User talk:216.165.226.146

The bias or lack of knowledge of a contributor should not enter the article. Specifically, I reference Saint Publius. At least 1 contributor equates biblical accounts to mythology. Whether one believes in a knowledge source or not, they should say so and support their conclusion if they want that position applied to the larger matter at hand. To simply classify a source as credible or not without support is unfair to the subject at hand.

While it appears that there is conflicting information about Publius of Malta a thus all can not be valid, one source should not be given more weight than another without support.

For example, a contemporary historian's opinion is given. It could be correct or partly correct or wholly incorrect. Referencing this guy without his credentials tells me the reader nothing about why I should give his position more understanding than that of someone else. Being referenced as modern implies some superior knowledge. Why is modern superior? Or is it?

Thank you

Duvidgreen (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)