Talk:Roman Emperors Route

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Travel and Tourism Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Serbia Mid‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia 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.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

17 Roman emperors

I have removed the 17 Roman emperors claim because it is poorly sourced for its boldness. Random websites and Serbian travel pages cannot be used as references for such a statement, and the list in its entirety is hardly relevant to a tourist route. — Toдor Boжinov — 07:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you personally dispute any source, you are welcome to use RS/N. This is not deleted list, as this list is expanded, with pictures, better sourced, and referenced. Also, number of Roman emperors are essential for "Roman Emperors Route " project. Also, you are welcomed to bring sources for all other claims, that you personally questioned. Only better sources will be useful for this. Also, i would ask you not to revert this version, as we will fix it after we agree. Thanks in advance. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman-Colosseum.info is not reliable for the purpose

. TreasureRealm.com is not reliable for the purpose either

. The MobileReference book is a Wikipedia fork, so not reliable

. The source for Aurelian (footnote 13) does not strongly support Sirmium, so he cannot be included in a definite list

. Historia Augusta is from 1932 and may be outdated

. Roman-Empire.net is not reliable for the purpose

, neither is Roman-Emperors.org

. Britannica

and Encyclopedia of the Byzantine Empire are good

. A new general biographical dictionary is from 1853

.

I can only agree that "Only better sources will be useful for this". Unless proper scholarly sources are presented that definitively back up each claim that a certain emperor was born in what is today Serbia and nowhere else, this list should not exist. It may be essential for the tourist promotion of Serbia, if it's not verifiable, I couldn't care less. I've told you before, Bulgaria is promoted as "the land of Orpheus" even though he was not a real person, and Bran Castle is known as Dracula's Castle even though it's not mentioned in Stoker's book, nor did he know anything about it, and its association with the real Vlad III the Impaler is only minor. Tourism claims ≠ reliable information.

The ball is in your court to defend your case, it's not something I'm supposed to do. I'm requesting a third opinion because I maintain that this list has no place anywhere in Wikipedia. — Toдor Boжinov — 17:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:TodorBozhinov that these sources cannot be used to substantiate the claims made in this article. Either solid references should be produced, or this should simply be removed from the article. Of course, it is also possible to state that the people behind this touristic attraction claim these things, as long as it is made clear that these claims are not substantiated. --Crusio (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, but i dont think that roman-colloseum.info, Roman-Empire.net, and few others are unreliable. If you question those, please consult RS/N. And even if Bram Stoker didn't mentioned Bran Castle, it will be very wrong not to mentioned that in Bran Castle article. Good article = all points of view, including tourism claims. Also, Itinerarium Romanum Serbiae is not only touristic project, but archeological also, so i found this sources, and i find them good. OK, some, like MobileReference book is really a mistake, and those will be removed when we agree, but you, as someone who question these sources, needs to ask Reliable Source noticeboard are they good or not for this, and, more important, find better sources claiming opposite. Also, i think that that is only way to create good article regarding this. More to say, majority of those Emperors are undisputedly born on the territory of the modern day Serbia! We should see only for those several who are disputed. Can we start with that? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter, please quit repeating the same thing over and over again. Your sources were proven to be unreliable and a third opinion has established that the list and claims should be removed from the article unless you can come up with solid references. You have to understand that "17/18 Roman emperors born in what is today Serbia" is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Some random websites are the exact opposite of extraordinary evidence: I want to see modern international scholarly publications by established authors and published by the major scholarly presses of the world, like Cambridge University Press, Dumbarton Oaks, Oxford University Press, etc.

Once again, it is not my job to establish the reliability of the sources or " find better sources claiming opposite". Your sources were put under major doubt, so it is your responsibility to substantiate your own claims.

Where to start? My personal opinion, and that of Crusio above, is that the list and claim should be removed unless you can back it up with excellent sources. — Toдor Boжinov — 18:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]