Talk:Sponsianus

message: What a strange article, on a topic, which has clearly created great interest in the press, but where the alleged new research, consisting of one article in a “processing fee“ journal, stands against the weight of scholarly opinion.  Should the general tone of our article, not be that this topic is generally considered to be a hoax, but there is now one opinion, based on the scratches etc, that it is genuine? I have no skin in the game here, but there seems to be undue emphasis on a single, and as things stand fringe, paper. Since it is peer reviewed, it should certainly be mentioned. It seems to be given undue weight against the consensus of scientific opinion. Good wishes to all, Springnuts (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Since, as you point out, the paper has itself created "great interest in the press", i.e. made front-page news in practically every news organization on earth, and that fact alone is what's been driving all of the interest in the subject, including all of the articles rebuffing or rebutting that opinion, I'd say the weight is perfectly "due".  How exactly would one relegate it, as it were, to this article's "back pages"?  And is it even worth starting a new argument over whether something is or isn't "fringe" (something impossible to establish, as it's a vague description based largely on one's opinion of it), or whether the journal it appears in ought to be considered reputable?  None of the scholars arguing with the research seem to be going after the journal—why would Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral?  Whatever balancing needs to be done in the article is surely still in the camp of "probable forgery"—although very briefly the reporting on it suggested otherwise—but we don't try to hide away the source of a controversy, merely because the opinion that started it is thought to have been erroneous.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It should certainly be in the article, but with due weight.  This is a single, and primary source, reported in a lot of newspapers: the newspaper reports do not add to its value as a source.  We prefer secondary sources.  We're wary of sources where the authors pay to have their research published. We prefer independent peer review, which this journal does not normally do.  I have had a go at the Lede to reflect where the balance of scholarship is in the sources. I have "promoted" Pearson's study to the first paragraph, but in the context of majority view. When and if Pearson's conclusions gain more traction that balance will change of course - we're always a work in progress.  Springnuts (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Processing charges" have been collected for a long time by many prestigious academic journals, notably those of the APS. Only recently things started to change, so this is not a serious argument.79.100.200.28 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Despite my own and others' best efforts, there appears to be a 'refractory', presuppositional element in the editing of this page. You can only go so far with this and, of course, nobody wants an editing war. All you can do is leave 'the faithful' to their page. And hope that a 'bolt out of the blue' alters the situation. The whole page, imo, should be re-written within the "general tone" and altered contexuality to which you refer. 77.86.63.166 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue emphasis on a single paper against the weight of scholarly opinion. 

message: Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other. Advancingreturns (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: as you are so keen for us to stick to what the sources say, I am sure I can rely on you to self-revert your edit-warring here when the coin is described as "evidence" even in skeptical sources like Mary Beard's TLS editorial.  The alternate wording you have introduced isn't even good English. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If Beard described the coin as evidence, then her description is semantically incorrect. As for edit warring, clearly you and others are engaged in the same. It takes at least two to make a war. My English is fine. It is your understanding of English which is obviously deficient. Do show me where my English "isn't even good English" (that is poor English and dreadful style by the way) and perhaps I will learn something. I am always ready and willing to learn but not to be browbeaten and bullied. That I shall always fight.   Advancingreturns (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is source based, and thus if the sources agree it's evidence, it is evidence. You can take issue with the definition of the word all you want, but you will almost certainly never win against the sources, especially if even the skeptical sources would take umbrage with your claims. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no primary sources for the legitimacy of the whole page itself except the existence of the coins. Pearson's study of the coins has re-ignited the debate but his paper remains a primary source which is increasingly controversial and being questioned. Most scholars and experts state unequivocally that the coins are fake eighteenth century casts. Some academics have described the conclusions Pearson et al have drawn (or rather leaps to) as "pure fantasy". All references to Sponsianus in previous literature are rooted in the existence of these coins. There are no primary references in the writers in Antiquity.  Advancingreturns (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, Pearson's study is a secondary source. There is no wiggle room there. For another: Yes, there is skepticism. Thus the article explains both sides. A group of scholars support and oppose the validity of the evidence. And evidence it remains, unless the minter comes forward and confirms it as either real or fake, which is... highly unlikely. The evidence against the existence of Sponsianus may perhaps be persuasive, but far from conclusive. Until conclusively disproven (again, effectively impossible), it will remain evidence, and Wikipedia is justified in presenting it within the article as such. "There are no records in antiquity" seems to come from someone unware of the Damnatio memoriae, which has removed huge swathes of information of Usurpers who are both definitely real and quite important, let alone one of lesser importance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Get your facts straight first. Pearson's study is a primary source. It is the first time a physical scientific investigation has been made of the coins. So do educate me and tell me where is the primary source for Pearson's study? The coins by themselves are NOT a primary source. And I have explained why they are not evidence. I will not repeat all that. I refer you back to previous posts. Advancingreturns (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Articles do not require a certain number of "primary sources" in order to justify their existence.  Many perfectly valid articles depend entirely on secondary and tertiary sources.  While it is often desirable to cite the original sources for a topic, the fact that this topic is the subject of considerable speculation among scholars is itself noteworthy and verifiable.  Those are the criteria for inclusion of articles in Wikipedia.  Note that the discussion is what is verifiable; the coins do not have to be verified as authentic in order for the discussion to be worthy of an article.  If you review Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability, you may note that even hoaxes may be notable and deserving of articles if there is adequate coverage in reliable sources.  The sources do not need to claim that the subject of a biography is a historical person, nor does there need to be proof that he was, nor does it need to be more likely than not that he was.  This article could still exist even if Sponsian could be conclusively proven to be a hoax, simply because that in itself would be noteworthy.  The tone might be different, but as the evidence currently available only allows us to conclude that he probably did not exist, the best that we can do is summarize what the various scholars have to say on the subject, balancing the weight thereof as best we can, without taking sides.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the only reply editors who abuse me with pejorative terms will receive from me. My personal policy. No reply to abusive editors. Write what the hell you like. You will not get a considered, polite and reasoned reply from this published author. Goodbye. Advancingreturns (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No knowledge is better than 'knowledge' like this - Jimmy Wales 

message: Referring to an editor's considered and informed contribution as a "talk page rant" is not "civil". In fact, it is abusive, pejorative, derogatory. Disagree if you wish but please, remember that abuse of others is simultaneously self-abuse and therefore betrays a lack of self-respect. Those who are the strongest advocates of the 'Five Pillars' should be the most assiduous in practicing them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#:~:text=Civility%20is%20part%20of%20Wikipedia%27s%20code%20of%20conduct,always%20treat%20each%20other%20with%20consideration%20and%20respect. Advancingreturns (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: I think shortened footnotes are completely useless in this article. Most of the citations are news, where the title is important not the writer. Same books aren't cited multiple times so that only their page numbers would have to be changed - then s would be more comfortable.
@P Aculeius and @Iazyges and other frequent editors of the article,
would you mind (uphold) if I'd convert the s to basic references? Gyalu22 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind at all.  I dislike the short footnote template, and don't think "author–year" is a good way to cite things generally—I prefer "author–title" where the author is important (as it is with Beard, Deahl, etc.), otherwise "article title–publication"; and regular references are more flexible in this regard.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I like  in general, but I think you make a reasonable case that they aren't super useful in this article; I'd have no objection to changing to a different citation style. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I generally prefer SFNs, but in this case, I agree that the title may be important. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations