::::Yes, there was no need for that at all. None at all.    

  
 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. 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.