Talk:Hyacinth of Caesarea

Seriously?
The reference for this article cites catholic.org which cites Wikipedia..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.29.195 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed it, thanks. Quietbritishjim (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So for reference then, no sources are better than circular ones? Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.128.166 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, because the purpose of a citation is to verify that the article's content is true, and a circular citation does not do that at all. But with a circular citation the article looks like it has been verified, so someone might use the content for something where it is important, and it's less likely that someone will take the time to add a true citation. So overall, a circular citation is much worse than none at all. Quietbritishjim (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But now this article has exactly 0, count 'em, 0 sources. Nominate for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.29.195 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have provided some other references. It is not clear to me, however, that the original site given as reference was simply using Wiki as a source. While it does repeat the Wiki entry, it seems that the site tries to make various sources available, so I do not think that it could be assumed that it was a circular reference. In any event, presumably it is a moot point now. Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the improvements you've made to the article!


 * That page was (and is) literally a verbatim copy of this Wikipedia page, made automatically by a robot, and even already has your edits in it! So yes it was certainly a circular reference.


 * It's good that you've added some independent sources, but they're not particularly reliable. They just seem to be webpages that a couple of people have self-published on the subject, rather than widely published peer-reviewed material. Something like books by respected historians would be much better. I'm going to leave them because they're better than nothing – and because I'm not taking the time to add anything! – but I'll tag the article in the hope that someone will add something more solid. Quietbritishjim (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy
Christianity does not ban eating meat sacrificed to idols. The Bible expressly permits it in multiple books. If Hyacinth starved to death, that's on him. This article should clarify.