Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:58, 16 August 2012

Christianity: Jesus Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Template:WikiProject Christian History

Classical Greece and Rome Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tacitus on Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Chrestos/Christos and Chrestianity/Christianity

This is a simple issue, over which unnecessary speculation has been made. The fact is that there are two ancient Greek words, χρηστος (meaning "useful" or "good") and χριστος (meaning "anointed" or "Christ"). They sound the same in modern Greek and there is no reason to suppose that they didn't sound the same in first century Greek. The first transliterates into Latin as Chrestos (hence the references to Chrestos by the Latin historian(s)), and still survives in modern Greek, but almost entirely as a proper name only and is sometimes wrongly transliterated when Greeks/Cypriots of that name go abroad, giving non-Greeks the mistaken impression that the parents were being somewhat blasphemous in giving that name. John of Wood Green (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But these need references if used in the page. History2007 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Citing unsupported opinions

I have moved the unlearned views of non-classicist biblical scholars talking about what they believed one should expect from Tacitus regarding the use of technical terms. This is not evidence; it's pure conjecture. It is not sufficient just to give someone's opinion: there needs to be reasons for them. In fact, those opinions should be removed from the article. According to WP:SECONDARY, "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." If there is no reliance on primary sources behind such opinions, then they are not sources. -- spin 18:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, but my understanding of policy is miles away from yours. Those WP:SECONDARY sources are indeed what is used throughout Misplaced Pages. Again with apologies I mus say that the logic of the statement: "there is no reliance on primary sources behind such opinions" totally escapes me. How can Tacitus (the primary) refer to how he should be interpreted? It would be impossible for him to do that. As one of the "top experts" Van Voorst is the source to render the opinion. In fact Van Voorst book keeps getting high marks from other authors and he is a totally WP:RS source. Believe me, I know policy after the couple of articles I have tried writing. Expert opinion in WP:SECONDARY is exactly what is needed. History2007 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Van Voorst is not a classicist, neither is Chilton or Evans, ie they are not experts in the field of classics. Opinions used here are supposed to be based on evidence. What evidence do any of these people employ to support their opinions? One doesn't usually supply opinions based on nothing. You usually give what other primary sources indicate to support your opinion in a specific case. Do other relevant ancient writers of the period, who, like Tacitus, should know the cursus honorum, supply instances of such misuse of a technical term? -- spin 19:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It is time for you to read WP:V, and carefully. Misplaced Pages is not about truth or evidence, it is about verifiability. Read WP:V, then read WP:RS, then ask on WP:RSN and someone will explain it to you. By your line of argument, most sources from this article (and most other articles) will have to be excluded, for their distance from primaries. That is not how Misplaced Pages works. Anyway, please get other opinions elsewhere, for I am speechless here... History2007 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tone, please. Read WP:SOURCES. WP:RSOPINION would lend support for such a use of a source, but what we have here is three untinged opinions attempting to be used as significant, when opinion is not cumulative in WP. -- spin 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that you are disputing sources such as Van Voorst. FYI Van Voorst is a great source for this article because this article is about "a non-Christan references to Jesus" Right? Of course. And what is the title of Van Voorst's book? Jesus outside the New Testament. Bull's eye. Is his book any good? On page 510 of his book Understanding the Bible, Stephen Harris states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the best recent discussion on the topic. And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. So he is a great WP:RS source for this article. Period. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, per WP:Calm it might be a good idea to hold off here for a few days, go o the beach, then restart and smell the roses again. So I will get my beach umbrella and look on here after 24 hours. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Both Van Voorst's and Chilton and Evans' books are published by an academic publisher with a good reputation. Van Voorst holds a degree in Biblical Greek - that's as close as you can get to what you need when comparing the Biblical title for Pilatus to the one used by Tacitus. Van Voorst, Chilton and Evans are clearly experts on the New Testament and the historical Jesus. History2007 has collected the accolades other scholars have bestowed on Van Voorst's work. How much more reliable can a source get? Huon (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The bible is written in Hebrew and Greek, so it is not relevant here. Tacitus wrote in Latin. None of the above scholars is a Latinist: Chilton is a Semitic scholar, Evans & Van Voorst, Greek. As is, all I see is a series of appeals to authority.

And I just removed the spurious claim regarding procurator, "exactly as stated in the Gospel of Luke" -- spin 00:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Appeal to authority" like this is exactly what WP:NOR and WP:V are about. If Chilton, Evans and Van Voorst have been criticised for their insufficient background, please present a reliable source that makes the case. Huon (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't deal with the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". Such appeals are offered in lieu of content. -- spin 08:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Van Voorst, Chilton, and Evans are fine sources and easily meet the demands of WP:NOR and WP:V. If Doktorspin demands that classicists be used as sources here, he could bestir himself to do some simple Google Scholar searches and find some. Like, say, Paul L. Maier ("The Fate of Pontius Pilate", Hermes 99 (1971) 362-371). Can't say I've spent much time getting up to speed on the current debate here, but I don't think that the rank of Pilate is especially controversial, especially since there's epigraphic evidence, and I don't think that Van Voorst et al. depart from conventional wisdom on this topic. (If anyone responds to this post by saying "But Richard Carrier says..." I'll just point out that he doesn't hold an academic position, ok?) --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Doktorspin .. could bestir himself to do some simple Google Scholar searches and find some." You should know better than this noise when you've seen the sorts of sources I employed in the overhaul of the Julian article. -- spin 08:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you *know* how to find sources, you're just choosing not to here, and instead are complaining about the editors who do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Mild ad hominem based on pure conjecture is not worth saying. -- spin 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet the heart of it is what you said about the item not even being controversial. I really do not know what all the fuss has been about, and there are WP:RS sources that clearly explain it. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the rank of Pilate is not controversial. And in any case, I added a few more sources, Crossan, Feldman, etc. And in his book on Pilate, Warren Carter says that either may be appropriate. And his book on Pilate is a key book. And Feldman notes that the titles may not be rigid and Josephus uses "prefect and procurator" elsewhere, etc. So it is not a controversial issue at all. And the new sources show that unlike Doktorspin's characterization the issue is not one of "linguistics" but of historical context as much as anything else. So his section-making and fencing in of some scholars to 2nd class sources was not appropriate.

By the way, Carrier seems to think that Van Voorst's book is a good source on the topic, but as you said that endorsement may not be needed in any case... History2007 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to Josephus he uses επαρχος (18.33), επιτροπος (15.406), and ηγεμων (18.55), yet Feldman translates them all as procurator. (Slight correction: it was Marcus who used "procurator" in AJ 15.406. I've got a mixed collection of Loeb Josephus. Feldman translates επιτροπος as "procurator" in 18.158.) -- spin 08:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually your looking up what Josephus used and deciding how Feldman translated it is WP:OR given that you will be discussing "facts" not sources. WP:V says what Feldman "concluded" is what matters. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be reducing WP:OR to reading. -- spin 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Now there has been a further load of speculation poured into the breach and no facts added. Take this gem: "Philo (who died AD 50) and Josephus also use the term procurator for Pilate." Where is the quality control? Philo and Josephus, writing in Greek, never, ever, ever used the word "procurator". Appeal to the Greek is a non sequitur. And it doesn't matter how many biblical scholars peddle the opinion that Tacitus retrojected, was anachronistic, that Josephus used "procurator". There is not a single fact here, nor any history, and we still don't know why these scholars gave these particular opinions. The article has got longer with no added content. -- spin 08:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just looked up the Feldman work we cite, and he says Philo and Josephus call Pilate "επιτροπος, which is definitely the same as procurator" (I hope I remember the wording correctly; Misplaced Pages was down when I read that, and I didn't take notes). I don't think we need to mention the Greek term they use, and we can take Feldman's word that they indeed call Pilate a procurator, though in Greek. As an aside, Feldman is a classicist, so he satisfies your criteria for who may voice an opinion on Tacitus.

We need not know why the scholars gave these opinions; it's entirely sufficient that they did and got their opinions published with reputable publishers. It's not our job to second-guess the experts, but to report what they have to say. If there is some dissenting scholarly opinion, please provide a reliable source to that effect. Otherwise I fail to see what all this is about. Huon (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Feldman, who is not a Latinist, says in Josephus and Modern Scholarship (de Gruyter 1984), p.318, "επιτροπος in War 2.169 for Pilate definitely equals procurator". It's a parenthesis however and may represent the view of the scholar he is citing . He adds, "The New Testament, notes, very accurately refrains from calling Pilate procurator but instead terms him governor {ηγεμων), whereas Josephus is looser in his terminology." Yet we see that Josephus does in fact use ηγεμων for Pilate in 18.55. -- spin 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am actually again almost speechless here regarding the Doktor's statement that "it doesn't matter how many biblical scholars peddle the opinion that Tacitus retrojected, was anachronistic, that Josephus used "procurator". I think a good and careful reading of WP:V is again in order, of course. But as a side comment, whenever I see someone type "evidence" in bold, I already know the outcome of the discussion. There will be talk and talk, requests to read WP:V again and again, and in the end WP:V will be the victor. I guess that is what the V really stands for.

Now, let me provide an overview of the situation here:

• What Tacitus used to refer to the rank of Pilate differs from what appears on the Pilate stone.

• Several scholars have provided explanations for the difference.

• The Doktor does not like the explanations provided by the scholars, because he thinks they do not have "facts". He is no longer complaining about WP:Primary - great! And he no longer disputes that the experts are qualify as WP:RS sources - great! But he seems to be saying that the expert statements matter not given that they have no "evidence".

Remedy: A careful reading of WP:V.

So let me put it this way Doktor: if Louis Feldman translates all/some of επαρχος, επιτροπος, and ηγεμων as procurator as you said, that is good enough for me, and certainly good enough as a WP:RS source for Misplaced Pages. In any case, what he wrote in his article (regardless of your looking up Josephus which is WP:OR) can be used in Misplaced Pages. Period. I will not even attempt to discuss the "facts" with you because that would be WP:OR.

But one thing I have learned reading Feldman is that he is usually smarter and far more knowledgeable than the next fellow. You can not argue against Feldman. He is a totally WP:RS source, and highly respected expert. And once you acknowledge WP:V that ends the discussion. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"if Louis Feldman translates all/some of επαρχος, επιτροπος, and ηγεμων as procurator as you said, that is good enough for me". You say this even when you know that ηγεμων as "procurator" is wrong in the case of Pilate in AJ 18.55.

You may almost be speechless, but one has a responsibility to be accurate. Surely you cannot just cite opinions without knowing why those opinions have weight. -- spin 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! You got it Doktor! "Sources rule" when they are WP:RS. My opinion (and yours) do not matter because in Misplaced Pages, "content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." What you and I think about Feldman's accuracy does not matter. You got it Doktor! You got it! History2007 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusing two issues here doesn't help your cause. The first issue is the accuracy of Feldman, the second, the fact that the opinion cited has nothing behind it. Opinions without support are the same as nothing said. -- spin 00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Feldman translates ηγεμων as "governor" and says that's a more accurate term to describe Pilatus' rank than επιτροπος. Secondly, these opinions have weight because they are experts' opinions published with reputable publishers. Your (and my) personal opinion, in comparison, is worthless. Unless you have reliable sources that actually dispute Feldman's or Van Voorst's claims, you cannot second-guess the experts (not for the purposes of Misplaced Pages articles, at least). What exactly do you want? Huon (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You should know better than to cite something without supplying the exact source. Citable experts supply primary sources (or other experts who do) for their opinions.

This whole die-hard defense here of sundry unsupported opinions exposes the fact you have nothing better to offer with regard to the fact that Tacitus is one of our major sources for the change from prefect to procurator in the period of Claudius. Flanking maneuvers require you to stay on the field. -- 00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Feldman says so on p. 818 of Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, part 2, volume 21, if that's what you're asking. That's the relevant Feldman source we cite in the article, in case you don't remember; the one I said I looked up. And Feldman definitely is not a primary source; Tacitus, Josephus and Philo are the primary sources. Huon (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so. In Misplaced Pages the opinion of every editor about the "accuracy" of the statement by Feldman (or other experts) has exactly the same value: zero. Maybe, that will become clear to all participants in this discussion now? I hope so... I hope so... As I said, whenever I see "evidence" in bold, I know we will end up saying verifiability, not truth. I just knew it... History2007 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We should not be tradents in mere opinions. That is the problem. Do you or do you not have any sources for scholarly arguments (obviously entailing evidence for the conclusions) that indicate that what you have put in the article is anything more than unsupported, if popular, opinion? So far, it seems you haven't. -- spin 00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes we should, as long as those opinions are published in reliable sources. History2007 has presented a long list of accolades for one of those sources, showing that it has passed peer review with flying colors. A scholar who gets his work published by a reputable publisher need not show his evidence to become an acceptable source. Let me repeat: What do you want? Are you saying that all scholarly monographs and research articles published in peer-reviewed journals are worthless as sources? Only those which don't satisfy your personal standards of "evidence"? If you want to make the case that Van Voorst or Feldman are not reliable sources, please raise the issue at the RS noticeboard. Huon (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, of course. But the Doktor is not disputing that Louis Feldman is WP:RS. So WP:RSN will not help. The Doktor knows that Feldman is WP:RS because Feldman is the top expert and the Doktor knows that because he owns Loeb. He knows Feldman is the expert, but he thinks Feldman is wrong! But, I give up, given that after the many many references to WP:V I see the word "should". Look Doktor, Misplaced Pages has "policies". Right? We follow them. Right? What the traffic laws "should be" is a separate issue from what the traffic laws "are". Right? If you do not like the traffic laws, you lose your driving license. Right? I think you have clearly, clearly run over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT a few times now Doktor. Clearly. How many times have I asked you to read WP:V? This is what WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is intended for. It does not matter what Wiki-policies "should be". What matters is what they are. I am speechless now. I will stop. History2007 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment to the Doktor: I noticed that you are still re-arranging the quotes. Not that I care really, because the quotes you added are by and large WP:RS. But as Akhilleus said at the start, this is not a controversial issue. And I said by and large because a few of those comments pre-date Penny Lane but we should not make a fuss about that. I have not checked but Yelnitsky does not seem to mention Tacitus, does he? And V Voorst does not seem to use ἡγεμών in his book as far as I recall - I have not checked. Did you? But in any case, I think what you added works, regardless of the re-arrangements as long as conformity to sources is maintained. Yet, I would prefer reliance on sources that post-date Let it be - but let us let that be the song here... History2007 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Complaining about when materials were written is not very useful. The reference article on "procurator" and "prefect" is from 1939 (Sherwin-White), on the philology of "Nazarene" 1946 (Albright), on Hebrew palaeography 1960 (F.M.Cross), on P52 1934 (C.H.Roberts) and so on. I didn't add anything to the Van Voorst dribble. I merely clarified Feldman's dribble... and provided sources that were a little more relevant to Tacitus. In this matter Crossan, Chilton and Van Voorst are tertiary sources, using the expertise of secondary sources. It's not their field. Instead of putting contentless rubbish in an article, one should try at least to make it balanced rubbish, rather than the one-sided rubbish I found in the article. This sort of imbalance is a generic problem for Wiki. -- spin 12:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

But Sherwin-White 1939, Albright 1946, etc. are not used in this article. Right? If they are used elsewhere they are not really WP:RS any more and should be repaired. Not that I can be bothered to do those.... There are of course hundreds of thousands (my guess) of outdated and self-published sources in Misplaced Pages. I once wrote a program that flagged the self-published ones. I guess I could have modified that to flag the outdated ones too - but perhaps in another life time... But the existence of outdated sources in one place does not mean one should use them elsewhere. In any case, the 1960s sources were not that old for a field that is not fast moving like electronics... that was why I said let it be... So I would prefer to leave your last edit as is, unless someone else objects to it. History2007 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content

I reverted a large deletion by Doktor spin because it was fully sourced and relevant to the authenticity section where it appeared. The validity of the statements were not questioned, but they were said to be better in another article. Having that that paragraph here does not decrease encyclopedic quality - just informs the reader who may have questions about the larger context. If anything, there should be a longer discussion in Annals about its authenticity, with a Main link and a summary here. I touched it up in the Annals article anyway, mentioned Zanobi da Strada, etc. anyway, and left a Main link to it from here.

This type of short summary here with a Main link not really affect disk space in Misplaced Pages, given the amount of space used on talk pages, but simply clarifies things for a reader in the context of authenticity. History2007 (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes no sense to include an analysis of the Annals generally when this article doesn't deal with the Annals, but a small section of it. There is no relationship between the issues relating to the Bracciolini claims and the Testimentum Taciteum, therefore it has no place in the article. So, I have to remove it. You need some reason to include the material and there isn't one and apparently History2007 understands this because History2007 provides no reasoning for actually including it. -- spin 04:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to get into a conflict over this, perhaps we should go straight into a RfC. -- spin 06:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to spend 30 days of your life following an Rfc over one paragraph, that is your choice, of course. Anyway, I also restored another fully sourced paragraph you just deleted that referred to the three facts the passage teaches a user. That paragraph gives the user information about the Tacitus passage. That is what an encyclopedia is about: giving users reliable information about the topic of the article. Is that a good enough reason?

I should first point out that you are not disputing the validity or reliability of the material you are deleting. You are just deleting WP:RS sourced content because you think it is not important to inform the user about it (although this article is not that long). That is the issue here.

And I do have a serious concern about your editing behavior here Doktor spin. This whole long discussion started with you attempting to remove fully sourced material. At no point have you found a problem with the reliability of sources based on Misplaced Pages policies, but have been using subjective statements to justify the removal of content. You started by saying that the two references you fenced in and wanted to remove were not based on "evidence" (in bold) and their authors were less than capable because their main subject was not classics. Those were not policy based reasons for deletion, and you eventually backtracked from your assertions. The reasons you have provided here are also purely subjective - and do not rely on comparison with what scholars consider relevant. The material you are deleting is discussed by scholars as they discuss the topic of the article. That is clear. This type of deletion of "reliable content" about a topic does not increase encyclopedic quality, but diminishes it. And it just takes talk page effort, and the results will in the end follow policy, as in the other case.

So let me spell it out in this case:

• The subject of the article is what Tacitus wrote in Annals book 15 # 44. That is clear.

• Following WP:TPA, the article should "explore all aspects of the subject". So the article should look at the implications and ramifications of the scholarly analysis of the subject and inform the user about them. That is also clear.

• Again, following WP:TPA, the article should "Branch out". That means that the article should provide links to related topics. In Misplaced Pages that is often done via a "Main" link where a brief summary is provided, and a Main link leads the user to another article. That is done all over Misplaced Pages, and is standard practice. That is how hypertext development works, a brief description is provided and the user can click for more information.

Now regarding authenticity of the Annals:

How do we know if the "authenticity of Annals" itself is related to this article? Because when discussing authenticity a user has two questions:

• Is the passage authentic?
• Is the book the passage comes in any good anyway?

So both issues need to be addressed. Another way to know if an item is related to a topic is to see if a major book on the subject discusses the two together. So we could ask:

• Does Van Voorst's book (which in the discussion above was called the "best recent discussion on the topic" and the "fullest compilation of all this data" by other scholars) refer to the authenticity of the Annals itself when it discusses Annals book 15 # 44? Yes, it does, and that was the reference you removed!

So the material you removed is what the best book on the topic considers relevant to the topic. That material must therefore stay. It is just one paragraph with a Main link and given the above is fully related to the subject.

Now, going to the the issue of the three separate facts that the passage teaches a user which you deleted and I just restored.

• That paragraph was included because Raymond Brown's book said that these were three "interesting facts" that the passage provided. I actually did not know those three facts myself, but came across in Brown's book and given that he considered it relevant to the passage I included it. That item is relevant because a leading scholar states that it is an interesting fact that can be based on Annals book 15 # 44, the item being discussed in this article.

So both of the fully sourced items you deleted (whose correctness, reliability or sourcing is not disputed) are discussed by scholars when the subject of this article is written about. They are clearly relevant in the eyes of scholars. They need to remain in the article to inform the reader. History2007 (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Given no response for over a day, as stated in my edit summary, per the WP:PRESERVE policy, I have restored the fully sourced content that appears in "scholarly references" along with the discussion of the subject of this article. Per WP:PRESERVE this content should not be removed at will by any editor without consensus to do so. Hence, Doktorspin you should not make another unilateral revert decision here, and should follow Misplaced Pages policy to preserve content sourced to WP:RS sources that discuss the subject of this article. Another unilateral revert by you at this point to delete content that should be preserved per policy would be a clear breach. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure we need that paragraph. It refutes a fringe hypothesis about the authenticity of the Annals and engages in some general praise for Tacitus' work. It's well-sourced, but is it relevant? Don't we give undue weight to that fringe hypothesis? Is anything in that paragraph particularly relevant to Tacitus on Christ, as opposed to the Annals in general? I'd say we could omit it and just keep the {{main}} link to the authenticity section of the Annals (Tacitus) article without losing anything of value to this article's topic. Huon (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We could try that as a half-way solution, now that you suggested the Main item. The way that paragraph went in was that one of our old friends added the Wilson Ross book and the references to the refutation of that had to be added. So how about one sentence that the "theories that the Annals itself has been forged have also been generally rejected" where Hochart is mentioned. That and the Main should take care of it. I will trim it that way. Let me know. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The new version looks very good to me. Huon (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Let's move on then.... History2007 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The reinsertion of material that is irrelevant to this article is simply against Wiki policy. It plainly contravenes WP:ROC, especially Article scope, ("The topics an article covers should match the article's title"). While a generic discussion on the authenticity of the Annals is suitable for the Annals article where we do find such a discussion, in an article whose limits are the Testimonium Taciteum, Annals 15.44, it is off topic. While discussions on the authenticity of 15.44 or parts thereof are relevant, given the scope of the article, there is no sense in talking about the authenticity of the whole manuscript.

The reliability of the sources is not at issue here (that is merely one necessary condition). What matters is the relevance of the information to the article, so talking about reliability misses the problem. Neither Van Voorst's nor Raymond Brown's books have the limits of this article, ie the significance and authenticity of Annals 15.44. Their comments on the wider context are not relevant here. In fact Van Voorst's comment is in the Annals article. We are not bound by the cited writers so much as the limits of the topic. Here we are not dealing with the Annals as a whole, so discussions about authenticity as a whole just don't belong here.

On a personal note, you have been making aspersions about my editing throughout your responses here, which are certainly against the Wiki spirit of assuming good faith. Hints of "disruptive editing" and "editing behavior". Please stick to the topic and not the person. -- spin 05:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You are talking about the "one sentence" that is cited to Van Voorst and the "see also" link? One sentence whose reliability is not in question? I really don't know what to say after all that has been said... Look, it was discussed, another editor made a suggestion, we trimmed it to one sentence... it just provides a link... What is the big deal now?

My reference to your "editing behavior", citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT etc. refers to the behavior, not the person. I still say we were running over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before about your rejection of van Voorst as a source, but that seems to be over now and you seem to have finally accepted that Van Voorst is a valid WP:RS source.

On that note, in this edit you changed "pagan" to "people who were not Christians". Did you check the source? I did. It says pagans. The equation "pagan = non-Christian" which your edit assumes is false. Your edit makes it deviate from the source. Did you check the source? History2007 (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You cause this yourself by not citing properly. If some nitwit uses the POV term "pagan" it's better to blame them for doing so, ie put it in a quote, mark it with a "(sic)". If you use a writer's exact words you are responsible for citing them properly.

And if someone says, "you're acting like a ____" (fill in suitably negative term), this refers to the behavior, not the person, right? -- spin 15:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Start-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• Low-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• Start-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles