Talk:Gospel of John/2018/August

Google Books
While it was immediately replaced with another source, a page not being available in Google Books is not in of itself a valid reason for removing a source. A source doesn't even have to be available online. --tronvillain (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Books don't have to be available on google books, but not being on google books make the article harder to fact-check.PiCo (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." (See the section WP:SOURCEACCESS in WP:V) -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Broken links
and a number of other short-inline-citations long-references were created or modified by user:Jujutsuan in a series of edits July 2016 (diff of one edit that created the Barry citation) are now broken.

The long Barry citation that supported the short one was removed by user:PiCo with Revision as of 07:48, 1 July 2018 with the editorial comment --  Age is not necessarily a criteria for deletion (see {WP:V]]) and if you are going to do it then you need to either remove the text it supports or supply an newer citation. What you should not do is remove the long citation and leave a short one hanging.

The full set of long citations to support the short citations existed at the end of the series of edits by user:Jujutsuan were in existence with Revision as of 22:56, 23 July 2016.

That version of the page can be mined to fix all/most of the broken citation links to the following short inline citations:
 * 1) Reinhartz 2011, p. 168
 * 2) Kruse 2004, p. 17.
 * 3) Funk, Hoover & Jesus Seminar 1993, pp. 1–30
 * 4) Barry 1911.
 * 5) Ambrose 2005.


 * 1) With Revision as of 06:49, 3 July 2018 "" user:PiCo altered the long to Reinhartz. If you are doing that to check the facts by reading the newer then update the short citations as well (not just the date but also if changed the page numbers). However unless you have read the new edition to check the text supported by the short citations then leave the long citation with the edition used to support the text.
 * 2) Revision as of 06:30, 8 July 2018 by user:PiCo introduced Kruse 2004 but without a corresponding long citation. To which book does this refer? Please add it to the Bibliography section.
 * 3) Revision as of 01:13, 7 July 2018 "" — That is nonsense user:PiCo. A book does not have to appear in Google's list to be a Wikipedia reliable source (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). In removing it you have left text which the Funk citation support in the article  and short citations hanging. Please restore the long citation, or justify removing the text which it supports.
 * 4) See my comment above
 * 5) Revision as of 07:47, 1 July 2018 "" by user:PiCo. Actually this had already been highlighted with the use of the template . If you are going to remove a long citation then remove the text and the short citation that this long citation supports. Or if the text in you opinion should remain then cite an alternative source that supports the text.

user:PiCo please fix the citation errors you have introduced into this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has been altered quite a lot since I was last here. I suggest you make these edits yourself - that's the nature of Wikipedia.PiCo (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:PiCo between your edit before today (04:00, 13 July 2018‎) the article has hardly changed at all diff. As you will see from the edit I made (and my recent edit history) I am fixing links to EB1911, specifically I am seaching using insource:/1911enc/ to find all instances of links to www.1911encyclopedia.org and replacing them with Wikisource or archive.ord pages. That I arrived at this article is down to that.  It took me some time to do the analysis that shows that every broken link between the inline-citation and the long citations in the article were caused by edits you made. My reason for not fixing them and bringing them to your attention is partly down to "teach a man to fish...."  and also you are far more qualified and interested in this subject than I, and hence you are in a better position to fix the errors you have introduced. -- PBS (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't claim ownership of the article, you're welcome to edit as you see fit. I'd avoid using an encyclopedia more than a century old, though - biblical scholarship changes a lot in that period of time.PiCo (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)