User talk:MrLivio

Medlands as a source
Hi. For the disputed reliability of Medlands on wikipedia please read and. This does not mean that MedLands is wrong, but it can't be accepted as a reliable source per se, a fortiori when it doesn't provide its own sources. Geni.com does not appear reliable at all.

Here the problem is that MedLands contradicts the given source for this section (Miller). Miller is a quite old source so it may (or may not) have been corrected by more recent historical studies on the subject, but you either have to find and cite these, or at least make clear to the reader that the cited sources disagree on this point.--Phso2 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you didn't understand what I meant. The reference at the end of the sentence is supposed to support the content of the text. Now this is not the case anymore, since you changed the text without replacing the reference. You simply can't just do this, because it gives the false impression that the cited book supports what the text says when it doesn't, this is basic methodology.--Phso2 (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)