Talk:Michaelion

His source 2 says "Sosthenion" which is not what is quoted? Victuallers (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It is actually near Chalcedon but not essential to the article given that Constantinople is mentioned. History2007 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

thx - last thing I hope. you say "It then became a a model for hundreds of other churches in Eastern Christianity" I look at ref 4 which is on-line and you say page 341. I think you mean pp 341 (ie it has 341 pages). On what page does it say about the hundreds of churches? Victuallers (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just found this http://www.ec-patr.org/afieroma/churches/show.php?lang=en&id=36

Is nt that what this article needs? It has a picture of something today and ties the ancient to the modern. Had you discounted this? Victuallers (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The 100 churches quote is from from Anna Jameson's book. I used that one because Jameson is one of the most established scholars around - written many books. The other from Alban Butler has many editions and they all have different page numbers. Here is the page 341 link anyway. As for the other website I think that is at best marginally WP:RS so I would avoid that. History2007 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasnt thinking it was a reliable source, but I wondered whether the church is still there today. It certainly seems true to say that there is one nearby that claims ... Victuallers (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to add that no problem. But if we can find a RS source even better. History2007 (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I will have to take that back. I am not sure if this is the same church. This may have been built in 1820. History2007 (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Failed verification tag

As above, the source does not say that it is the same location. This was discussed months ago. You need a better source Cplakidas. This one does not fly, for it is a 1820 church, as above. History2007 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong: "At Steni, ancient Sosthenion", and then follows "Steni had been converted for a time into a shipbuilding and ship repair yard. No such activity persists nowadays. Istinye is simply a peaceful suburb". The identification is pretty clear. Constantine ✍ 21:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, probably so. I will remove the tag. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you removed the tag yourself. You should not have done that. Discussion was continuing. Wait for the discussion to end. But I will let it go this time. But your paraphrasing is too close for copy vio, have to edit that. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I added another source on the identity of Sosthenion with Istinye, and will be adding a few more details based on some expert sources over the next few days. BTW, don't be such a stickler for rules, especially when the case is clear-cut as this. I don't think one needs permission to remove a tag based on an obvious misunderstanding ;) Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, policy is policy. I was going to remove the tag anyway. You should have waited. That type of unilateral tag removal (clear-cu may have been in your mind only) in the end may lead to edit wars. In the future just wait for discussions to end. And paraphrasing is still too close. You need to rephrase them. And you need to modify İstinye to mention Sosthenion with a reference, in view of the redirect. History2007 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, wow, hold your horses. I'll do these things, just wait... And no, clear-cut was not "in my mind". I've been here long enough and been in enough content and source disputes to know when the reference supports a statement, and also when someone doesn't read the reference carefully enough. If I had pegged you as an unreasonable editor, I'd have waited to be sure, but that wasn't the case. Sorry if it bothered you, but I honestly don't think that I was contravening policy (at least, not its spirit) when I removed the tag. Anyhow, good night, for now. Constantine ✍ 22:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Please just address the items. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

({od}) Reference 19 needs some checking, because page 320 contains nothing relevant to the subject. From the citation, it is unclear which volume of Alban's work is meant. Could you please provide a link or other details? Constantine ✍ 07:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is the 1866 edition that has it. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)