Talk:Francus

Citations of Citations
Rabbit hole citations are very problematic for wikipedia. The first citation is a REVIEW of a book that itself uses a book as its source for a claim without qualifying why the statement is accepted as fact today. That review can be found on JSTOR with a free account here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/396263

The book reviewed has no PDF online that I can find but ''National Myths in Renaissance France: Francus, Samothes and the Druids (Illustrated Edition) by Ron E. Asher'' is ISBN-10: 0-7486-0407-3.

Citing wiki articles with book reviews does not give an accurate scope of the original research being cited. Nor does the entry in the wikipedia article mention this limited scope, but rather presents it as fact and may itself seem like Original Research in the wiki article by enthusiastic wiki editors.

At one time, the city of Troy was considered fiction until it was discovered in western turkey. There seems to be no mention of the complicated history of Trojan research incorporated into the claims of the medieval scholar. Its sad that only a signal perspective is being realized so sloppily in wikipedia that is discourages even trying to correct. There are too many people with strong opinions online to waste the time. 198.217.124.59 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)