Talk:Descent from antiquity

message: copied following:
(Jared Linn Olar wrote)
Subject: Re: gateway descents from Kings of Vandals, via Kings of Burgundy, via Volsungs of Allemania, Cambresis, & Denmark
Date: 18 Jun 2004 10:05:37 -0700
References:
david hughes wrote:
> gateway descents from Kings of Vandals, via Kings of Burgundy, via
> Volsungs of Allemania, Cambresis, & Denmark
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 10. Hilderic, Vandal-King 523-530 deposed, d533
> issue:
> a. Gormund, Byzantine Governor of North Africa 534-543, father of
> Hilde, wife of Valdar "The Dane"
> b. Hilde, wife of Frode VII, King of Denmark
"Gormund" is mentioned in Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings
of Britain" as a king of Germans in Africa who led an invasion of
Ireland and Britain during the reign of a Briton king named Careticus
(Ceretic) in the latter half of the 500s A.D. Careticus supposedly
was successful in beating back with terrible invasion, though
historical records don't mention anything of it. I believe Geoffrey
got the story of Gormund from someone -- I don't think it was original
with Geofrrey, but I don't know where he might have heard it. In any
event, I'm aware of no reason to believe Gormund ever existed, let
alone that he was a son of Hilderic, King of the Vandals.
As for Hilde, daughter of Hilderic, I've seen that spurious filiation
several times. It's based on a medieval Icelandic legendary pedigree
of Ivar Vidfadmi, a legendary conquering king of Scania, Denmark,
Sweden, Russia, and Northumbria who, again, may not have existed. The
pedigree first appears, I believe, in certain manuscripts of the
Hervarar Saga ok Heithreks Konungs. Ivar was supposedly descended
from a princess named Hild, daughter of Heidrik (Heithrekr) Ulfham,
King of Reidgothaland, traditionally identified as Jutland and/or
Mecklenburg. However, I've not yet found any early texts that
identify Hild's husband as Frode -- Hervarar Saga says she married a
Danish king named Valdar, but other Old Icelandic sources show Valdar
as an apparent descendant, not husband, of Hild.
Since the area of Heidrik's kingdom was associated with both the
German Vandals and the Slavic Wends, and since some later writers came
up with a false theory that the Vandals and the Wends were the same
people, someone came up with the idea that Heidrik Ulfham was a
legendary memory of the historical Vandal king Hilderic, and thus
invented a descent from the Vandal kings through the legendary kings
of Denmark and Sweden. However, there is simply no proof that Heidrik
Ulfham was Hilderic -- the names might seem similar, but just as the
Frankish royal name Hilderic is found in Old Icelandic texts as
Hjalprekr, so we should expect a Vandal king named Hilderic to be
mentioned in Old Icelandic texts as Hjaldrekr, or something like that,
not Heithrekr. Again, the legends of Heidrik Ulfham never associate
him with Africa, only with Northern Europe -- yet it was well known
throughout Europe, even Scandinavia, that the Vandals had migrated to
North Africa. One would expect some trace of that in the legends of
Heidrek Ulfham if it were true that he was based on the historical
Hilderic the Vandal.
At your service,
Jared L. Olar
:: Jared has given an extremely clear accont of why this socalled "Danish route" is not eligible for mention here, unless you wish to start a section on "widely repeated but delusional descents".  Didn't the words "spurious filiation" ring any kind of a bell??   --Chris Bennett 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilde, spurious ancestress of legendary Ivarr Vidfami 

message: Some anonymous user has repeatedly added an "unreferenced" tag to this article despite the fact that it contains nearly 20 sources in the References section.  When he first did this I reverted and pointed out that the article was in fact referenced.  When he did it again, I assumed that it was because he was unaware that citations do not have to be inline, so I reverted this, pointing out that WP:CIT does not require citations to be inline:
::Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one
and
::Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references ("References") – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations ("Notes").
Clearly, this article has an established style of providing general references, and there are plenty of them, and they support a significant amount of the material in the article.
On his next pass our driveby shooter noted that WP:CIT requires inline citations for featured articles, and proceeded to pepper the article with "fact" tags on every sentence, even including the definitional sentences at the start of the article.
Now, when I pointed out WP:CIT, I also told this person that if he wanted inline citations he should stop whining and start adding them.  I meant it.  If someone wants to beef this article up to be a featured article, more power to them.  I also have no objection if they want to change the established style of the article, though I don't think it's necessary myself.  But I do expect them to do the work.  It's damn rude to demand a change to the format of an article which conforms to WP guidelines just because you don't like the current format, when you clearly have no intention of contributing anything yourself.
So, to the driveby tagger, if you want to improve this article stop whining and get to work. The referencing is certainly not perfect, you could tag sections which do need references added, or, better, start adding them.  If you really want to change the style to inline citations, start adding inline citations.  I suggest you proceed by reviewing the material that is available online and linking it to the statements that you think need to be cited inline.  Who knows, you might even get interested in the topic.
But if you're just going to vandalise the article, you're wasting everybody's time, including your own.
--Chris Bennett (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: ::In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a featured article.  Noone has expressed any interest in making it one.  If you wish to do so, by all means bring it up to that standaard.  But don;t demand that someone else do it for you.
::As they are.  Random example:
:::The possibility of establishing a DFA as a result of serious genealogical research was raised in a pair of influential essays, by the Albany Herald, Dr. Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, and the late Garter King of Arms, Sir Anthony Wagner.
::And the references include:
::I. Moncreiffe of that Ilk & D. Pottinger, Blood Royal, (Nelson, London, 1956).
::A. R. Wagner, Bridges to Antiquity in Pedigree and Progress: Essays in the Genealogical Interpretation of History (Phillimore, London, 1975)''
::I know what they are.  You haven't cited any statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.  please do so, but when you do so, give your groubds for challenging the statement.
::I agree the references are not perfect.  But they are a very far cry from justified the tags you are adding to this article.
::And if you have REASON to doubt a statement in the artucle, go ahead, AND PRODUCE YOUR REASON .
::The key statements in WP:CIT are the ones I quoted.  INLINE CITATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED AND A REFERENCE LIST IS A PERFECTLY ADEQUATE TECHNIQUE.
::No, I'm not trying to keep a bad article.  But I have no patience for an anonymous idiot who slaps tags on the article which are completely unjustified on their face, and who makes no attempt at producing a justification.  Even now you are just spewing selected passdages of WP:CIT without showing that iit relates to this articlew.
::AS far as I am concerned I don;t have the time or the interest to devote my life to WP.  I do have an interest in this topic, and I put together some basic facts about it, TOGETHER WITH A PERFECTLY GOOD REFERENCE LIST.  If someone wbabts to take it further I'm all for that.  But to claim the article has no citations or referebces is simply untrue, and its unproductive.
::If you want to improve this article, work through it -- show what needs to be improved and start working on improvements.
::If you can;t make a positive contribution, don;t make any.--Chris Bennett (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DON'T ALTER EXISTING TALK

message: Ripsimia is specified as the daughter of Ashot II in the Medieval Lands database, http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BULGARIA.htm#_Toc137439348.  However, no authority is given for this parentage.  Is it just a plausible guess? DonStone01 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ripsimia's parentage is not given by Fine in The Early Medieval Balkans (1983/1991), which Medieval Lands cites for most of its data on the Cometopuli dynasty.  It is not given by Mladjov (Fine's student) in the several charts that include Ripsimia in his 2003 article "Reconsidering Agatha, Wife of Eadward the Exile."  Ditto for Mladjov's chart "The Descent of H.M. Simeon II from the Medieval Rulers of Bulgaria" at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~imladjov/SIMEONII.doc.  Toumanoff in Les dynasties de la Caucasie chrétiennne (1990) doesn't give any children for Ashot II.  So far as I know, Settipani has not suggested this Ripsimia-AshotII connection, and Adontz says that Ripsimia is an Armenian, not that she is an Armenian princess. DonStone01 (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Medieval Lands database's treatment of Bulgaria has been updated, adding a review of literature relating to Ripsimia: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BULGARIA.htm#_Toc200330537.  She is now given as daughter of "---".  Accordingly, I have removed the short paragraph about the possible Bulgarian link, since it assumes that she is the daughter of Ashot II. DonStone01 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian link 

message: I have protected this article for one week. I strongly urge all editors concerned to discuss changes here on the talk page before edit-warring over tags and the like - skirting around the three-revert rule and making disruptive edits will result in blocks. I would also recommend the IP editor(s) read our policies on original research, verifiability, and neutrality before they tag or remove content. While the article is lacking in inline citations, Wikipedia does not require these where references are given at the end of the article (although some processes, such as Good article review and Featured article review do). EyeSerenetalk 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: AfD notice removed again; please complete the full nomination process correctly if you wish to nominate this article for deletion. Instructions are here; simply adding an AfD notice to the top of the article does not complete the nomination process. Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the IP user who placed this notice has virtually the same address as one of the addresses used by the individual who insisted on slapping lots of "unreferenced" /"unverifiable" etc tags on this page a few weeks ago, without making any attempt to justify them.  I assume this is the same person.  I again encourage this individual to stop making ex cathedra judgements and to engage in proper discussion and debate.  For an example of a (potentially) productive approach to concerns of this type see the previous topic on this page.  --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD notice 

message: Not a word about the Katoch clan, the oldest royal family of the world !
Maybe an interesting genealogical route toward the East...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.53.65 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katoch Clan 

message: This article doesn't specify whose descent we are talking about.  Obviously most of these antique figures will have some living descendents, but I assume we're here talking specifically about them having living descendents among the European, or more specifically British, aristocratic families.  It would be good for the article to state this clearly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.172.250 (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say whose descent we are talking about because it isn't talking about any specific modern person or group of people.  Why do you assume that it is?  The article makes clear that it has a European bias because that is where most of the work has been done, but it also talks about Muslim, Indian, Chinese and Japanese descents.  --69.241.124.150 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why doesn't it mention places/families outside of Old Europe?  I really find the dates and names highly specific to a fairly recent set of immigrants to Europe.  THis is an interesting topic.  But I agree, if it's really about the "royal families" of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Japan, China, India - etc., that needs to be clearer.LeValley 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose descent 

message: On 27 May, 99801155KC9TV renamed this article to be Descent from antiquity (genealogical concept).  The editorial note attached to the move simply says "disambiguation".
This move is about as necessary as renaming Solar system Solar system (astronomical concept), or God God (theological concept).  There is no ambiguity -- the term is not used except in a genealogical context.  For readers unfamiliar with the term, the first paragraph, for all its faults, makes it very clear this is a genealogical topic:
:Descent from Antiquity (DFA) is the project of establishing a well-researched, generation-by-generation descent of living persons from people living in antiquity. It is an ultimate challenge in prosopography and genealogy.
Accordingly I have restored the article to its original title.  If 99801155KC9TV or anyone else still feels that the change is necessary, please discuss it here first.
Since 99801155KC9TV didn't elaborate the claim of ambiguity, I can only guess, but I guess that (s)he made the move based on the discussion above about using genetic techniques to verify a descent line.  To the extent that that discussion affects the article, it relates to the content of the article, not the classification of the topic under discussion.  I.e. it might be desirable to add some words to the discussion of notions of "descent", but that's all.  Personally I don't think it is necessary but in view of that discussion and this move I will draft something. --Chris Bennett (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: About "Dr. Rafal T. Prinke, a well-known Polish genealogist". Is this person a reliable mainstream source, or are they fringe? I had a quick look around and found stuff like this, this, and this. So, should any of Prinke's genealogical claims be taken at face value? bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting links.  Still, an interest in fringe subjects like the occult, hermetic symbolism or astrology is not inherently a disqualification as a reliable genealogist, any more than expertise in computer science.  I can't really help you on an overall assessment, but I did discuss his Kata theory with him on GEN-MEDIEVAL, and I have read an English version of his article on Kata, many years ago, and as I recall it struck me as being reasonable, for what that's worth.  It turns out I still have a copy I could email you if you wish.  I also have been given a copy of a genealogical book of his, it's in Polish (which is probably why I was given it, the donor doesn't read Polish either), so I can't really assess it, but it does look like a professional genealogy. --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prinke 

message: Bobrayner reverted my attempt to restore a statement that a Carolingian/Merovingian link cannot be proven, with the comment "If it's not possible to make that link, why add it to the article? Don't just add a bunch of unsupportable claims just to bridge a couple of other separate claims. That's the whole problem with this article."
In response:
1) There is an enormous difference between "not possible" (= provably impossible) and "not proven" (= maybe, maybe not, but here is the evidence: you decide). None of the lines described in the article are proven lines.  They are proposed lines -- that's the whole reason why DfA is a research activity.  The proposals are (or should be) grounded in documentary evidence, but there are still reasons why they are only proposed and not proven.  In this case, given that there was well over a century of close interaction between the two families it is hardly unreasonable to suppose that a link existed.  The proposals that exist are plausible, and not unsupportable.  They are supported by charters and the like, but include currently unverifiable assumptions, such as that two people named X in two contemporary documents are the same person, or that two people who own the same property with similar names are likely to be closely related.
2) Why add it to the article?  Because it explains how one could possibly trace an ancestry from Charlemagne to the Gallo Roman aristocracy.  Without it there is no reason at all to discuss Gallo-Roman aristocracy in a DfA context.  Why did you keep them?  By your logic you should have removed both.  Indeed why even mention Charlemagne once you have concluded that it will never be possible to trace his ancestry to antiquity?  As things currently stand they must all be retained, because they are all segments of a proposed DfA: you can't eliminate one and pretend you still have a DfA proposal.
3) The whole problem with the critics of this article is that they seem to think it is about asserting that some ancestry is a proven DfA.  It isn't.  It's about exposing what the proposals are and why they are only proposals, which means, among other things, that you don't stop with the first problem you find:  the goal is antiquity.  So you go over the whole proposal, from soup to nuts, and identify all the problem areas, because all of them need to be resolved favourably in order to prove a particular DfA proposal.  Until a problem is resolved you can't know whether the outcome will be favourable or not.  Undoubtedly this is not being said clearly enough.  But I also have the clear impression that many people object to this article simply because they don't like the concept. --Chris Bennett (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merovingians 

message: Bobrayner removed the statement of a proposed decent from the Exilarchs via the counts of Septimania, stating "if Kelley's claim is known to have been based on a false reading, why are we repeating it?"
On Zuckermann's specific claim, one reason to keep it is to illustrate that DfA research is not just a pile of wishful thinking but that there is serious critical research that goes into it:  it is actually possible to disprove a DfA proposal, and this has been done.  Another reason is that the Zuckermann proposal got a fair amount of publicity in genealogy netlist circles, and it is useful to have a clear statement in a well-known site that the claim has been disproved.
I think you also threw out the baby with the bath water.   If I recall the Jewish Encyclopedia correctly, Babylonian exilarchs existed in Baghdad at least until the sack by Hulagu in 1258, and there is a modern Syrian Jewish family which claims an Exilarch descent.  Yes, I know, I should add this (properly sourced and cited) to the article; still, I think a note that a Davidic descent via the exilarchs is a possible DfA is worth retaining.  --Chris Bennett (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish descent 

message: Experts are requested to address the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descent from antiquity, Can an expert please clarrify if the subject matter presented meet WP:NOT and WP:VERIFY? -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert requested 

message: Looking over the references, I don't see anything that covers this proposal. Perhaps I've missed something? --92.4.177.142 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doria's Maia proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Descent from antiquity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161007061850/http://www.sidamingzhu.org/book/0/456/34821.html to http://www.sidamingzhu.org/book/0/456/34821.html
*Added  tag to http://15269682.blog.hexun.com.tw/102536659_d.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160425031918/http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Present_Day_Political_Organization_of_China_1000115601/507 to http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Present_Day_Political_Organization_of_China_1000115601/507
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Another such case for descent" is the way the section on the New World starts.  This is unclear to me.  Such as  the African case, I suppose -- but in what respect? Kdammers (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It just means 'another opportunity for a claim to descent from antiquity'.  Yes, it is poorly written, but that is the least of the problems with this article (e.g. Original Research, arbitrary selection of lines, poor referencing, balance . . . ).  Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Descent from antiquity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053840/http://www.npm.gov.tw/hotnews/9910seminar/download/all/B10.pdf to http://www.npm.gov.tw/hotnews/9910seminar/download/all/B10.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Descent from antiquity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170104183935/http://www.yfzww.com/Read/5513/2 to http://www.yfzww.com/Read/5513/2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Bob Page wrote:
According to the article " However, contemporary Japanese records do not commence until several centuries after Ōjin's time, and the tradition reports a major change to a cadet line shortly before the start of the literate period." What is the major change to the cadet line? I can't find the source for it or what change they are talking about.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Page (talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major change to the Japanese cadet line shortly before the literate period 

message: I was going to add specific DFA lines referenced by Settipani and others, but upon reading it the article sums up very succinctly where it all stands, what progress there has been, and the limitations that exist, particularly with the likely DFAs through the Roman/Byzantine-Northern European connections (mostly Frankish/French, some Spanish Visigoths and others). I really hope that section in particular doesn't get altered and I will patrol it to try to keep that form intact. A side note: it must be unique how the line of Confucius was so officially recorded even through the various "Dark Ages" that arise in any given place in the course of 2,500 years.
--JLavigne508 (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Comment 

message: This article is substantially smaller than it used to be due to a lot of unreliable content being removed. I took the liberty of creating a separate article with the content not removed in userspace User:MaitreyaVaruna/Descent from antiquity. I think it might be worth somehow including this content on Wikipedia as it is useful to see at least all of these ideas compiled together regardless of their truth. Maybe an article on list of pseudogenealogical theories or something like that? MaitreyaVaruna (changing name to Immanuelle) please tag me (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is unworkable. There are hundreds of thousands of pseudogenealogical theories out there. Hell, a single book by Settipani has several hundred such theoretical connections, and though more focussed, much of Jackman's genealogical work consists of one house of cards built on another, on another . . . .  That doesn't even count all of the earlier material, developed before genealogy became a more scholarly pursuit. Wikipedia cannot be a collection of every pet theory, impractical to compile and maintain and unencyclopedic. Agricolae (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Agricolae who is Jackman? Can you link their page? I would like to look more into them to see how scattershot these theories really are. My impression was that most of the theories present in the article were with the exception of the Mughals one were notable enough to gain mainstream media attention. I plan on looking more into Christian Settipani too. MaitreyaVaruna (changing name to Immanuelle) please tag me (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:MaitreyaVaruna Jackman is Donald C. Jackman. He doesn't specifically do DFAs but his genealogy work in one of the problematic periods has been heavily drawn upon by DFA enthusiasts. As to gaining mainstream media attention, unfortunately this is more a consequence of a combination of ignorance and sensationalism, the 'Queen Elizabeth descends from the Prophet Muhammed' news stories being a prime example - the descent this oft-reported claim entails is demonstrably false, even amateurish, but it makes for good headlines on a slow news day. Agricolae (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old content