Talk:Suetonius on Christians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Revision

I've rewritten much of this, for the following reasons:

• It was written as if it were an article on Suetonius, particularly the lede and categories (which indeed seemed to have been copied from the article Suetonius). Suetonius's name, for instance, was in bold, and not the topic of the article. Therefore, I deleted some of the framing material on his works as a whole.
• There were some POV issues, such as declaring that the authenticity was likely without stating that some have attempted to cast these references as later interpolations.
• The material wasn't structured by its placement in the work of Suetonius, but rather as if it the argument were extracted from a more general discussion.

I'm not particularly interested in exploring the topic at present, but to justify this as an independent article, it should be developed further. I also recommend finding a good, recent translation of Suetonius (and Tacitus), as well as commentaries on the Claudius and Nero. All the sources here come from a religious studies perspective; I don't see any classical philology or ancient historians. The section on questions of authenticity should be expanded; I tagged for possible synthesis because I think this should be more minutely examined from various perspectives, even if this is a fair summary of consensus among these sources. I dearly hope that I haven't screwed up the citations elsewhere in rearranging the material. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right that this article leaves a lot to be desired, and is mostly neglected and needs much better historical sources. The text for Suetonius is in Wikisource however. Wikisource is turning out to be a great system. I will try to touch this up and add sources, clean it up in the next week or two. The long and short of it is that Suetonius's writings are an ok source (or perhaps a so so source) in terms of a reference to Christ, but not a historical gem by any measure. I often think of him as "so so tonius"... but that is a personal joke. Yet, I will try to clean this up. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is utterly disgraceful:

1. "Suetonius is somewhat confused..."
2. "The confusion of Suetonius..."
3. "...the confusion of Suetonius..."
4. "Suetonius is somewhat confused..."
5. "The confusion of Suetonius..."

The article needs total rewriting. It is full of POV and certainly needs are more balanced presentation of the material. -- spin^control 00:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, exactly where do you think those sentences came from? The sources. That is what the sources say. Again, may I suggest a reading of WP:V?

You removed a sentence: "James D. G. Dunn asserts that Suetonius is somewhat confused in this passage and refers to 'Chrestus' as the leader of Christians, and assumes that he was alive at the time of the disturbance and was agitating the Jews in Rome." Trust me, that is what Dunn says. Trust me. But check the source. You called it POV, but that is what Dunn said. Really. He said that. And J. D. G. Dunn is a top expert. I will restore it now. Are you suggesting that Dunn is "wrong"? In that case, may I suggest a reading of WP:V? History2007 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I inserted the "James D. G. Dunn asserts" earlier, but I'm not sure that it is Dunn. Nevertheless, this is simply a repetition of material stated later and certainly doesn't belong in a lede. You don't get contentious in the lede: you try to state the basic information there and go into depth later in the article. -- spin^control 00:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

But you have not clearly stated what issues you consider "problems". Make a clear list and we will look at it and see. So be specific, make a clear list of issues then we will see. You said you are not sure if it is Dunn. Did you check the sources before rearranging things? You should always check sources before reshuffling, else you will introduce errors. History2007 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw another revert from you. What is this, a competition on who can revert faster? I do not play that game, and you should not play that game either. It is Wikipedia:Edit warring. Discuss issues, as stated above before unilaterally deciding to remove material and reverting faster than the speed of light. And you did not fix it right. You only attributed it to Koestenberger, and failed to attribute it to Dunn as well. History2007 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, have you finished? Can I comment now? Trying to respond to your first comment above, I was interrupted twice by your haste at adding more. So, let me say about your request for clarity:

I thought I was clear in stating that the material I removed from the lede was "this is simply a repetition of material stated later and certainly doesn't belong in a lede. You don't get contentious in the lede: you try to state the basic information there and go into depth later in the article."

The generic problems of POV and repetitiveness, while insulting the source, I'll deal with later.

You are consistently making ad hominems. Please stop. You did so in your comments on the Tacitus on Christ talk page. Your haste here is more to the point of edit-warring. You seem to be simply protecting your edits. Cynwolfe's comments about the lede are accurate, but don't go far enough. You use tendentious material and do not consult beyond it. Citing Van Voorst citing Slingerland merely repeats tendency. You need to cite Slingerland directly, whose articles are quite useful for losing the tendentiousness. I'm looking at the scholarly articles I can find on the subject in order to bring some balance to the article. (Thank heavens I was able to post this time.) -- spin^control 01:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So your issues are "generic problems of POV and repetitiveness"? Repetition is easy to deal with, but I would like to see what the specific ones are. The POV issue, needs to be specific. Just a this is all POV is too vague. I have to do other things now, will type later. History2007 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As to "the disturbances Suetonius refers to were likely caused by the objections of Jewish community to the continued preachings by early Christians" you said, "And you did not fix it right. You only attributed it to Koestenberger, and failed to attribute it to Dunn as well." I am only working from your referencing, which gives the sentence to the source I mentioned. The comment itself needed qualification as an opinion of someone, rather than an overgeneralization. -- spin^control 01:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like more specific examples of how you determined what is POV. I have to be off for a while. History2007 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a start: Amy-Jill Levine says, '“Chrestus”—perhaps a mishearing of “Christ.”If this “Chrestus” is a reference to the Christ', indicating that it is opinion rather than definite. (Misunderstood Jew, p.65) Crossan says, "Chrestus [=Christ?]" indicating uncertainty. (Bib. Interp. 8, 1/2 p.191) Slingerland only talks about the expulsion of the Jews and gives no comment on any problem with "Chrestus". (JQR 83, 1/2 p.127-144) -- spin^control 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So? I am still waiting for a list. And Levine says "perhaps a mishearing of Christ" so how does that render the whole that the article POV? And Crossan asks a question that suggest uncertainty about hearing of Seutonius. So? How does that render the article POV? There is of course not total certainty on that point, because it is about an ancient document. This may in fact relate to the error we discussed below. The situation is this:

• Based on WP:RS/AC the article says that "most scholars" think Suetonius misheard it. So that means that at least 51% think so. There are probably several who do not think so. Of course, and a few who are half-sure.

• So Levine and Crossan are among those who are only partially certain about Seutonius' hearing and think he may have needed one of these. So? This may be because you had assumed it was "many scholar" and not "most".. Maybe that was the reason you thought that. But that is not a good reason.

I have not seen a clear explanation of how this one statement you have provided renders the entire article POV. I will wait for a "detailed list" from you, then we will see. History2007 (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have started cleaning up after you. -- spin^control 08:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I have seen no big deal yet... You added Yamauchi which in effect confirms what Van Voorst said that most think X, and Yamauchi said a "growing number" have started to think Y. Yamauchi (published before Van Voorst, but fortunately not in the 1960s) did not contradict Van Voorst, just admitted that those who think Y are a minority opinion. So... I see no big deal in your edit... And I have seen no major POV pointed out yet. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You know--to start with--that the '"near-unanimous" agreement' claim is bogus. Citing comforting opinions is no way to edit Wiki articles. -- spin^control 10:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Here is what Van Voorst says on page 32:

• "The near-unanimous identification of him with Christ has made the answer to this question possibly too settled. For example, A. N. Wilson has recently written, "Only the most perverse scholars have doubted that 'Chrestus' is Christ"."

• He then goes on to say that "Yet nothing in this sentence or its context explicitly indicates that Suetonius is writing about Christ or Christianity." and that Benko and Slingerland doubt it, and guess what? The article also says elsewhere that Benoko and Slingerland doubt it. But based on both Van Voorst and Wilson's statements they are the small minority opinion. That is clear.

• Then guess what? On pages 32, Van Voorst says that although Slengerland says things: "The most persuasive arguments" against the overall scholarly agreement are provided by Benko. Then on page 33 he says: "A close examination of Benko's arguments show that they are un-suatainable"... I guess we need to add that one too, that he thinks Benko is not sustainable.... But maybe not, and no big difference, given that the overall scholarly assessment is clear.

So what is happening here is that:

• Van Voorst is giving the "over all academic consensus" and also says that A. N. Wilson believes that whoever doubts it is perverse. Now, we should not call any distinguished scholars perverse - this is a family encyclopedia after all. But the overall academic consensus is clearly provided by Van Voorst, and also by Wilson. Period.

Van Voorst does say that there is "near-unanimous" agreement among scholars. So what is the big deal here? What is bogus? Explain yourself. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, looking back at what you stared with Dr spin, for the life of me, I do not know what the issue here is any more. The article used to say that Suetonius was confused, and that the reference was hence seen as less than certain by some scholars, in view of his confusion. And long above I had said that I think of Suetonius as "so so tonius"... (but on Wikipedia what you and I think has the same value, i.e. zero). Now, back to the subject, now you object to the sourced statements that say he was confused... then want to say that the source that says there is agreement about the reference is bogus... I do not see the logic in this. So what is the big deal here? What is your current position since a few hours ago? What is all this bogus brouhaha about? Explain yourself. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Deviation from sources by Doktor spin

In this edit Doktor spin changed "most scholars" to many scholars. However, the source by Dunn (page 142) states: "Most infer that Suetonius misheard the name."

I would like an explanation why Doktor spin performs unilateral changes (which I am not reverting to avoid an edit war) which change material and make the content of the article deviate from the sources. History2007 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's the opinion of Dunn, you must say that Dunn gives that opinion. -- spin^control 01:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dunn was the only source for that. Whose opinion could it be if not the author of the source? But why change most to many? That is a different issue. You changed the statement, not ask for an author name. Did you check the source? Yes, or no? History2007 (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It appeared to be a generic overgeneralization rather than one of Dunn's. I have now tried to correct the issue. -- spin^control 01:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so no big deal. You did not check the source, just changed it, now fixed your error. No big deal. From now, check the source before you change things, instead of assuming that they may appear to be something else. Just check the sources more carefully. History2007 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unqualified opinion gives false impressions that need to be fixed. I don't have your sources, because I don't buy popular books which sell popular ideas. I prefer scholarly books and journals. Once I collate all the available sources I can find, I'll be trying to improve the article. -- spin^control 08:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that James Dunn is not a valid WP:RS source and is giving an "unqualified opinion"? Is that what I am hearing? Maybe Suetonius misheard things... I wonder if I am also mishearing now... History2007 (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

By your not citing the fact that Dunn made the statement, you leave the statement unqualified, such that a reading of the text doesn't make it clear that the statement is merely Dunn's opinion. You need to qualify all such opinions. -- spin^control 08:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So touch it up just to add Dunn's name, not change most to many. Such a small tea pot anyway.... But, again, in general you must check sources before changing things. History2007 (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Had you done the right thing in the first place and qualified the opinion this would not have happened. As I said though you did not acknowledge the fact, "By your not citing the fact that Dunn made the statement, you leave the statement unqualified, such that a reading of the text doesn't make it clear that the statement is merely Dunn's opinion. You need to qualify all such opinions." -- spin^control 08:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, click here... really... History2007 (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please try to communicate in words and then not cliches. -- spin^control 10:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, would you please fix some of your citations so that they adhere to Wiki standards (see WP:CITE). You should not cite something once giving a range of pages, so that the information could be on any of the pages and one doesn't know exactly where the citation comes from. Repeated citations are for multiple use of the same citation or footnote. You'll note nothing in WP:CITE like this:

1. ^ a b c Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan 1999 ISBN 0567086682 pages 3-10
2. ^ a b c d e f Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. pp 29-39

This doesn't help a reader, as they are sent to a wide range of pages, rather than the necessary specific page. WP:CITE uses scholarly examples so you should follow suit. If you repeatedly cite the same page, then you can do what you have done. If the same passage goes over the page then that's also covered. This one is correct:

1. ^ a b c d e The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 page 110

Beyond that you should take advice from WP:CITE#Short citations. Citing individual pages require separate citations. -- spin^control 12:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much a "storm in a teacup" as I said. There is no disputing that Crossan etc, say that, and that the attributions are correct, it is just page range issues. Just look up the sources and narrow the ranges. That is all. No need to make a big deal. History2007 (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a specific template for "page needed". -- spin^control 14:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, I know. But I do not wan to edit at the same time as you, so we will not look like we are reverting. It will take 7 minutes to change page number ranges, 70 to talk about them..... No big deal anyway... History2007 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So you removed two flags. It will take me 5 minutes to touch up page numbers - piece of cake. But I will do when you are not active, not to cross edit. I have to stop for a while now, but you must answer the questions above and must read WP:Due about space and which scholars get to sit in the back seat. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been 5 minutes and then some. You've given Van Voorst far too much due. You should read WP:Due again. -- spin^control 01:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Majority opinion and WP:DUE

Well, you did not answer the question I asked about your "it is a bogus reference" comment above. But now you are adding various specific opinions. The way this works per WP:Due is:

• The majority opinion is identified per WP:RS/AC.
• Minority opinion is acknowledged
• Minority opinion gets to sit in the back seat, not the from seat, i.e. it gets less apace than the majority opinion.

So if large amounts of text get devoted to an opinion sans a reference that it is supported by most scholars, it needs to get trimmed per WP:Due. That is how it works. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have included contrary views:

1) "Van Voorst states that there is "near-unanimous" agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus here refers to Christ" and

2) "Scholars are divided on the value of the Suetonius' reference. Some scholars such as Craig A. Evans, John Meier and Craig S. Keener see it as a likely reference to Jesus. Others such as Stephen Benko and H. Dixon Slingerland see it as having little or no historical value."

Is it near-unanimous according to you or are scholars "divided", which presents quite a different position regarding the views of scholars in general? -- spin^control 15:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it may seem that way to you because you removed some items about his confusion. The confusion makes scholars (even those who think he referred it) think it is of lesser value. That is what the article used to say a day or two ago. And "nothing" should be according to me, or to you. It should be according to scholars. History2007 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You are not dealing with the problem. The claim in version #2 above is that the division is contextualized by some scholars seeing the passage as a reference to Jesus while others not. #1 has Van Voorst claiming 'there is "near-unanimous" agreement among scholars that the use of Chrestus here refers to Christ'. Which is it? Is there a division about the passage referring to Jesus or is it "near-unanimous" agreement that it does?? They go well together: #2 is just another bullet in the carcass of #1.

The claim of confusion is a separate issue which you link to the "historical value" of the passage (and then to #2's division). The claim of confusion is unfalsifiable, which means that it has little value other than interesting conjecture for the point of view positing the claim, ie it's purely POV. -- spin^control 01:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your perception that the statement of scholars are "purely POV" was also reflected on the Tacitus on Christ page as I just commented there. So, as I said there, I think this is a generic issue about how you perceive WP:RS sources and WP:V and not just about this specific page or that one. As I said there, these discussions are really not a content issue any more, but a "policy interpretation issue" on your part. If you think that the statements of scholars about the confusion of Suetonius are "purely POV" that is not a content issue about this page, but a question of how you perceive Wikipedia policy. History2007 (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As there is no method to test the hypothesis that Suetonius was confused, it is an unfalsifiable claim and as such is nothing more than hot air. An inability to comprehend the problem doesn't augur well.

Your silence on the contradiction regarding VV's '"near-unanimous" agreement' claim is loud. -- spin^control 06:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is we are talking on so many fronts, and I have already said that the near-unanimous is sourced to him, but the other has to do with the confusion of Suetonius which you objected to despite its being well sourced. The "real issue" is that now you think what acclaimed scholars write in WP:RS sources is "hot air" - I am amazed at this one. This is after, elsewhere you referred to the highly respected scholar Raymond Brown as a "nitwit". How can I respond to statements that scholars are nitwits and WP:RS sources by James Dunn include "hot air" in your opinion. How can anyone respond to that? History2007 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from WP:RSN

In the above, Doktor spin states that statements in WP:RS by scholars may not be used if "there is no method to test them" - in bold above. Then the issue of

• If 70% of scholars assert the earth is flat will you accept it or ask for evidence?

was raised by Doktor spin on WP:ANI and it was suggested that we seek further opinions. I posted on WP:RSN about it. Doktor spin seems to want evidence from WP:RS sources.

The other issue is that Dr Spin seems to really like Slingerland (who is accepted as a minority opinion given his own edit that states most scholars think otherwise). And seems to think that books published by professors are not WP:RS. This needs to be clarified. It was discussed on Talk:Secondary source before. History2007 (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There were 3 responses on WP:RSN which I have copied below, given that it may get archived there. History2007 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of WP:RS sources and requirements for "evidence" and "test methods"

Comments on Talk:Suetonius on Christians will be appreciated. There are a few points and some of them are:

• If a scholar states something in a book do we need to ask for evidence that he is correct?

A user wants to reject what scholars say about the confusion of a Roman historian because he thinks "there is no method to test" what the scholars say.... He also thinks books by professors are not WP:RS if they are aimed at a general audience.... Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to test it, just attribute it with due weight if it conflicts with others or is somehow dubious. Books by a professor for a general audience are perfectly okay and when talking about other studies are often good secondary sources for helping to assign weight to the different views. It isn't up to us to check the sources, just to try and assign due weight by their general standing in the sources and general considerations and to summarize them. If a scholar just prays to God and the answers come to him in visions that really isn't our problem if the scholar is generally respected and other people in the field don't disagree, though I'd be okay with just an attribution rather than stating the conclusions as settled! Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with most of that -- not the visions bit :) The main thing is to insist that there is a "method to test" -- via the reactions of other scholars.

Professors who are the liveliest writers and have the most interesting things to say may reach a general audience. Don't let's eliminate them for that reason! Andrew Dalby 09:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's a scholarly work (or even general audience work of a scholar) and it reflects the mainstream assessment (i.e it's covered in a preponderance of sources), then no. It is not up to us to evaluate the mainstream assessment with original research. I should add that we don't analyse any source, even fringe views, but we would add attribution instead to make it clear that its not mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all 3 of you for pointing out the logic. I will point to this discussion from that talk page. And I think WP:V and WP:RS agree with what you guys have said: that we just summarize what the scholars write (using WP:Due) not decide if their views can be tested. And as stated above, professors can be WP:RS sources even if their books are written for a general audience. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Doktor spin, I think the responses on WP:RSN make it clear that there is "no need to test" what the scholars say and books by professors aimed at a general audience are fully acceptable as WP:RS sources. Therefore, please stop arguing against WP:RS sources. Responses from other users are clear on that. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Error in edit

In this edit a V Voorst statement was pushed between two Lane statements, making the 2nd Lane statement appear to apply to V Voorst. That is an eror. Lane refers to his first statement Doktor spin, you need to self-revert and bring the two Lane statements together. Be careful about these. History2007 (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that one was self-corrected now. But the "admit" is pushing it when applied to V Voorst. Needs to be a flat "states". History2007 (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hasty accusation

You're such an eager beaver. Quick on the trigger (as indicated by the error spelling "error" as "eror", too quick). And anyone who checks their work would find the problem (remember "Cherstus"?), so as someone says, "patience, grasshopper."

Admission is what Van Voorst is doing. He doesn't advocate the implications of the position, he merely admits that it is the case. Using "states" is inappropriate for the language context. "Concedes" would also be fine. -- spin^control 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop the "eager beaver" language. Understand? Stop. Stop. Your first edit, which was an error has now been self-corrected. But "admit" is your interpretation. But why would I bother on that trivial point - an IP out of nowhere can change it in a month. However, your rephrasing of Crossan ignores Benko's contempt statement and is inappropriate. As for catching the error in misspelling or eror, would you like to be nominated for the Noble prize in punctution? Stop the trivia now. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like you to calm down. The spelling of "eror" showed haste. Your complaining about the mislocation of something while I'm in the process of editing seems picky at best. If you'd give it a rest, you can complain more fruitfully when I stop. As to Crossan, he says nothing about contempt on the page you cited. The Benko comment is later in the text. -- spin^control 15:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am calm - after wasting all that time on ANI, of course. As for "the spelling of eror showed haste" what is this? Mind reading? Crystal ball somewhere? Or my keyboard got stuck on that one? Stop the trivia and move on. But the Benko statement on contempt needs to be reflected in the lede. Benko and Dixie are your favorites are they not? So why not use it? History2007 (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no favorites. I'd like the article to be neutral and is there a point to talking about the contempt in the lede other than you seem to like applying it to So-so-tonius as you call him? You did after all mention the notion five times. It's not essential information about the writer. It's just yet another unsubstantiated opinion. I'd take out the Crossan thingy altogether, but the rewriting was an effort to at least use him, seeing as he was cited in a ref. -- spin^control 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, in case you are no longer looking at ANI, this is the latest comment there FYI:

@DoctorSpin - I have just looked through both the content issues and the editing and seems that your charge against History2007 is completely groundless, and a medium-sized boomerang. I'm no expert on Suetonius but know enough to conclude that you are indeed demonstrating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here regarding WP:V and WP:RS, and are not even correct on the content issues. Having advertised the article here do not be surprised if other editors coming to it now will be taking a view nearer History2007. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway... History2007 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Feldman and WP:RS/AC

Per WP:RS/AC I added a statement by Louis Feldman that "most scholars assume that in the reference Jesus is meant and that the disturbances mentioned were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome". Given that Louis Feldman is a highly acclaimed scholar of the period in question, that satisfies the requirements for WP:RS/AC for the general scholarly view, and establishes it as the majority view among scholars. Please do not deleted this fully referenced, fully WP:RS statement without discussion and agreement, given that it is fully WP:RS/AC compliant. History2007 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Some comments and suggestions....

Via a comment posted on the RS Noticeboard, I found my way here....and I have a few thoughts to share.

(a) The position History2007 stated there seems reasonable to me. Wikipedia is simply a place to describe and summarize scholarly conclusions, giving appropriate weight to majority and minority views. On Wikipedia "there is no method to test" what the scholars say because doing so here would probably constitute WP:OR. Testing scholarly conclusions IS a valuable pursuit for scholars writing literature surveys, meta-analyses, and the like. If such tests of scholarly conclusions have been published in a format that qualifies as a reliable source, it would be a very good source for a Wikipedian to cite and make use of. But it's the job of others to test; it's our job simply to state what others have tested and concluded.

(b) I would suggest tightening up the References by using short citations. It's a bit redundant to see a citation like "Dixon Slingerland, 'Acts 18:1-18, the Gallio Inscription, and Absolute Pauline Chronology', JBL 110, 3 (1991), p.446." repeated multiple times in close succession with only the page numbers differing between one citation and another.

(c) As to the content, I haven't researched this topic to any depth so I don't have any fresh material to contribute to the article, but I did encounter a blog containing multiple entries (albeit some of which are written in Swedish) discussing some recently published journal papers and monographs on Suetonius' reference to a "Chrestus". While someone's personal blog isn't a RS, the citations there can usefully point the way to sources that are. For example, the first entry tagged under "Suetonius" contains a reference to "Jobjorn Boman, Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius’ Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts, Liber Annuus 61 (2011), ISSN 0081-8933, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem 2012, pp. 355-376." Via index theologicus I found a link to the article which took me to a Tubingen University page in German asking for my email, but it seems it may be possible to get a PDF of this article that way. Anyways, just thought I'd mention this as it appears to be a helpful avenue to discover the latest scholarship on the topic.

That's all I have, so I wish you the best, History2007 and Doktor Spin, with this article. (: --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia just summarizes what the scholars say, not test them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to find a way to access the full Boman article for the last week, but to no avail. The journal Liber Annuus used to be free access from the SBF website, but has over the last few years been distributed by a hitherto unknown publisher apparently unavailable through university library subscription. The content though interesting is a bit too specialized for the article! It examines all the manuscript variants for "Chresto". Here's the summary:

The passage Divus Claudius 25.4 in Suetonius’ Life of the Twelve Caesars is about the emperor Claudius expelling from Rome the “perpetually tumultuous Jews”, “impulsore Chresto”. Since the 5th century, it has been interpreted as a reference to early Christianity or to the historical Jesus. The fifth century historian Orosius quotes Suetonius’ sentence as reading “inpulsore Christo”, and other readings of the latter word (like Cherestro) are evident in earlier scholarship. In the article, the medieval sources and relevant manuscripts containing the Suetonian sentence are presented and examined. The conclusion is that the reading Christo (or rather xpo) likely is of Christian origin, and that other readings (Cherestro, Chrestro, etc.) most probably are scribal errors. The most trustworthy reading, which most likely was Suetonius’ original spelling, is Chresto.

And all the best to you, Mike Agricola. -- spin^control 02:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on the minority view?

WP:Due requires that the majority view gets more attention. But I saw another touch up and despite the establishment of the majority scholarly view the minority items seem to be overflowing now. The name of Slingerlad appears 11 times (yes, 11 times) in the text of the article, then also in the bibliography. Why are the minority views of a bit player from Hiram college getting attention over the majority scholarly view? History2007 (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only did I not get an answer to this, more minority opinion was added about "announcing the changing of the guard", etc. The fact that it has to be stated that way makes it clear that it is still a minority opinion, and the majority scholarly view is getting snowed under with repetitive statements of minority items. Do we have to declare a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the issue of WP:Due as well? And again, the very statement that "Despite Slingerland's analysis, most scholars agree that..." which Doktor spin touched up himself makes it crystal clear that Slingerland is a minority view. So why is he treated like "Caesar Dixon" here? Is he Caesar and no one knows about it yet? Unless good and specific reasons are provided, per WP:Due I will have to trim out these overloaded minority view Slingerland references. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Whinging about Slingerland is beside the point. Most of his cited material regards the subtopic of dating the event. He is the expert on the subject given the number of scholarly papers he's had accepted along with a scholarly monograph on the subject and the number of times he is cited on the issue. In comparison you cite the same generic paragraph from Koestenberger five times. That's the equivalent of making a broth by waving the meat over the hot water.

You claim that the majority scholarly view is being overflowing by the minority items. That should tell you something about your assumptions. If you want to demonstrate the scholarly majority view, you need to cite some peer-reviewed works, such as JBL, JQR, JAAR, Classical Antiquity, etc, or some specifically scholarly monographs. -- spin^control 13:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. You need t read WP:RS/AC. The "Academic consensus" is established via references and not via the asessment of editors. The policy states:

• "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

So editor assessment is out. Sources win. And are you again (really?) saying that books by professors are not WP:RS? The discussion on WP:RSN clearly indicated that position as incorrect. That mantra needs to stop. The majority view has been clearly stated by Louis Feldman. Are you again saying that Feldman is wrong?

So let us make it really clear: Do you acknowledge that Slingerland is a minority view or not? Let us get a "yes/no answer" to that. Very simple. History2007 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside your sidetrack on Slingerland, I gather you can't cite from peer-reviewed sources in order to establish a scholarly majority view. -- spin^control 14:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not have to. As you were told on WP:RSN, books by scholars are WP:RS. Are you disputing that a book by a professor is a WP:RS source? That is a clear, clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part, and I still have no "yes/no answer" from you about Slingerland being a minority view. Why not answer it as a simple yes/no? History2007 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT breach

I think Doktor Spin is running against WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT due to the following:

• We had a difference of opinion on books by professors being WP:RS.
• I asked for further opinions on WP:RSN.
• The users there sided with me, and stated that books by professors are WP:RS.
• I even copied the responses above.
• Doktor spin is still arguing against it here

This is a clear breach of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this issue by Doktor spin. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping you from posting your RS accurately. Go to it. But you should read wp:scholarship to understand what RSs are. Here:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars.

Note that "vetted by the scholarly community"? Oops, there go quite a few of your sources. -- spin^control 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And let me remind you that you were told by other users on Secondary source that:

• "Scholarly books and articles are closely monitored by other scholars"

So you have heard that before as well. So you are clearly arguing against what you heard on WP:RSN and on Secondary source. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Which books have you cited that were vetted by scholars??

While we are at it, that paragraph you overuse by Koestenberger... you should read tertiary sources, which states, "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." THe summary paragraph is a tertiary source which you have overused. -- spin^control 14:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Koestenberger is used throughout Wikipedia. But the book I was referring to was:

• Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans by Louis H. Feldman (Oct 1, 1996) ISBN 0567085252

Are you saying that Louis H. Feldman's book is not WP:RS? I will ask on WP:RSN again. There we go again. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't talked about the Feldman book. I have talked about a number of your other sources, including the Koestenberger material which is a summary paragraph aimed purely at giving an overview and has no depth, yet you have used it five times.

I cannot help the fact that you can't get many sources other than generalizations in popular books. There are lots of scholarly papers out there, lots of monographs, materials that have been vetted by scholars and not just pumped out to make money. -- spin^control 15:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you have clearly breached WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again. You were told on WP:RSN and Secondary source by multiple users that books by professors are WP:RS, even if aimed at a general audience. And you are still disputing that and call them books "pumped out to make money". That is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Clearly so. History2007 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Vetted by scholars. Scholarship works that way. A scholar can work within that system or publish popular books. Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is a popular book that wasn't vetted by scholars. His "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" is a scholarly book. Obviously the former makes more money than the latter. -- spin^control 15:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But I am trying to get an answer on Feldman here, not Ehrman who is not even used in this article. And I am not getting an answer. History2007 (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I will stop now, until people on WP:RSN respond to that. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You have certainly wasted enough of my time. You have sidetracked yourself over Slingerland, whose major use in the article regards the dating issues and not the balance of views. It's time for you to stop bellyaching and explain exactly where you think there is an imbalance of views that would lead to you calling foul. -- spin^control 15:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Now then

Rather than a another protracted exchange of barbs, could we please discuss wp:edits, not editors? Hopelessly lost in the above discussion are the basic points to consider in a RS assessment:

1. What edit is proposed?
2. What article statement in that edit is challenged?
3. What reference source is cited in support of that challenged article statement?
4. What source text statement is the putative support for that challenged article statement?
5. Does the source text statement on its face support the challenged article statement?
6. Is the source text (as distinct from the entire source work) primary, secondary, or tertiary?
7. Do the author, editor, and/or publisher have a reputation for reliable fact checking?

Could each of you please list your responses on each of these points so we can begin to make some sense of the discussion?LeadSongDog come howl! 16:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to get the majority view established first, before going into details there. As a start the statement "Despite Slingerland's analysis, most scholars agree that this expulsion of some Jews around AD 49-50 ..." at the end accepts that his view is a minority, and yet he used as the main item to organize that section. I think the date accepted by most scholars should not be just in Galio but upfront. And the order of the sources was placed this way based on Slingerland which is an accepted minority view. I think the order should be chron with Gallio first, then Dio, the way Murphy-O'Connor has it. Then we go further... History2007 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please respond by the numbers, it will go much faster.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, the number structure is not quite clear to me. So I will paste a first version of a proposed rework of that section here. Much of Slingerland still needs to be cut yet I think:

It isn't complicated. There are seven numbered questions that need answers. Sources are not generically reliable or unreliable for all statements, they are reliable or unreliable for specific statements. To make sense of the issue, we need the context of usage in a simple statement, not lost in a wall of text. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Date of the expulsion

Dating the Chrestus event provides some challenges because Suetonius writes in a topical rather than chronological fashion, necessitating the use of other texts to establish a time frame. The dating of the "edict of Claudius" for the expulsion of Jews relies on three separate texts beyond Suetonius' own reference, which in chronological order are: Cassius Dio's reference in History 60.6.6-7, Paulus Orosius's fifth century mention in History 7.6.15-16 of a non-extant Josephus reference and the reference to the trial of Apostle Paul by Gallio in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2). Rainer Riesner states that scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same event. Most scholars agree that this expulsion of some Jews tok place around AD 49-50.

Gallio

The Temple of Apollo, where the Delphi Inscription was discovered in the 20th century, helping confirm the chronology of Paul and Gallio.

The dating related to Acts 18:1-18 is derived from the occurrence of two facts: first the mention of the proconsul Gallio in 18:12 and the existence of an inscription found at Delphi and published in 1905, preserving a letter from Claudius concerning Gallio dated during the 26th acclamation of Claudius, sometime between January 51 and August 52. Cassius Dio (60.25.6) states that some proconsuls were allowed "to govern for two years", so the limits between which Gallio could have governed were AD 49 and 54. He could have taken office "as early as May of 49 to as late as May of 52". Acts 18:11 says that Paul stayed in Corinth a year and six months, adding in 18:18 that he stayed yet many days, so he could have left Corinth "yet many days" after May of 49 to "yet many days" after April 54. Paul arrived 18 months before then, "sometime between 47 and 54", to stay with Aquila and Priscilla, Jews who Claudius had recently forced to leave Rome. If therefore, according to Slingerland, Acts 18:2 and Suet. Claudius 25.4 deal with the same event, that event occurred between late 47 and 54. However, Joseph Fitzmyer cites an inscription from Caria which reduces the time range for the 26th acclamation of Claudius to between 25 January 52 and 1 August 52.

Cassius Dio

Cassius Dio makes a comment in 60.6.6-7 regarding an action early in the reign of Claudius:

As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city [Rome], he [Claudius] did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.

The similarities are noteworthy, for both Suetonius and Cassius Dio deal with Jews, tumult, Claudius, the city and expulsion, and Cassius Dio does provide a chronological context that points to the year AD 41. However, Cassius Dio does not mention Chrestus or any cause for the emperor's actions, while he does say that Claudius did not drive the Jews out of the city. Slingerland states that "Suetonius Claudius 25.4 does not refer to the event narrated in Dio 60.6.6-7." Slingerland thus states that the fact that Cassius Dio notes that Claudius did not expel the Jews argues against the relevance of the AD 41 date. However, Rainer Riesner states that ancient historians generally hold that Cassius Dio may have referred to an earlier, more limited action against some Jews, which was later expanded by Claudius to the expulsion of a larger group of Jews. Raymond E. Brown states that Dio specifically rejects a general expulsion and it would be more reasonable to assume that only the most vocal people on the opposite side of the Christ issue were expelled.

Orosius

The other date popular among scholars is the year AD 49, partly through a report from the 5th century Christian writer Paulus Orosius and also through scholarly efforts to construct a Pauline chronology using Acts 18:1-18. Here is Orosius citing two sources:

Josephus reports, "In his ninth year the Jews were expelled by Claudius from the city." But Suetonius, who speaks as follows, influences me more: "Claudius expelled from Rome the Jews constantly rioting at the instigation of Christ [Christo]." As far as whether he had commanded that the Jews rioting against Christ [Christum] be restrained and checked or also had wanted the Christians, as persons of a cognate religion, to be expelled, it is not at all to be discerned

The first source used by Orosius, comes from a non-existent quote from Josephus. It is this which provides the date of AD 49. The second source is Suetonius Claudius 25.4 which Slingerland assumes was "Chrestus" changed to "Christus", 'Christus, supplying a Christian twist by the change of an "e" into an "i."' Slingerland holds that Orosius made up the Josephus passage for which no scholar has been able to discover a source. Slingerland also contends that the writer is guilty of manipulating source materials for polemic purposes. Rainer Riesner notes that it is not possible for Orosius to have derived the date of the expulsion that he wrote about from the Book of Acts.

References

But this is the re-org that would reduce dependence on Slingerland, and also the date moves upfront. If we agree on this, then will reduce him further. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:DUE. The dependence on Slingerland is the use of three separate peer-reviewed articles, so the views are exceptionally well vetted. The only conflict for you is the result the dating of the Gallio implications. And the view that you sustain closes the section to give balance.

The order is one of logic, chronology and importance. The use of Cassius Dio in the discussion regards 41 CE. The use of Orosius regards a date of 49 CE. The first is shown not to function, the second not to reflect reality. After they are dealt with the significance of the more complex Gallio issue is considered.

What exactly is your problem with the sequence as I first wrote it, ie deal with 41 CE, then 49 CE, then locate Gallio (your people's view: 49-50)? It's straight chronology. -- spin^control 17:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And can I take it, your only WP:DUE concern is Slingerland??? If not, please be specific. -- spin^control

Slingerland on dates is just one of the points, but we need to go one by one. So the question that I would like a yes/no answer to is:

• Is Slingerland's dating and his wider date range beyond 49-50 a minority view or not?

That just needs a yes/no answer regardless of where he published. Minority views can get published in wherever, and still be minority views. The article says he is a minority view on dates. Right? So can we have a yes/no answer on that? History2007 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I want you to explain why you are trying to reorder the section given that there is a clear order to it as it stands. I also want you to explain your WP:DUE concerns about the rest of the article. You've been bellowing about WP:DUE. I think you are confused about WP:DUE. You are attempting here to stifle views rather than seeking to express majority views with due weight. The sourcing issue is up to you. Your failure to provide functional material doesn't mean you should stifle scholarly material that has been given the respect of peer-review several times. -- spin^control 17:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please let me ask for a yes/no answer again: "Is Slingerland's dating and his wider date range beyond 49-50 a minority view or not?" Can we get a yes/no answer on that please? I need that before I can present my arguments. It affects the entire presentation based on what is majority and what is minority view and affects WP:Due. So can we get a yes/no answer on that question please? History2007 (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Majority view regarding dates

Given no yes/no response to the question above, I added some references that make it clear that statements by Slingerland regarding dates are a minority view and showed how most scholars date Gallio. Hence unless specific and clear reasons are provided, I think it can be accepted here that Slingerland's views are a minority view, and hence per WP:Due can not drive the structure of the dating section. I think the many references make that clear now. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop spewing inappropriate rules and please remove this stupid edit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Orosius who has cited Suetonius incorrectly. -- spin^control 04:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That was a clear WP:NPA personal insult. I am upset enough by that to stop for a while. History2007 (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry for calling your inadequately thought-out and erroneous edit a "stupid error". Now, are you or are you not going to correct the error? It plainly was not considered clearly when inserted. -- spin^control 04:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. How is any of this helpful Doktorspin? You two clearly have a history, but your comments and attitude clearly don't help your case any... Ckruschke (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes, there was no need for that at all. None at all. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the direct personal attack aside, there is no big deal there anyway - as my last edit shows. The way it was written with Claudius 25 made it seem like it referred to Claudius. But now, I just added three other scholars who say the same thing about the Orosius way. The real point is that for everything in that section stated by Slingerland there is "a line of scholars" waiting to say otherwise. Slingerland is a minority view on these issues - every way you look at it.

That was why I asked the question "Is Slingerland a minority view?" and requested a yes/no answer - a few times. All it would have taken was a "no" answer with sources. But the "no answer" never arrived. The situation is obvious, as the references I have recently added clearly show: Slingerland is singing a lonely tune.

The main issue was this: When the dates section (with 3 subsections) first showed up and I saw it, I noticed two things:

• It quoted mostly one author in the entire 3 subsections. It may have had a couple of minor other refs, but it was mostly references by one author: Slingerland. And I knew he is not the only game in town.

• And I could also see that the dates suggested were way off (I mean way off) because I had seen the dates the majority of scholars use.

The current references added clearly show that Slingerland is by and large a lonely voice (Doktor spin said elsewhere that Slingerland has the temerity to go against the scholarly trend, or something like that) but temerity does not a majority view make.

The date section still relies far too heavily on the minority views of Slingerland and needs many more fixes. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

---

You weren't insulted: the erroneous edit was. It is false in the context. You don't seem to have understood the context in which you inserted it and you haven't corrected the problem. Van Voorst is talking about Suetonius, not Orosius and his use of Suetonius.

The only things that are minority view cited from Slingerland are the comments on the import of the Gallio inscription and his view regarding Chrestus, both of which have passed scholarly muster. Removing any other comments will have you against the majority. -- spin^control 16:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I will not even comment on the personal attack - it is there in plain sight.

Regarding V Voorst, of course the way it was written made me think it was Claudius as I said, but again no big deal in the end: as is Slingerland' view is rejected by various scholars as usual. I just added new scholars. As I said, there is always "a line of scholars" ready to say otherwise for everything he says, as the article now shows.

But the dates section is pretty funny now for a number of reasons:

• It seems to have a refrain structure: Slingerland says X. Others scholars say "not so". Slingerland says Y. Others scholars say "not so". Why does it have to be that way? Why does the a minority view author have to be posted first only to be rejected by a line of waiting scholars. Why is there an unending fascination with Slingerland in that section? postscript: that section has since been re-arranged to reduce the refrain format. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• The 4th paragraph of the Gallio section looks very strange now. It is still reading like an "ode to Slingerland" but Slingerland was just deposed in paragraph 3 by so many respectable scholars.

• And the final paragraph with "Despite Slingerland's analysis, most scholars disagree with him (...in so many words)" is just not the way to do WP:Due. One does not say "despite the arguments for a flat earth most geologists think the earth is round".

So why single out Slingerland as the main player in the dates section, only to have his views rejected by scholar after scholar? Does not make sense and runs against WP:Due.

Anyway, given that you did not give a "no answer" to the "Is Slingerland a minoriy view" question and due to your "temerity comment" I assume you have conceded that he is a minority view, given all these references. So what is the fascination with him in that section? History2007 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Show me specifically where Slingerland's material is not majority view in the Cassius Dio and Orosius sections. That's right, you can't. Majority view is not based on writer but content. -- spin^control 17:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Translation: You have conceded that Slingerland is the minority view in the Gallio section and that his wide date range is rejected by the majority of scholars. Right? Let us get that one out of the way, then we will move on to the other sections. So let us achieve clarity on Gallio, then move to the others. One at a time. I will fix Gallio first, then move on to the others. So do you concede that Slingerland is the minority view on Gallio? History2007 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Translation: you are misusing majority view. -- spin^control 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

How? All I want to establish is this: "Are there sources that establish the majority scholarly view regarding the Gallio dates?" The article already answers that in my view. I am trying to get a yes/no answer from you, but not succeeding. So let me ask again: Is the majority view regarding Gallio dates against Slingerland's calculations? That just needs a "no" answer from you if it is not the case. So yes? or no?. A simple answer will do. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Majority view is not based on writer but content. -- spin^control 18:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also you've put no content in for what you consider to be the majority view, just a chain of opinions. One was enough. It just becomes repetition of a popular assertion. -- spin^control 18:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask again: Is the statement "the limits between which Gallio could have governed were AD 49 and and that he could have taken office as early as May of 49 to as late as May of 52" a minority view? So, yes or no? History2007 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Exact relevance? -- spin^control 18:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to "establish the majority view" in the Gallio section, so that WP:Due can be followed. So yes, or no? History2007 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In what sense do you mean "so that WP:Due can be followed"? -- spin^control 18:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Due states: "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." So to follow that policy, the minority view needs to be clarified. So let me ask again:

• Is the statement "the limits between which Gallio could have governed were AD 49 and and that he could have taken office as early as May of 49 to as late as May of 52" a minority view?

All you need to do is give a yes/no answer here. History2007 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In what sense do you mean "so that WP:Due can be followed"? "Followed" how? -- spin^control

I noticed that we had both gone to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to ask for advice to resolve this. Obviously, this is getting circular. Let us wait for responses from there. But I would note that there you stated: "The second paragraph is the majority view and the third is a contrary view." So you have formally accepted that the third paragraph which begins "Contrarily, Slingerland argues that..." is contrary to the majority view, i.e. it is the minority view. But let us wait for responses anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In what sense do you mean "so that WP:Due can be followed"? "Followed" how? -- spin^control 20:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So that majority and minority views are clearly identified with due emphasis, per policy. Please read the policy. But I will have to stop now until responses arrive from the noticeboard. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is like pulling teeth.

Let me remind you that your contribution so far is restricted to this:

Craig S. Keener states that most scholars believe that the Delphi inscription "pinpoints" Gallio's term in Corinth to within a year or two and that his term started in July 51, although some scholars prefer 52.

States the view of "most scholars" that the already mentioned Delphi inscription "pinpoints" Gallio's term to within a year or two. A statement of opinion without any content.

Udo Schnelle states that dates for the reign of Gallio can be determined with a "fair degree of accuracy" given the Delphi inscription and his term started in the summer of 51.

Repeats the Delphi inscription but adds nothing in way of content.

F. F. Bruce states that the start of Gallio's term can be inferred "rather precisely" to the summer of 51.

Adds nothing in way of content.

James Jeffers supports the year 51 for the start of Gallio's term.

Adds nothing. This is Wiki development by "me too" and "me too".

In what sense do you mean "so that WP:Due can be followed"? "Followed" how? What is your specific intended outcome in concrete terms? I want to know exactly about how you would like to manifest your understanding of this all in the editing process, given the fact that so many sources feel the need to cite Slingerland. -- spin^control 05:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I will wait for responses from the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding the minority view issue. The two editor ping-pong here is rather monotonous. History2007 (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

These are actually two separate issues. One regards what uninvolved people think of the state of play. The other is about your unspecificied intentions. I would like you to be clear about your specific desired outcome regarding the exact content you want in practical terms, given your persistent indications of discontent. I have been trying to get this out in the open for quite a while now. -- spin^control 06:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It all depends on what people say. So have to wait for them. Just wait. History2007 (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And just to take up the comment about monotony, I need to remind you that you initiated all but three of the topics on this talk page. -- spin^control 06:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Undoing Smallwood

Just undid the misplaced Smallwood comment. (Working from a tablet which had logged me out.) Smallwood was giving a generic interpretation and did not belong with the material on the liguistics of the Latin. It certainly didn't belong where it was placed. -- spin^control 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the structure you imposed there is without support or basis. Rutgers is already talking interpretation and there is zero sourcing of how the linguistics can be separated from the interpretations. The distinction placed there is pure WP:OR based on your understanding of how to separate the issues. Pure WP:OR. Per WP:DUE majority opinion, i.e. Feldman (confirmed on WP:RSN) goes first. Please respect the majority opinion from WP:RSN. Will change now, unless you have sources should not undo. History2007 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't understand things, please leave them alone. The linguistics of the original language needs dealing with separately, as one finds in all copies of Loeb library editions of the classics that are used throughout the English speaking world in university classics departments. Rutgers talks about the significance of the Latin phrase impulsore Chresto. Lane talks about the difficulties of the Latin syntax and so does Slingerland. You have no reason to remove the material about the Latin. Talking about OR is absurd. You moved scholarly comments about the Latin text into the interpretations of the significance of the term Chrestus. And forget due weight when you don't know what the majority view is with regard to the complexities of the Latin text. You have no cause to Wikilawyer here. Go back to building up your notion of due weight. -- spin^control 04:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What you need is a source that tells you first how impulsore Chresto grammatically attaches to the rest of the sentence in Latin accompanied with a statement that such an explanation is the majority view. The problem involves whether

1. impulsore Chresto limits the scope of Iudaeos to only those Jews incited, or
2. was it all the Jews or
3. was it Claudius's expulsion of the Jews that was incited.

This is a Latin syntax issue. -- spin^control 05:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well:

• With your "If you don't understand things, please leave them alone" statement you are going off on the personal attack issue again. Stop that. Stop that now. And that statement is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia: anyone can edit here. Anyone. Anytime.

• Your statement: "forget due weight when you don't know what the majority view is with regard to the complexities of the Latin text." is also counter to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. WP:DUE can not be forgotten. And your assumption that "you know better" has no value in determining content.

• I see no source or basis to support the structure you suggest, except your reliance on your personal knowledge. And that is not useable in Wikipedia. The point is that you are running against WP:Due by using obscure statements from Slingerland upfront about Chrestus agitating Claudius. How many scholars support that? That is WP:Fringe view not supported by anyone.

Your statements are counter to Wikipedia policy and your telling me to "go away because you know better" amounts to WP:Own. As is the section structure favors minority (and Slingerland Fringe) items, pushing the majority opinion to a lower level. That is clear. History2007 (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You have misrepresented me. There is only one comment by Slingerland in the material you wrongfully moved. There are comments by Gruen, Rutgers and Lane. Lane's is the largest. You continue to confuse WP:DUE with personalities. WP:DUE is about content, not people; viewpoints, not holders of viewpoints. You'll note that Slingerland (against whom you seem to have some sort of grudge) has a very small part of the paragraph and "Fringe" is your OR. A minority position doesn't mean "fringe". Peer-reviewed journal papers tell you that we are dealing with scholarship. You are persistently misrepresenting anything that disagrees with your views. You are an editor. Stop claiming to know better than peer-reviewed work of scholars. By misrepresenting scholarly issues you are attempting to force your own opinions.

Your confusion is clearly illustrated in your comments above. You are attempting to use WP:DUE without any evidence to support claims of the majority in the analysis of the Latin issues that you are attempting to do so. I'm sorry, but your attempts to use WP:DUE here to manipulate the article are misguided and you should stop trying to force it when you have nothing to support you. Remember -- spin^control 07:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is turning into a love fest. So I will not even respond to most of that. But let me make one thing clear: I do not know Dixon Slingerland, have zero WP:COI with him and had not even heard of him until a couple of months ago, except in a minor reference in Van Voorst. My observation when I first read the dates passage was that it read like "an ode to Slingerland". WP:Due does not allow that. History2007 (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I do not know who IP 114.198.17.159 is, but in case it is you, remember to login so it will be clear who makes the edits. History2007 (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Try to concentrate more and read better before giving useless advice. Look at the very first line of this section. -- spin^control

No big deal anyway... But I have made it clear that I have no WP:COI with Slingerland, but have been uncomfortable with the WP:Due issues with respect to the "ode to Slingerland" issues in the dates section. History2007 (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your misuse of WP:DUE has already been noted. Your COI involves the fact that Slingerland does not support the view that you espouse and so you call him "Dixie" and talk about odes to Slingerland. You categorizing him as "fringe" is contradicted by the fact that all his papers are peer-reviewed and accepted by significant journals. That's injecting your own opinion. -- spin^control 08:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:COI would have come up with respect to me if I had ever published on the topic myself, been Slingerland's cousin, etc. I have no outside involvement in the field or with him, and have never published on the topic. So there is zero WP:COI for me here. History2007 (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about two different things. You are actively using ad hominem with Slingerland as your target because his views clash with yours. The conflict of interest involves the insertion of your views into the article by manipulating the text to diminish apparently both the most published and most cited scholar on the issue of the expulsion. -- spin^control 09:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP:COI requires some type of association between myself and Slingerland, Benko, R.E. Brown, etc. Let me again make it clear that I have zero association with any of the scholars mentioned in this article and as far as I know have never even crossed one on the street, or eaten in a restaurant at the same time. Now, just as a matter of reciprocity and clarity, could we get a voluntary statement from all editors editing this page that they also have no associations with the scholars being discussed here. That should be easy and straightforward and will certainly clear the air. History2007 (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Putting aside your cover up after misusing WP:DUE, apparently you have failed to include one single publisher for any of the copyrighted materials you have cited. Do you think you can fix that up, please? That is your responsibility. -- spin^control 12:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My "cover up"? What cover up? Misuse? What misuse? For now, click on an ISBN, will get a publisher, those may get added later. And I noticed that you you did not reciprocate regarding the invitation to voluntarily state (as I did) that you have no association with any of the scholars being discussed in this article. I have performed no cover up, no misuse and have no WP:COI associations. That is certain. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cover up: the non sequitur about WP:COI. Misuse: WP:DUE for a person and not content, inappropriately going for Slingerland's throat everywhere you saw him.

Still waiting for you to include publishers for all your citations. And you still have a few spelling mistakes to fix. -- spin^control 16:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Spelling errors? I have no idea, really no idea what you mean by cover up of my WP:COI given that I have none and no misuse of WP:Due whatsoever. I will even try to avoid responding to these - for they do not serve to improve encyclopedic content. But I will note that this small talk about pointless accusations is futile given that you have pointed to no actionable policy breaches - you should know by now that I respect policy and never breach it, as evidenced by your last trip to WP:ANI. So this type of "fix the spelling errors" small talk and empty cover up accusations are pointless and should be avoided, for with these the only things spinning will be your wheels Doktor - for they will go nowhere, just take up time. So they should just be avoided. History2007 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the further obfuscations, publishers, please. I'll have to fix your spelling later. -- spin^control ~16:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just put the repetition of the Feldman comment back where it was appropriate, ie in the interpretation of the statement. The statement already appearing, shouldn't be repeated. However, under the insistence of History2007, it's in the article twice, but it doesn't belong with a comment that attempts to evaluate the genuineness of the Suetonius statement. The order is fairly straightforward: 1) some contextualization, 2) the text & a statement of its genuineness, 3) the Latin text and its difficulties, 4) interpretation. If we cannot compromise in order to get a coherent structure, we will have to return to basics. -- spin^control 13:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess by "some contextualization" you mean the lede. Time for you to carefully read WP:LEDE then will see why in many Wikipedia articles key statements such as overall view appear once in the body but also in the lede. That is how Wiki articles follow WP:LEDE. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was talking only about the Claudius section.

1. CONTEXTUALIZATION:

Roman Emperor Claudius reigned 41 to 54 AD. Suetonius reports his dealings with the eastern Roman Empire, that is, with Greece and Macedonia, and with the Lycians, Rhodians, and Trojans.

In Claudius 25 Suetonius refers to the expulsion of Jews by Claudius and states:

2. TEXT & STATEMENT OF GENUINENESS:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

As it is highly unlikely that a Christian interpolator would have called Jesus "Chrestus", placed him in Rome in 49, or called him a "troublemaker", the overwhelming majority of scholars conclude that the passage is genuine.

Etc. -- spin^control 14:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No big deal anyway. Specially due to this. Before the current brouhaha there were sometimes 5, sometimes 15 people clicking on this page, as opposed to this one with half a million people a month. It is somewhat like getting a fancy interior decorator for a corner of the basement that no one looks at anyway. In any case, not big deal, but I will think about it a little more. But "interpretation" does not seem right as a term, given that the disturbances are in it. There may need to be a separate item called "the disturbances" with two subsection one called nature the other dates. History2007 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, you haven't misused WP:DUE. You have been warned several times that WP:DUE has nothing to do with persons, only content. Stop this wrongful editing. -- spin^control 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrongful editing? Perhaps in your imagination Doktor. You removed the WP:RS Feldman reference. I put i back. And trust me Doktor that I know policy, specially WP:Due and WP:RS. You should not have removed Feldman's statement. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The spelling issue has nothing to do with the text. It is purely interpretation. The text is clear and there is no spelling issue regarding the text itself. Placing it with textual issues is erroneous. -- spin^control 20:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your last series of edits is catastrophic in the scale of the changes. -- spin^control 20:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In this edit you removed a quote from Louis Feldman and several images I had added to the article. I am not going to revert you, in order not to start an edit war. But you must justify why removed Feldman, removed the images etc. Else, it will be disruptive editing on your part and we will be back on WPANI. This sounds like WP:OWN on your part. History2007 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

STOP DOUBLE POSTING. -- spin^control 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you spell WP:OWN? You do not own this article. You can not just revert at will. My additions were constructive. History2007 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think ArbCom might be preferable to ANI here myself, considering ANI has already been tried. And I very seriously urge editors to refrain from screaming at others in all-caps without addressing the issues regarding the article in any way, shape or form, as one does above. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the love fest needs to get toned down. But Arbcom for a God forsaken page that gets viewed 300 times a month? Old proverb says: do not use elephant gun to shoot Suetonius... So that may be an over kill.. But if we have to we have to. It will just eat 2 weeks out of everyone's life at least. But the total revert was a bit too much... Let us see what happens next, then we see if we have to go to WP:ANI, or elsewhere... History2007 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Tea Time

Why not let this article be for a while and go pursue something else. Obviously the two of you have gotten a bit too wrapped up in debating a detail of something that doesn't really matter to the rest of the world. How about clicking on the "Random article" link to the left a few times and seeing where it takes you? A change is as good as a rest, and all that. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the "doesn't really matter to the rest of the world" part. As I said before 5 to 15 people a day click here and maybe 2 of them actually read it. Maybe we should all go work on Johnny Depp's page and see if he is a descendant of Suetonius... History2007 (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bleating about hits, yet you went haywire and made vast modifications that you knew would be provocative. -- spin^control 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought my last changes were nice. Good images, good Feldman reference, good structure... But I have a feeling we are not going to agree on the time of day in general... So as LeadSongDog said, a storm in a tea cup really. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talking about storms in a tea cup and then performing the mods is certainly ironic. Talking about WP:OWN after such attempts to maintain ownership is also ironic.

Now, hopefully, I have restored the material you added. All the Feldman material seems to me to be there, though I could be wrong. -- spin^control 20:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You, wrong? Never. Never. Or may be, just may be....

Look, "The Latin text" is at level 4. It has "====". "The Claudius reference" is at level 2. It has "==". You can not jump from level 2 to level 4. Old proverb says: 2, 3, then 4....

The "expulsion" is at level 4. But the "date of expulsion" is a level 3. Logically it should be a subsection of expulsion.... But what do I know... Now, 1, 2, 3, 4... History2007 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? -- spin^control 08:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The order of the numbers are right now. I do not, however, agree with the section structure there or in the dates section, but do not want to go to edit war over it, given the revert. But will clarify/fix it it out in the larger scheme of things History2007 (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that the spelling issue is purely interpretation based, as is the "interpretatio Christiana" of the disturbances, what exactly are your grievances regarding the section structure? -- spin^control 08:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The "given the fact" part already excludes the Latin, but I will come back to that later. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite parse the first part of this statement. What do you mean by it? The Latin is clear. The text reads impulsore Chresto. -- spin^control 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with your attachment of the label interpretation to some items and not others. I will come back to this later, as I said above. History2007 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're still not clear to me: do you think that Chresto in the Latin text is what the text says or is it an interpretation? Do you think that the syntactical intricacies of phrase attachment in Latin is in itself a matter of cataloging the options or interpretation? -- spin^control 12:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)