This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
@Cplakidas: Hi, I'm not doubting your removal of my reference - this is merely for my own personal future reference to avoid mistakes - however aren't multiple references on Wikipedia allowed in relation to a specific aspect of the article, especially if they contribute more information? For example, in the text I referenced, Wickham explains that "...the most important was the genikon, which controlled the land tax." in reference to the importance of the genikon relative to the bureaucratic hierarchy of Constantinople. Thank you. 0qd (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 0qd, that is a fair question. The crux is in what you stated: "if they contribute more information". New references should indeed be added when adding new information or changing the article text. Just tagging on new references to an existing article text, when it is already adequately referenced, on the other hand, is problematic. If you add a new reference in the middle of a longer phrase or paragraph, what does this mean for the original reference at the end of it? What now references which portion of the phrase/paragraph? Does the original reference continue to cover the 'first' part or not? How can the reader tell? What happens if the interpolated reference is later shown to be incorrect, but the article has been edited in the meantime so that the original phrasing and referencing has been lost? As part of an editor's contributions, content and its references form a whole, and should be attributable as such. If I add an incorrect statement or reference, it is on me, but if someone later comes in and interpolates a reference, whether correct or not, this attribution is lost: it is still my text, but the referencing has been changed (it is of course recoverable via article history, but it's not always a trivial exercise in highly edited articles). Plus, of course, we could over time end up having a mess of citations from different sources which would have to be checked up by the interested user who wants to consult the original sources, whereas in reality the information is perfectly well summarized in the single original reference.
Long story short, you are more than welcome to edit the article, but a) add new references when adding new content/information, b) please try to always keep clear which parts of the text are covered by which reference (e.g. if Wickham only explains this about the land tax, its reference should be limited to that), and c) please maintain the article's citation style. Constantine ✍ 20:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed response, Cplakidas; I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. Completely understandable that it can be problematic for the reader, especially further down the line. I will keep this in mind for the future. 0qd (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
