Doktorspin to state the same and it met with silence. I have had a very uncomfortable feeling about possible connections before, and per policy I will have to tag the article as such. Per policy, please do not remove the tag without discussion and consensus. History2007 (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, you were the person who introduced WP:COI into the discussion. It was certainly unwarranted. You should apologize to yourself for the affront and get over it. -- spin^control 12:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case, niceties aside, the article has been tagged as such, and I left the appropriate warning template on your talk page. History2007 (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

On what basis exactly have you made this fraudulent claim??? Please be specific. -- spin^control 12:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you just failed WP:AGF. This type of language from you is really upsetting. I will stop for a while, then respond. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You still have not given an iota of evidence for your erroneous claim of conflict of interest. You have the onus of explaining your accusation. -- spin^control 13:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I started to get uncomfortable after this edit. When I saw it, I said to myself: this looks like a promo-piece for this guy Slingerland. Not even knowing who he really was. Then I searched and he turned out to be a minority opinion. That was why when I added other scholars, I joked in the edit summary that "he must be lonely" in that section and needed scholarly company. That Slingerland is the minority opinion, was confirmed much later in this edit where he said: "the second paragraph is the majority view and the third is a contrary view." And of course Van Voorst's book also states the same.

And the trend has continued and the name of Slingerland appears 15 times in the article now (used to be 11) and I have even joked that some sections read like "an ode to Slingerland". I had never even heard of him much until a couple of months ago except in a passing reference in Van Voorst's book (pages 31-32) where he said that Stephen Benko and Slingerland are the two voices that oppose the majority of scholars, and that Benko was the better of the two. So I have been surprised why Slingerland and not Benko is used in the article again and again, and is in fact dominating it at every turn. And there seems to be a sense of an emotional attachment to defending the Slingerland fellow, it is all over the edits.

And the statement "Chrestus instigated Claudius" in the article attributed to Slingerland seems to me to be a tiny minority view attributed to Slingerland (and a couple of other scholars) and I have tried to discuss that (in the section just above) but received no response except that the discussion is WP:OR. But the determination of what is a tiny minority view is part of article development process, of course.

So overall, the entire article still seems like an ode to a single scholar, who is often the minority view, and according to Van Voorst not even the better of the two minority views. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In other words, because I used a number of articles that were written between 1988 and 1991 by the same person, articles that are cited in numerous publications, I am accused of a conflict of interest. By the numerous other people I have cited in an effort to get a less biased article: Clarke, Judge, Levinskaya, Rutgers, Gruen, Elliott, Rock, France, Yamauchi, Solin, Esler, Cook, Levine, all from reputable sources scholarly articles and monographs. I've even cited Feldman, Lane and Van Voorst. This accusation of conflict of interest is at best baseless. -- spin^control 14:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not just that.. When I called him Dixie in an edit summary as a joke, you seemed really offended and the feeling has piled up... And you never declined a COI and that added to the feeling. And the other authors were added after I complained, and still his name appears far, far more than others... History2007 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that ‎Fayedizard removed the tag, and I will not argue with him now, but my view has not changed. History2007 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As is perfectly clear, you made your false accusation without any grounds whatsoever. -- spin^control 14:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that your opinion, and he said "no evidence", I see evidence he does not. In his own edit summary there, he said he may have "called it early". I do not want to argue with him, but I have not changed my mind. We can leave this now, and if other evidence shows up, we will see. End of this discussion for now to avoid I did not hear that. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You have no evidence at all and I should know. You were presenting unfounded claims. What new false claim will you try when this latest poor attempt falls flat on its ass? -- spin^control 17:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That is really less than proper language to use in a discussion on Classics. History2007 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are not discussing classics. You haven't used many if any classics sources. -- spin^control 20:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Put it it this way: that was classically poor language. Now, be polite and nice and use clean language. Ok? This is an encyclopedia. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Due and Minority view

In this edit the 3rd paragraph of the Gallio section, already known as the minority view was beefed up again to take the same amount of real estate as the 2nd paragraph that includes the majority view. This is clearly running against WP:Due and the article is again continuing to be "an ode to Slingerland"... Is there music to go with it? History2007 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is another baseless accusation template introduced after the failure of your previous baseless accusation. WP:DUE is not a personal formula for censorship or false accusations of POV (or whatever other excuse). It all has the flavor of sour grapes about it. -- spin^control 16:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

superstitio

The introduction contains a false statement that may or may not accurately represent the source, which at any rate isn't authoritative on Classical Roman religion and the attitudes associated with it. "The Romans" as a collective did not regard every other religion as a superstitio (please see Glossary of ancient Roman religion#superstitio for a brief definition). The Eleusinian mysteries weren't a superstitio. Mithraism wasn't a superstitio. Superstitio was an excessive religiosity of any kind. In theory you could be obsessed to the point of superstitio with the cult of Diana or Jupiter. In general, Judaism wasn't necessarily a superstitio, though some individual Roman Imperial authors had anti-Jewish attitudes that caused them to regard Judaism as a superstitio in the Christian era (Varro, however, writing before the birth of Christ did not share those attitudes, which may have been affected by the early view of Christianity as a form of Judaism, and hence anti-Jewish attitudes are sometimes seen as "rubbing off" from anti-Christian attitudes). Christianity by contrast was consistently regarded as superstition and a form of "atheism", as Tertullian noted in the famous religio licita passage. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Purely for information, this is what the source (J.D. Crossan) says: "For those first pagan outsiders, Christianity was, cumulatively, a depraved, excessive, contagious, pernicious, new, and mischievous superstition. Religion, to put it bluntly, was what aristocratic Romans did; superstition was what others did--especially those unseemly types from regions eat of Italy." Do correct the statement in the article. I merely found the reference with material not derived from the cited page, so I inserted something from that page. -- spin^control 16:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cynwolfe is correct that the Crossan source is not a general authority on Roman religious attitudes, and also about the rest of the analysis he presents. Originally that passage had to do with the contempt of the trio of Pliny, Suetonius etc. towards Christians, as reflected in the article by the quote from Benko (who is authoratative): "Stephen Benko states that the contempt of Suetonius is quite clear, as he reduces Christians to the lowest ranks of society and his statement echoes the sentiments of Pliny and Tacitus." The generalization made to focus on superstitio threw that off. I had been intending to come back to that later. I think the Benko statement should probably be used in fact. The older Crossan statement in fact rhymes with Benko and so may be used as a double quote. There are probably other sources that say the same (e.g. Helen Rhee Early Christian Literature 2005 ISBN 0415354889 page 12) History2007 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I intended only to delete the part that stated too broadly that Romans condemned any religion not their own as superstitio, which is a clear misunderstanding on Crossan's part. They did indeed regard Christianity as superstitio, and Classical writers have nothing good to say about it. But before Christianity came on the scene, the things they condemned as superstitio are mostly what we might call "magic," as well as excessive fervor. It may well be that people of the lower classes would be more inclined to practice magic spells, but the divide was not a class divide either, as Crossan would have it. Roman state religion had several ceremonies (presided over by the public priests from the ruling classes) in which "lowly" people also took part. Their presence or participation was considered essential for the wellbeing of the Roman people as a whole and for the general pax deorum, and these communal rites are among the most archaic, deep-seated, and "native" of the Roman religious tradition. There were also vows for the security of the state, which even Christian emperors found hard to wean themselves from. The expectation that all classes participate in certain communal religious ceremonies (slaves too might play a role) was one factor in the Romans viewing Christians as socially subversive, because they wouldn't perform rites celebrated for the common good of all. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That is generally correct. I had originally quoted Crossan just to say that the trio had "contempt for Christians" - that was all, no mention of superstitio in that statement. It went to show that there was uniformity in the attitude of the trio. When it was extended beyond that the problem came in. I think we can just say it as it used to be sans superstitio and use Benko and Rhee to support it. History2007 (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not with the erroneous reference you provided. -- spin^control 20:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Be positive, be positive. He had a valid point, let it get fixed. History2007 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Novak comment

History2007 has wrongfully removed material without consulting the source. Here exactly is what Novak says on p.22:

we do not know whether Gallio served one or two years as proconsul of Achaea or whether Paul's trial occurred early or late in Gallio's proconsulship. Thus, the possible range of dates for Gallio's proconsulship, and hence for Paul's trial, runs from late spring of 50 CE at the earliest (on the assumption that the Delphi inscription dates to early 52 CE, during the second year of a two-year proconsulship) to the early summer of 54 CE at the latest

It should be clear that Novak here indicates a possible date range of four years. My synopsis was

Working from a date prior to August AD 52 for the Galli inscription, Ralph Novak considers the possibility that Gallio served for two years and calculates a possible range from late spring of AD 50 to early summer of AD 54 depending on whether the inscription reflects a date late in Gallio's consulship or early.

And History2007 claims that I haven't represented Novak properly.

After weeks of fucking about with his attempts to manipulate the content of the article in order to confirm his biases, he goes into accusing me of conflict of interest. When that dose of bile failed, he slapped a POV tag on the text with the implication that I've put POV material in. Now he has fucked up my attempt at a compromise. Well, all I can say is that he has totally forgotten Wheaton's Law. -- spin^control 08:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that you use profanities, I can not discuss the matter with you. I have zero tolerance for profanity. And your accusation of "disruptive editing" in the edit summary again fails WP:AGF. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't even read what Novak said before you wrongfully removed his material. -- spin^control 08:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Removed OR/POV from caption of Delphi image. Original read:

helping confirm the chronology of Paul and Gallio.

which I reduced to "helping date the proconsulship of Gallio", which is at least accurate. The inscription doesn't confirm any chronology. It helps to date Gallio who is mentioned in Acts and so provides a semi-fixed point for the relative chronology of Paul. There was also a useless reference about Pauline chronology which I removed.

History2007 then re-edited with a slightly less POV:

used to establish the chronology of Gallio and Paul.

Still incorrect as the inscription doesn't establish a chronology, but a more specific reference was provided for a tangent about Paul. But we couldn't just leave it at "helping date the proconsulship of Gallio", we had to have this stuff about Paul's chronology, when the article is actually about a statement from Suetonius. Paul here is only a means used to date the expulsion. The article isn't about Pauline chronology per se, so why it has to be mentioned in a caption seems unintelligible. It is unhelpful to the article. And, yes, Gallio isn't the main issue either; he's just the hook for a pic of Delphi. -- spin^control 13:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet another promiscuous tag

After I made the following edit:

Despite Pliny the Elder (N.H. 31.33) stating that Gallio did his sea cure after he was consul,¹ which was in the mid-50s,²

1. Craig A. Evans, Isobel A.H. Combes, Daniel M. Gurtner (eds.), Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Acts-Philemon (David C. Cook, 2004) ISBN 9780781440066 p.126.

2. "L. Junius Annaeus Gallio, was suffect consul in the mid-50s AD, perhaps in 54." Robert C. Knapp, Roman Córdoba (University of California Press, 1992) ISBN 9780520096769 p.42. "L. Junius Gallio did hold consulship in 55 or 56". Anthony Barrett, Agrippina: Sex, Power and Politics in the Early Empire (Routledge, 1999) ISBN 9780415208673 p.280. "Gallio reached the consulship, probably in 55". Miriam T. Griffin, Nero: The End of a Dynasty (Routledge, 1987) ISBN 0415214645 p.78. See also Wikipedia: List of Roman consuls and List of state leaders in 56.

History2007 accused me of crossing the 3RR and requested I self-revert. After failing to elicit the desired response, he decided to slap a Synthesis tag on the section, saying in the edit summary:

Will not revert last edit not to edit war, but the jump that Gallio did only one sea cure is WP:OR given that F.F. Bruce says there were 2 trips (2nd one started in Rome) and Evans "absolutely" does not say what is claimed in the section

It needs to be said that Evans certainly did cite Pliny to the effect of what I summarized. Also, I did not specify that Gallio did only one sea cure. This whole muddle over Gallio's health is theologians straining supposition from an obscure recollection by Seneca written in the last years of his life. However, Bruce is conjecturing in order to make sense of what was for him contradictory information and a conservative theologian writing in 1951 is obviously not authoritative. Seneca doesn't recollect two sea cures, neither does Pliny mention two. Neither does anyone else. Bruce made it up. I would ask History2007 to stop using non-authoritative sources for tendentious purposes and to stop using tags to subvert the editing process as he has done several times now: the addition of a tag doesn't count as a revert and doesn't literally count for 3RR (which smells to me like WP:GAME). -- spin^control 23:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I try to avoid discussion with you, given your use of profanities. I will just state that your comment that "Bruce made it up" runs counter to WP:V, of course. F. F. Bruce is a highly respected scholar and a totally WP:RS source. I totally stand by what Bruce states, and statements that "scholars are wrong" do not pass WP:V. If Bruce is theolog and a no-go, so is Evans. Check-mate! And please try not to use profanities in your response, and respect WP:CIVIL, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I will not respond further here not to risk profanities, but will correct your edit later with WP:RS sources. History2007 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that Evans can "mess" up a simple citation. Bruce instead invents. Your attempt at chess is not impressive. Your promiscuous use of tags is not constructive. You even tacitly admit here that you are circumventing the 3RR with this latest tag. -- spin^control 23:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Will not revert last edit not to edit war".."will correct your edit later with WP:RS sources". "correct" = "revert". Edit war in slow motion? -- spin^control 02:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, so if an edit war starts (I hope not), you will be party to it. I did made it clear that I have no intention of starting it or taking part in it and hence stopped editing the article earlier, and placed a tag. But it must be made absolutely clear that if you make statements that I consider WP:OR, I can per policy, tag them as such. So my edit to place a tag was totally per policy and was indeed necessary to tell the reader that I see your view as WP:OR. Very simple, very straightforward.

Two other notes here: First, is certainly not the case that F. F. Bruce wrote about the issues only in the 1950s as you assume. His two books that I refer to were later editions of the original and a simple look through them clearly shows that Bruce refers to other scholars who wrote in the late 1980s. A key item Bruce refers to is, of course, Smallwood's 1968 paper Consules suffecti of A.D. 55 in in Historia, XVII, 1968. Other examples of late references are throughout the book, e.g. on page 249 he refers to a Hemer paper published in 1985 and on page 476 to a book published in 1987. And his other book also uses multiple references from 1987. I am always careful to use recent scholarship. So the Bruce books that I use are recent scholarsip by all standards that Wikipedia references use.

Secondly, given that you have placed very heavy reliance on Slingerland's views Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 112, No. 2, Summer, 1993 on "Paul and Gallio" is of note. Here Murphy-O'Conner directly states that Slingerland failed to check on the work of Seneca and hence his wider date range is unacceptable. He states:

• one can answer with a significant degree of probability because of a piece of evidence that Slingerland did not checks. Seneca reports concerning his brother, "When, in Achaia, he [Gallio] began to feel feverish, he immediately took ship."

So the issue of Seneca and Slingerland's failure to consider it has been discussed in the Journal of Biblical Literature where Slingerland published his views. I should certainly add to the article, now that I am just getting started on improving it.

Referring to Pliny, Murphy-O'Conner states that the impression that Gallio was a "fussy hypochndriac" is confirmed by Pliny. Murphy-O'Conner also states in the same critique that Slingerland failed to take the winter storms into account, etc. So the issue of Seneca's report is not my invention, but is widely discussed in scholarly circles inclluding the journal where Sligerland published, and is hence totally relevant to the subject and the article.

I hope this helps you realize the shortcomings in Slingerland's views.

In any case, I will explain things below, but in view of prior posts, I must again caution you not to use profanities when you respond to my points below. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Orthography

As seen in the British Library's catalogue, in the Copac entry, and in the Library of Congress entry, various renderings are seen in different catalogues, and even within one catalogue. The reverse of the title page also shows variations. The Copac record gives the sense that "Divus" predominates among the various catalogues. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a "copyright" issue, nor is it a "renaming" of the book. It's an orthography issue. Notice the book cover: in all caps, it's DIVVUS. Scholarly editions use the transcription of V for uppercase and u for lowercase, in keeping with Latin practice; but some texts distinguish between vocalic and consonantal U and V (or u and v) in keeping with modern orthographic practice. Depending on which style one is using, one may correctly refer to this work by Suetonius as Diuus Claudius or Divus Claudius. Wikipedia (rightly in my view) tends to go with the practice that's more familiar and thus accessible to modern readers, divus. However, Hurley's edition, in keeping with text critical practice, uses Diuus.

So yes, the title of this particular edition should be represented accurately as Diuus, but not because to do otherwise violates "copyright". It's simply a copyediting error. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that this same point is dealt with above, so evidently it's a running issue. Let me restate. In Wikipedia's voice, when quoting Latin we generally go with modern orthography: see for instance Glossary of ancient Roman religion, which has an entry on divus, or Imperial cult (ancient Rome) passim. A book title, however, should be exactly as it is, and if a passage of Latin is quoted from a particular edition in the context of textual criticism or some other technical aspect, then it should probably (though not inarguably) preserve the capital V and lowercase u distinction, though this may be a gray area of MOS. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And in one further point, I would strongly endorse the use of Divus Claudius in the body text (that is, in Wikipedia's voice) as the title by which Suetonius's work is known. Hurley's edition, however, is most accurately represented as Diuus, and the rule of consistency doesn't apply to exact quotation (which is what a book title is). Cynwolfe (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that the book itself shows different title orthographies in different places. See the reverse of the title page (visible on the paperback's google preview), where bibliographic data is usually the least encumbered by visual design issues. The catalogues' variations reflect that. Since it was published by Cambridge University Press in England, we might give a little extra regard to the cataloguing data in the Cambridge library and the British Library, but even the Library of Congress data acknowledges the inconsistency. The double-V orthography can only be seen on the all-uppercase cover. If that were to be used in the citation, it would have to be similarly all-uppercase. Further, the author would have to be shown as CAIVS SVETONII TRANQVILLVS or some such for consistency, which no one would want. Just as we would not refer to "De uita Caesarum" but rather "De vita Caesarum" we normally accept an initial fricative lowercase v when followed by a vowel. This is also seen in the reviews here on the publishers website. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't use all caps (see MOS:Ety and a related discussion here). You're missing the distinction between Divus Claudius, which is Wikipedia transcription style (as is De vita Caesarum), and accurately transcribing the title of a book, for which the publisher's website is the best source, since they're the ones who decided what the book title should be. If you look at the title as given in mixed case on the publisher's page, it's Diuus Claudius. Reviews or library catalogues may follow their own style or be otherwise idiosyncratic. There is no need to weigh sources for the correct title of a book, or to argue about it; the publisher knows what the title is, because the publisher decided what the title is. Both instances (as printed on the cover, and as given in the bibliographical entry next to it) indicate that the lowercase u is intended. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I might accept that the publisher's website is the best source for determining what the publisher presently wishes they had titled the book, but the best source for what they actually did title it is found inside the book itself, and most particularly on the reverse of the title page in that book, usually under a heading such as "Cataloguing in Publication Data". If you look there, you will find they gave both "Diuus Claudius" and "Divus Claudius", but only the latter was explicitly given as a title. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Excluding the all capitals "DIVVS" (which is found at the top of most odd numbered pages) Hurley's book uses "Diuus" seven times, but "Divus" only once, and you know where that is. It was a publisher's mistake, or perhaps a deliberate choice accommodating for non Latin savvy people who have difficulties with Hurley's scholarly accuracy. Obviously "Diuus" is Hurley's title in generally lower case letters and that's the way it's represented on the publisher's page where the title is given for every book, ie the second line of the Lib. of Congr. data. -- spin^control 20:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Doktorspin that the actual title of the book is Diuus Claudius, as indicated by the editor's own usage and orthography throughout the book (including the all caps usage, which per MOS:Ety would be transcribed on Wikipedia as Diuus). The cataloging title seems aimed at accomplishing the same thing that Wikipedia usage of Divus Claudius does: to modernize orthography and to aid users, who would be more likely to search Divus Claudius. But according to the editor, the title is Diuus Claudius. That said, I don't care about the result of this discussion so much as getting our reasoning in order. It seems to me that titles are covered by WP:QUOTE (since we aren't at liberty to alter them) and thus require minimal change: Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Gallio's boat trips

A question is pending in the article: "Which boat trips did Gallio take for health reasons?". This can be viewed in terms of a set of simple sub-questions:

• Question 1: Do we have WP:RS sources that state that Galio took a boat trip for health reasons "originating in Corinth" as reported by Seneca?

Answer 1: Yes, definitely. There are 5 sources for that in the article now: Reisner (ISBN 1405188448 page 14), Bruce (ISBN 0802825052 page 352), Birge (ISBN 9042911026 page 3), Cosby (ISBN 0664233082 page 76) and Murphy-O'Connor (ISBN 0192853422 pages 21-22). There are even more sources for that e.g. Schnelle (ISBN 0801027969 page 49), Thiselton (ISBN 0853645590 pages 29-30) as well as O'Connor's JBL Vol. 112, No. 2 statements mentioned above on this talk page, etc. There are thus many WP:RS sources written by professors that state the same, referring to Seneca as in Wikisource.

• Question 2: Do we have WP:RS sources that state that Gallio took a boat trip for health when "he was no longer a consul" as reported by Pliny?

Answer 2: Yes, definitely. One is in the article now (i.e. Evans), and there are others: Bruce (ISBN 0802809669 page 394) clearly states that and Hemer (ISBN 3161454510 page 169) also states that (and he refers to Smallwood's paper also, which I have not seen yet). So there are WP:RS sources that state that.

• Question 3: Do Evans and Bruce agree on the statement that Gallio took a boat trip for health when "he was no longer a consul", as stated by Pliny?

Answer 3: Yes, definitely. Evans and Bruce agree on that point and there is no conflict on that between them. And Hemer also agrees.

• Question 4: Do Evans and Bruce agree on the approximate dates for the tenure of Gallio in Corinth.

Answer 4: Yes, definitely. They both assign it to dates around AD 51 as do the majority of scholars.

• Question 5: Have we seen a WP:RS source that states: "Gallio never took a sea trip for health starting in Corinth?"

Answer 5: Not yet. Not at all. No such source has been presented, but it is implied in the article, and has been claimed on this talk page. Either WP:RS sources for that need to be presented, or it will have to continue to be viewed as WP:OR and eventually deleted as original research.

• Question 6: Have we seen a WP:RS source that states: "The only boat trip Gallio took for health was in the mid 50s"

Answer 6: Not yet. Not at all. But it is implied in the article, and has been directly claimed on this talk page. Either WP:RS sources for that need to be presented, or it will have to continue to be viewed as WP:OR and eventually deleted as original research with no support.

So the situation is simple and clear:

• A: There is no doubt that multiple WP:RS sources state that Gallio took a "boat trip for health starting in Corinth" around the time he was in power there.

• B: There is no conflict between Evans and Bruce about the dates Gallio ruled in Corinth, and no conflict between Evans and Bruce on the specific issue that Pliny refers to a boat trip for health when "Gallio was no longer consul".

• C: No sources whatsoever have been presented that directly state that "Gallio never took a boat trip for health starting in Corinth" or that directly state "The only boat trip Gallio took during his life for health reasons was in the mid 50s". If there are, let us see them directly state these points, sans inference by Wikipedia editors.

Thus the use of Evans (who agrees with the majority of scholars on a AD 51 date) as a source to infer that Gallio never took a boat ride for health from Corinth, and that his only boat ride for health happened in the mid 50s is a clear case of WP:OR unless or until other sources are presented that directly state that in unequivocal terms. History2007 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Lk 23:46 has Jesus saying "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" immediately before he dies.

Jn 19:30 has Jesus saying "It is finished" immediately before he dies.

The Brucean solution would be that Jesus died twice so that he could say a different final statement before death. In fact not a single source of yours follows Bruce's speculation about there having been two sea cures. Bruce is a biblical scholar who is not authoritative in the field of Latin classicism. (You don't get a brain surgeon to do your taxes.)

Murphy-O'Connor isn't quite as fanciful as Bruce, yet he talks drivel about Gallio being a hypochondriac, when Pliny clearly states that he was discharging blood (sanguine egesto -- Evans gives "haemoptysis"). This invented hypochondria allows Murphy-O'Connor to imagine that Gallio abandoned his post. He also clearly states he interprets Seneca's letter to mean Gallio "did not finish his term of office" (p.167). Any Latinists toe this line??

(Incidentally, Murphy-O'Connor puts forward a mostly minority view as he argues for a date of 41 CE for the Chrestus expulsion.)

In reality, Seneca merely states (in letter 104.1), as a reason for his (Seneca's) departure from Rome, that Gallio got on a boat while in Achaea for health reasons (it's the place that's responsible for the sickness). Does Seneca indicate that he (Seneca) never went back to Rome? Obviously not. Does he indicate that Gallio never went back to Achaea? Again, no. Yet we know why the tendentious sources such as Bruce and Murphy-O'Connor want him never to have returned to his post: they have an assumed conclusion, which involves limiting Gallio's tenure in Achaea. Does Seneca indicate how long Gallio was in Achaea? Yet again, no. Did Gallio develop his sickness in April, May, June, July, August or September of 52 or 53? We cannot say. What we can say is that the tendentious sources know how to arrive at their conclusions. Did Seneca recall correctly that it was while Gallio was in Achaea that he took his sea cure, given that Pliny says that it was after the consulship? Perhaps Pliny was not correct. Perhaps we are really dealing with two separate events, though no-one other than Bruce knows it. Whatever the case, it is just one tendentious guess in a series that adds up to confirming bias.

These scholars are mostly not classical historians. Most of them are biblical text scholars, whose interests are biblical when dealing with Suetonius, Seneca, Pliny, etc. This is why we can't take Bruce's method seriously when he concludes ad hoc that there were two sea cures. But it is the flimsy conclusion of the sorts of opinions voiced throughout this article, by people who have no authoritative weight. We aren't dealing with reliable sources.

I have tried to cite as many classicists in the article as I could find. But access is not good for the technical material. You are left with a lot of non-authoritative sources and their speculations.

From a historiographical point of view nearly all the scholars currently cited in the article have nothing new to say when compared to the presentation of the data found in Kirsopp Lake (and Henry Cadbury), The Beginnings of Christianity, Vol.5 (MacMillan, 1933), pp.459-464 with the one exception of the speculation over Gallio's health. Given the sources that Lake presents, he must have known about Seneca's letter 104 and Pliny NH 31.33, but didn't deem to speculate. Slingerland relegated the issue to a footnote: Gallio, p.446, "Ogg (Chronology, 110-11) again uses evidence taken over from Deissmann (St. Paul, 253) to argue that Gallio's health would not have permitted him to remain for two years in Achaia. This, however, is speculative." True, but it doesn't stop it from spreading. Lake, after a judicious scholarly presentation which examined the paucity of evidence, returns in one short paragraph to toe the speculative line,

"Putting aside this possibility and assuming (a) that Gallio was proconsul for only one year, and (b) that he came to Achaia in the summer of 51 or of 52 and stayed until 52 or 53, Paul's trial before Gallio must have been somewhere in the twenty-four months (or a little more) between the summers of 51 and 53, and his arrival in Corinth must have been eighteen months earlier, that is, probably in the spring of 49 or 50." (p.464. Italics mine.)

Functionally negating Lake's own scholarship of the previous several pages. This return comes down to an illicit dependence on the unsubstatiated date of Orosius, which Lake simply accepts. Once this Orosius connection took hold in biblical studies, it channeled most scholarly thought through the year 49 CE and has generated the need for the speculation that permeates our present article.

The discussion of Gallio's health is a pimple on the rump of an unnecessary speculative beast. We have little in the way of reliable sources in the article and we should not depend on the unfalsifiable speculations of biblical scholars moonlighting as classicists with regard to the hypothetical early self-initiated termination of Gallio's office in Achaea, especially when we consider the lengths Claudius went to to get proconsuls in their provinces and the fact that he still calls Gallio "my friend" in the Delphi inscription. Had Gallio deserted his post, it would be unconscionable to find Claudius calling him his friend.

Much of the recent contention in this article has had little to do with its topic, but with the unstated desire to preserve the 49 CE date for the expulsion, a date based on the comment by Orosius which is not looked on as sustainable, though it is popular among modern scholars. The speculation about Gallio's health is just the absurd extreme to which this article has gone to to kowtow to Orosius. There are no reliable sources here. -- spin^control 01:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So to cut to the chase:

• I: You have presented no sources whatsoever that directly state that Gallio took only one boat trip for health during his life. Have you? Just answer that.

• II: You claim that "There are no reliable sources here" and that sources in the section by all these professors fail WP:RS. Is that your claim? Just answer that.

Just clarify these two points sans a dissertation about 1930 books, then we continue. Books in the 1930s do not come in the picture here and let us avoid walls of text. Now, let us just get a clear and concise answer to the two questions just above, then we continue. This should be easy to resolve. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, to make the matter even simpler, given that this discussion started due to WP:OR issues, as a start please just answer the first question above with a simple yes/no answer: "Do you have any sources (free of your personal opinions) that directly state that Gallio took only one boat trip for health during his life" Please provide a simple yes/no answer here. That is all. Just say: "I have sources", or say "I do not have sources". That is all. That should be a simple question to answer. No dissertation or debate will be needed. Just sources. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that a text that is a third larger than yours is a text wall. But that text dealt with two of your screeds, which together are long enough to show that the lady doth protest too much.

• To make it simple for you, if you can realize that Crossan "is not a general authority on Roman religious attitudes" then you can understand that your sources selling the Gallio speculation are not authoritative on Roman history.

You have provided no reliable sources whatsoever that demonstrate that Pliny's reference is not the same as Seneca's. You've merely served up Bruce's speculation, speculation that no-one touches with a barge-pole. To do your taxes you need taxation specialists, not chiropractors. To do Roman history, you need scholars of Roman history. -- spin^control 20:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Translation: You have no sources whatsoever that state that "Gallio took only one boat trip for health during his life". I asked you for a simple answer to a simple question:

• Do you have any sources that state that "Gallio took only one boat trip for health during his life"?

You have consistently failed to answer that question. So please answer yes or no to that, else I will have to assume that you are avoiding an answer and hence are being less than upfront and productive. So answer the question: Do you have any sources that "Pliny trip = Seneca trip" . Answer the question please or I will have to assume that you are being evasive. So, let me ask again: Do you have any sources that state that "Pliny trip = Seneca trip" as you have claimed? Just answer yes or no. Trust me, it is not that hard to type yes or no. So please just answer: yes or no. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Come back when you have WP:RS on the issue, then we can talk.

In the meantime, check out the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry for Gallio, "Both Seneca and Plinius mention a sea voyage which Gallio chose as an immediate remedy against symptoms of phthisis when he was in Greece (not during his proconsulship as some modern writers wrongly assume)." -- spin^control 21:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, instead of a yes/no answer you have "evaded the question". All you needed to do is say yes or no. You are being evasive. Clearly so. I am tired of this game of evasion. The WP:OR tag is not going to come off this way. Evasion is not productive development. You were given multiple chances to give a yes/no answer to whether you have sources, yet you are dancing around the question like a ballerina. Enough of this game of hide and seek. The WP:OR tag stays. History2007 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You can slap as many promiscuous tags on the article as your heart contents. It doesn't change the fact that you aren't using reliable sources. You simply ignored the ABD reference to Gallio which plainly indicates the one sea cure mentioned by both Seneca and Pliny and dismisses the misunderstanding of when the cure took place, so your tag usage is false. As such it doesn't belong. (And I'd recommend some vitamins if you tire so easily.) -- spin^control 22:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not ignore it. I have asked you if you have sources. Now you are saying that David Noel Freedman is your source? And does he over-ride all other sources? And do cut out the vitamin nonsense. History2007 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you ignored it. The ABD Gallio article (written by Klaus Haacker) is a critique of the non-authoritative sources you rely on. Have you got an authoritative sources for the Gallio sickness issue? Clearly not. (And do try not to rant about being tired of things, then you won't get the vitamin nonsense.) -- spin^control 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So let us assume that ABD is your source. Then your argument fails. Because it states that the Pliny reference is to a trip that started in Greece! History2007 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no sense in that conclusion. -- spin^control 22:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not to you, but there is to me. If the Plny reference is to Greece, it may be to the same trip as Seneca. And I see your arguments as inherently self-contradictory. In one breath you dismiss all biblical scholars, in the next breath you use Klaus Haacker who is an evangelical theologian! And as I have said Hemer ISBN 3161454510 page 169 states that the Pliny and Seneca references are not equal. So there is no definitive agreement among scholars that these are the same or different trips. So your assertion that they are known to be the same fails. And at one point you had argued that Seneca was senile - with no references of course. And in any case, if Haacker states that Seneca trip = Pliny trip, then the trip originated in Corinth, for Seneca clearly (and I mean clearly) states that it started from Corinth. And that agrees with the 10 sources I have presented. So your argument that the only trip was in the mid 50s has totally failed now. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to be off line for a while, will continue later. History2007 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, senile! What I was dealing with is a memory that was a decade past. You conjectured senile. Really! And what makes you think that Gallio's sea cure Pliny mentioned didn't depart from Achaea? Does Pliny mention its point of departure?? Falling flat on your face in a sty of conjecture. You simply lack reliable sources and you complain that the ABD source is similar in quality to your sources.

• Seneca mentions a Gallio sea cure from Achaea
• Pliny mentions a Gallio sea cure after Gallio had been consul
• Ockham says that there was a Gallio sea cure that was from Achaea after Gallio had been consul

No conflicts or problems, but it is as conjectural as anything you've provided. It could be that

• Seneca messed up the recollection, or
• Pliny confused "consul" with "proconsul", or
• After his sea cure proconsul Gallio returned to Corinth, ie he never left his post (other than for the cruise), or
• After his proconsulship term had finished, Gallio took a sea cure.

Ah, for reliable sources.

Incidentally, your comment about Hemer leads me back--in the context of Bruce's speculation--to "Smallwood's 1968 paper Consules suffecti of A.D. 55 in in Historia, XVII, 1968", which you obviously haven't read, as it only supplies the date of Gallio's consulship for Hemer. You were just trawling Hemer's footnotes. -- spin^control 00:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, it "could be" X or it "could be Y" (Pliny confused "consul" with "proconsul", etc.) is your original research. You are just reasoning on your own. What has happened is that in the article you have tried to deflate and negate the statements made by the 10 sources I have provided that state that Seneca's report leads to a year 51/52 date (as favored by the majority of scholars). That is based on a clear case of original research on your part in which you have asserted that "the only sea cure was in the mid 50s." You have provided zero sources (really zero sources) that state that "the only sea cure was in the mid 50s." You have provided zero sources that state that. That is a no-no in Wikipedia. It is called original research. Hence the WP:OR tag. Period.

I asked you for sources. What we are getting here is debate. Wikipedia works based on sources, not discussion among editors on content. We can not debate content here. You need to provide sources that directly state what you claim.

So let me put it this way, if and when you have WP:RS sources that directly state that "the only sea cure Gallio took was in the mid 50s." then we can talk further. Until then, the WP:OR tag must remain given the lack of sources. History2007 (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. We are discussing behind the scenes here. Your claim that I 'have asserted that "the only sea cure was in the mid 50s"' is a figment of your imagination. My previous comment should have disavowed you of that error. If you declare that Jesus' last words were "It is finished" and I note your choice despite the fact that Luke indicates his last words were "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit", will you accuse me of supporting Luke? Hopefully not. That's what you are doing to protect your commitment to using Seneca to force a date for Gallio's sea cure. You have decided the conclusion and chosen writers who support it, no matter that they are not authoritative, that they are just speculating. It still hasn't dawned on you that there is no evidence in play in this discussion. There is just the shuffling of conjecture, speculation, opinions, or, as Feldman put it, assumption ("most scholars assume...").

In this discussion I have dealt with the contentlessness of the non-authoritative materials you are selling. That has no impact on what is in the article now. Your claim of OR is simply bogus. -- spin^control 07:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is really diverging into unrelated issues now. So I will not even address those. Again, to cut to the chase, you entered into the article that:

• "Despite Pliny the Elder (N.H. 31.33) stating that Gallio did his sea cure after he was consul,[77] which was in the mid-50s,[78]"

You have zero sources that state his only sea cure was in the mid 50s. The glue from 77 to 78 is your own inference. That is WP:OR until you have sources that directly state that "Gallio's only sea cure was in the mid 50s". This is a very simple case of original research on your part. End of story. History2007 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to be offline now for a while, will continue later... History2007 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop making false claims. Stop claiming that I said "Gallio's only sea cure was in the mid 50s". You don't seem to be able to contemplate uncertainty. I don't know if there was only one sea cure. I don't know, presupposing there was only one, if it was circa 52 or after 55. Neither does anyone else. And that has always been the point. For you to understand that your preferred speculation is just speculation, you have to see that there is no way to choose between the options. So, if you can find a few recent historians of Roman antiquities who can get beyond the speculation, then we don't have any problems. As to people who claimed that there was only one sea cure, I provided Haacker. You seem to desire to force your preferred speculation onto the article. "Most scholars assume..." Says it all. -- spin^control 08:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you are beginning to see the light now. You have now realized and accepted that:

• Gallio's sea cure may refer to AD 51/52 or it may refer to AD 55. And that there may have been one sea cure or more.

So the statement in the article "his sea cure was in the mid 50s" is an incorrect piece of original research.

You just got it. Great! History2007 (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a remedial reading class in your area? -- spin^control 12:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. I should perhaps call back my PhD advisor to see if he knows of a remedial reading class for me.

In the meantime, let me ask a novel question here:

• What is you source for the statement you entered in the article: "Gallio did his sea cure after he was consul,[77] which was in the mid-50s,[78]"?

Now 3 hints here:

• Ref [77] (Evans) is not a source for it does not mention mid-50s.
• Ref [78] is not a source for it does not mention sea cure
• You can not combine 77 and 78 yourself, for that is "original research".

Given that I have asked the question above many times now and never received an answer from you, let me assure you that I intend to ask this direct and simple question about your sources until you provide an answer to it. Should you fail to provide an answer regarding your sources, I will have to conclude that you are being evasive and will have to delete that statement due to lack of sources. Should that happen you are hereby cautioned not to reinstate it without specific sources.

So let me ask again:

• What is you source for the statement you entered in the article: "Gallio did his sea cure after he was consul,[77] which was in the mid-50s,[78]"?

Per WP:V and WP:OR, please answer this simple question in clear terms, sans evasion or a dissertation on unrelated topics, or state that you have no source for it. History2007 (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to confuse Evans with Pliny, that's your problem.

• Does Evans faithfully represent Pliny?
• Does Pliny note only one sea cure, which he places after Gallio's consulship?
• Does Haacker not make this same point?
• Was Gallio's consulship not in the mid-50s (as seems to be well-established)?

You can see the care with which Hemer skirts the issue on p.169 of his book. You are creating OR that is not there.

If you're doing a PhD I would have expected a much better appreciation of authoritative sources from the specific field of study, rather than purely cross-disciplinary sources (and of those many popular overview works) that you have perennially depended on. In fact, I can see a list of basic skill omissions that would exclude you from most humanities PhD courses, including

• careless spelling of the names you use (remember the classic in irony left on WP for 3 weeks, 'Suetonius misheard the name "Cherstus" .. as "Chrestus"'?),
• inability to re-edit your own materials, leaving typos and other errors in your work,
• simple repetition of the same sort of opinions from different writers to increment content and drown contrary views,
• footnote trawling for sources but not checking them,
• dependence not on sources providing argument based on evidence, but on those giving opinions that cannot be falsified, and
• a tendentiousness not to deal with the complete issue, excluding views you don't seem to like.

Perhaps you should show these efforts to your supervisor for a neutral assessment. The remedial reading class would seem a safer option. -- spin^control 23:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Doktor spin, your comments about my need for "remedial reading class" are insulting and improper and must stop. FYI: My PhD was many years ago and I am a highly respected scientist. But that is beside the point here, what matters is that you did not answer the request for a source but made comments about other unrelated items. The personal attacks by you about my intelligence must stop, else I will go to WP:ANI and complain. History2007 (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You repeat your false claim that I made comments about your intelligence. This is just one of your many false claims on this page. -- spin^control 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of WP:OR regarding date of sea cure in the mid50s

In the above, I asked a simple question more than once:

• What is the source for the statement present in the article: "Gallio did his sea cure after he was consul,[77] which was in the mid-50s,[78]"?

I received no response to that, and instead a discussion was presented on spelling and unrelated issues.

Given that after repeated requests for a source for the statement "Gallio did his sea cure after he was consul,[77] which was in the mid-50s,[78]" no source has been provided, I have now delete it. That statement should not be reinstated without a source that states "Gallio did his sea cure in the mid-50s" because it is WP:OR without a source. If there is a source that directly states "Gallio did his sea cure in the mid-50s" it can be added, but not without a source that states it. History2007 (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

False claims

History2007 stated: "I have received no response to that". Complete horse d'oeuvres. Pliny cited in Evans has been explained to him, reaffirmed to him, shouted to him, and Haacker has been given to him as corroborating. The claim of OR is false. He has taken the promised step to engage in slow motion edit warring.

History2007 stated: "you have discussed my spelling and made another personal attack about my need for "remedial reading class" which breaches WP:NPA by questioning my intelligence".. I did discuss his spelling and I recommended a remedial reading class. However, his claim is false that I said he needed such a class. His claim is also false about questioning his intelligence. When he makes claims, he should try to be accurate.

I have restored the material that History2007 reverted regarding Gallio's sickness.

I have complained a number of times about History2007's unauthoritative sources. Let's look at some of those writers he cites for the claims about Gallio's sickness.

• Birge who makes the false claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome. Utterly without foundation.
• In a lovely little infobox Cosby (p.76) makes the false claim that Gallio was the younger brother of Seneca!
• Thiselton (p.30) makes the unsupportable claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office.
• Murphy-O'Connor makes the unsupportable claim that Gallio was a hypochondriac. In fact both Gallio and his brother Seneca suffered from the same complaint, ie consumption, and Pliny notes that Gallio discharged blood in the context of a discussion of phthisis, ie tuberculosis or consumption.

And a misrepresentation:

• Udo Schnelle says, "it is possible that he did not serve out his full year in office". He does not say it is likely. History2007 has falsely represented Schnelle.

There is a reason why we should not use sources that have no authority. They contain unknown quantities of crap. History2007 needs to clean out the poor quality material he has put in the article and that is much. -- spin^control 12:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. And I have added a WP:OR tag to the section. As stated above, you have no source that states "Gallio took a sea cure in the mid 50s" you constructed that by your own inference, by gluing together statements from different sources and inferring it. The Schnelle issue is totally marginal. The sources I have used are by professors, of course:

• Your statements that "Murphy-O'Connor makes the unsupportable claim that Gallio was a hypochondriac" is disputing what professor Murphy-O'Connor wrote.

• Your statements that "Thiselton (p.30) makes the unsupportable claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office." is disputing what professor Thiselton wrote.

• Your statement that "Birge who makes the false claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome." is disputing what professor Birge wrote, etc.

You are a Wikipedia editor, per WP:V you can not dispute what professors write based on your personal opinion of its being supportable. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Murphy-O'Connor is not a scholar of Roman history. He ignores the consumption issue and makes a baseless claim. He is a biblical scholar who is moonlighting and making errors doing so. Your sources are frequently dubious. Thiselton misrepresents Seneca. Birge just plain blunders. Rubbish sources. And you falsely represented Schnelle to confirm your bias. It's not strange after using him to now say "The Schnelle issue is totally marginal." Of course it is totally marginal: you were caught out misrepresenting him. -- spin^control 13:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You have totally failed WP:AGF again here. There are 7 scholars in that reference and that was a good summary of their views. Your statements that the professors are "wrong" is clearly against WP:V. May I suggest reading WP:V?

And as stated before, your position on the use of scholars is completely self-contradictory, of course. In one breath you seem to state that a scholar can not be trusted with history if he is a biblical scholar, in a previous breath you use Joseph Fitzmyer as a source yourself. And as stated before Klaus Haacker who you used is an evangelical theologist. And of course you have used Daniel J. Harrington as a source yourself. Go figure... History2007 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no application of WP:AGF here. You simply misrepresented a source. Did Schnelle say that it was possible or that it was likely? You claimed the latter: he said the former. You misrepresented the source, did you not? Did you deliberately misrepresent the source? I wouldn't know, but you did misrepresent it.

Did you look at what Daniel Harrington is used to comment on? Hmmmmm? No, of course not. It happened to be about biblical studies. Your complaint about Haacker is misplaced, as he has submitted the material to peer-review twice, both in an academic journal and in the ABD. Where have I cited Fitzmyer in the current article?? Nowhere. Though you have.

You cited several sources that display their lack of authority. You don't seem to cite any peer-reviewed works. You don't seem to cite any works that are by classical scholars. I don't know why you cannot see that your sources frequently have no authority on the issues we are discussing. -- spin^control 14:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been clear AGF breaches here on your part of course, as well as personal attacks and the use of profanities. The Schnelle item is absolute nitpicking, of course - there are some scholars there who have much stronger views, and the overall summary of likely is totally reasonable for the 7 of them. Storm in a tea cup there, really. And of course O'Connor is also published in the same journal as Stringerland. I provided a link to your previous use of Fitzmeyer, of course.

But the serious issue here are your statements that "professor X makes false claims", "professor Y blunders", etc. That type of argument from authority does not work in Wikipedia, for an editor like you can not make those decisions over the correctness of what professors say. You were told that here, of course. And you have previously acknowledged that the dates 49/51 supported by those professors are the "majority view" - the items you added the minority view. I think it is time to read WP:V and recall what you were told on the talk page there as well. History2007 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot see the significant difference between "possible" and "likely" then one must reconsider everything you have added to the article. Who knows what other misrepresentations you have made? I note your continued obfuscation of biblical scholars here in the field of Roman history under the title of "professors". They have no authority here as professors: remember, you don't get brain surgeons to do your taxes. You have made many false claims here and many mistakes. And you have used crap sources, such as Birge, Cosby and Thiselton, because they support your views. Neutrality is expected, not a reflection of your views. -- spin^control 14:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Again you have failed WP:AGF. And I said likely was the summary of the 7 scholars, and that is a good summary given some of the stronger views there.

Now, let me make a novel suggestion here:

• Why don't you find a large number of sources of your liking (no biblical scholars) to cite on the issue of the trial of Paul by Gallio and its date? Find 30 Roman historians and reference them as you will. You are totally free to do so. No one is stopping you.

However, three of the key sources you have used on the dating issue are Evans, Haacker and Harrington - all biblical scholars, one a priest and the other an evangelical. Why did you end up using them instead of Roman historians? Let me break the news here: "the trial of Apostle Paul by Gallio is about the Book of Acts, one of the books of the Bible". People who write about the Book of Acts are usually biblical scholars, as manifested by your own choice of sources. Somewhat obvious actually... History2007 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent things. Evans was used for accurate citation of a source, yet you have continually misconstrued the fact. Haacker has gone through the peer-review twice on Gallio material. And your complaint about Harrington (dealing with analysis of the text of Acts) is still simply misguided. The notion of horses for courses should be obvious. Historical analysis requires historical evidence and an understanding of the historical context. Discussing aspects of the life of a Roman official is not normally the competence of a biblical scholar, especially not in a popular work or in an infobox. The health of Gallio has nothing whatsoever directly to do with the trial of Paul. The issue is Roman chronology and the primary sources are Roman. Acts is irrelevant to the discussion of his health. If you can't find competent sources, there is no sense resorting to incompetent ones. You refuse to use reputable sources for Roman history and you fill the article with repetitive examples of speculation, which you try to protect through attempted ownership of the article, so I see no avenue forward. ---spin^control 22:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Zero misrepresentation on my part. Zero. Total WP:AGF failure on your part. And again, given that after multiple warnings your use of vulgar language has continued, I will refrain from responding to the rest given that I have no tolerance for vulgarity, which runs against WP:CIVIL, of course. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is History2007's specific claim:

a number of scholars such as R. Riesner, F. F. Bruce, Udo Schnelle, M. K. Birge, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, A. C. Thiselton and Michael R. Cosby state that it is likely that tenure of Gallio in Corinth lasted less than a full year

Schnelle simply said "it is possible that he did not serve out his full year in office", not likely. In the case of Schnelle, History2007 is plain wrong. Then we need to look at the blunders already mentioned of Birge, Thiselton, Cosby and Murphy-O'Connor as well as the glaring conjecture by Bruce of Gallio having had two sea cures presented as fact. We have a large number of unreliable sources.

And I don't have any sympathy for his persistent complaining about my language. The last example he felt compelled to bring to my attention was apparently the use of "crap". This is just an ill-considered accusation of impropriety. -- spin^control 14:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Given your continued use of classically vulgar language in defiance of multiple cautionary messages to you about respect for WP:CIVIL, I will not respond to you in detail, except for stating that I totally disagree with you, as explained above about the nitpicking, summary of references, etc. It should just be clarified that your reference to blunders is the "blunders perceived by you" in the published works of professors Birge, Thiselton, Cosby and Murphy-O'Connor, etc. in books published by highly respectable publishers such as Blackwell, Eerdsman and Oxford Univ Press. That does not need a response anyway. History2007 (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You can stop your censorship crusade on ordinary English. You have attacked me on that score long enough. I do not tell you how to speak and I expect the same courtesy from you. So stop.

Is Gallio Seneca's younger brother, as Cosby claims? If a writer cannot get such a simple fact straight, they lose all hope of credibility. -- spin^control 22:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is one of the pillars of Wikipedia and requires you to be civil and polite and not use profanities or vulgar language. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your further censorship efforts are noted. You will stop harassing me over ordinary language. -- spin^control 23:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. You need to respect it. History2007 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many time you insist on your Victorian use of language by appealing to idiosyncratic interpretations of Wiki law. It is still censorship and you are pestering me for inappropriate reasons. WP:CIVIL specifically talks of "ill-considered accusations of impropriety". -- spin^control 23:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to follow WP:CIVIL and avoid profanities and vulgarities. History2007 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You are falsely representing WP:CIVIL. Stop harassing me over normal English and heed WP:CIVIL regarding "ill-considered accusations of impropriety". -- spin^control 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:CIVIL does not encourage or permit the use of profanities or vulgarities. That is clear. You need to be polite and avoid profanities and vulgarities. History2007 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Censorship is not polite. Please stop your "ill-considered accusations of impropriety". -- spin^control 01:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I typed above. WP:CIVIL does not encourage or permit the use of profanities or vulgarities. That is clear. You need to be polite and avoid profanities and vulgarities. History2007 (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand WP:CIVIL which specifically talks of "extreme verbal abuse or profanity" and "gross profanity or indecent suggestions". Neither are appropriate to anything I have said. WP:CIVIL says not jot about vulgarity. These terms you've used are basically reflective of your opinions, not policies of Wikipedia. Your attempts to censor my language is misguided and not appreciated. They are "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" in terms of WP:CIVIL, so please stop. -- spin^control 15:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Further opinions have been sought

Per the discussion on the WP:RS talk page, I asked for opinions on the project noticeboard, and discussion on some specific issues is taking place there. In particular, the following statement was made there by another user:

"no Wikipedia editor's judgment counts for anything. If one wants to dismiss reliable sources as blunderers and inventors, one must provide reliable sources that make those judgments"

And I agreed with that. Hence if some Wiki-editor thinks that a "professor has blundered" a reliable source that states the blunder has taken place needs to be cited. Very simple. History2007 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tags raised to article level

Given the range of discussion on this talk page, all tags have been raised to article level, so as to eliminate the arbitrary implications of placing them on only sections selected by History2007. [An edit conflict prevented the addition of the following:] Factual content is at a minimum while the speculative content fills the article. This is predominantly an article concerned with Roman history, yet very few classicists are cited in the article. I have also added a repetition tag: Wikipedia should be made up of quality not quantity. -- spin^control 02:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No objection. History2007 (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with the analysis added after the edit conflict, yet no objection to the tags, but for different reasons, as discussed before. History2007 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Name game

I'd like to endorse Spin's diversion of scholarly name-dropping to the footnotes where it belongs. This article could use more of that kind of editing, as it's virtually unreadable. We should be writing encyclopedia articles, not the first chapters of dissertations, which too many contentious articles are turning into. Generally, the profusion of scholarly names in the body text is a sign that an article has turned into little more than a POV war that's no longer focused on providing information to general readers. If the "information" is that contested, it isn't helpful to readers. It's valid and necessary to present schools of interpretation, but most of the time, name-dropping in articles should be confined to only a very few major scholars who best articulate a given view. That is, the nature of the controversy should be described per WP:YESPOV, without attempting to resolve the question, which means not attempting to stack sources in the hope of prevailing. Apologies for the lecture, but this article is a prime example of a tendency on WP that's really bugging me. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No big deal in that grouping, except that a couple of sources were dropped and should have just been maintained. And yes, WP:YESPOV is relevant. The tags are still applicable, however, given the discussions above. And in case you had not seen it, there was a long WP:RSN discussion that was archived as well as other places - but those have mostly concluded now. There are other problems, however, e.g. Slingerland wrote in 1991, O'Connor in 1993 in response to him and that is not represented, etc. Dunn's views on Slingerland are missing (were deleted), etc. The list goes on. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)