It takes two to tango so if an edit war starts I hope not you will be party to it I did made it clear that I have no intention of starting it and hence stopped editing the article earlier and placed a tag But it must be made absolutely clear that if you make statements that I consider WP OR I can per policy tag them as such So my edit to place a tag was totally per policy and was indeed necessary to tell the reader that I see your view as WP OR Very simple very straightforward Two other notes here First is certainly not the case that F F Bruce wrote about the issues only in the 1950s as you assume His two books that I refer to were later editions of the original and a simple look through them clearly shows that Bruce refers to other scholars who wrote in the late 1980s A key item Bruce refers to is of course Smallwood s 1968 paper Consules suffecti of A D 55 in in Historia XVII 1968 Other examples of late references are throughout the book e g on page 249 he refers to a Hemer paper published in 1985 and on page 476 to a book published in 1987 And his other book also uses multiple references from 1987 I am always careful to use recent scholarship So the Bruce books that I use are recent scholarsip by all standards that Wikipedia references use Secondly given that you have placed very heavy reliance on Slingerland s views Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 112 No 2 Summer 1993 on Paul and Gallio is of note Here Murphy O Conner directly states that Slingerland failed to check on the work of Seneca and hence his wider date range is unacceptable He states one can answer with a significant degree of probability because of a piece of evidence that Slingerland did not checks Seneca reports concerning his brother When in Achaia he Gallio began to feel feverish he immediately took ship So the issue of Seneca and Slingerland s failure to consider it has been discussed in the Journal of Biblical Literature where Slingerland published his views I should certainly add to the article now that I am just getting started on improving it Referring to Pliny Murphy O Conner states that the impression that Gallio was a fussy hypochndriac is confirmed by Pliny Murphy O Conner also states in the same critique that Slingerland failed to take the winter storms into account etc So the issue of Seneca s report is not my invention but is widely discussed in scholarly circles inclluding the journal where Sligerland published and is hence totally relevant to the subject and the article I hope this helps you realize the shortcomings in Slingerland s views In any case I will explain things below but in view of prior posts I must again caution you not to use profanities when you respond to my points below