This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.
We mention the descent of the royal family from David in the lead, then never again. If this is truly so important, then it shoouldn't be too hard to create a short entry for it under Tenets. If not, then perhaps the statement doesn't need to be in the lead, and should be moved down to the body (again, probably under tenets). Has anyone seen anything that highlights this claim? Agricolae (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) No, don't. Given that independent secondary sources that cover BI don't see fit to mention any details of them at all, it would be WP:UNDUE (and probably WP:NOR) to present anything more than what is already given. It is not good enough to be able to put together such a tree (which you have), nor for a BI enthusiast to have published such a tree (which they have) - you would need a source independent of the movement that gives such a tree when talking about BI for it to even be worthy of consideration. Agricolae (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC).
Don't worry, it is in one of the public museums in London. Scynthian (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This in no way assuages my concerns. Such genealogies are notoriously unreliable (indeed, it is the consensus among scholarly genealogists that all such Descents from antiquity are at best uncertain and at worst outright fraud: there are no such descents for any of the European royalty that are considered valid). Likewise, a genealogical chart hanging in a museum is only relevant to BI if independent secondary sources describing BI have discussed in detail that specific line of descent, and they haven't. Agricolae (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not in display in museums anymore. But are kept in Windsor Castle, and I can even give you a reference number for the dep of manuscripts in London, MSS 43968 Scynthian (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You left out some important parts of that citation. The repository is always a useful piece of informtion when describing a manuscript, in this case, the British Library. Likewise, you have only given a partical reference number - the full number is ADD MSS 43968. The BL catalogue describes the succession it details as "partly fabulous" (fabulous as in 'the stuff of fables', not 'spectacular'), and mentions its portrayal of coats of arms, "real or imaginary", of the kings from Ecgbert. Not exactly a reliable source, then.  Here is the problem when using a chart as source - without accompanying text or other explanation, you can't tell what is being conveyed. Is the compiler trying to give authentic ancestry, is he trying to give a historical perspective by portraying what those silly people back in the time of Geoffrey of Monmouth believed, is he letting his own imagination run free in order to flatter the royal family (to whom the chart would eventually be presented)? You just don't know, so you can't assume reliability was even intended, let alone achieved. Agricolae (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That comment is personal, rude and rude to His Royal Highness. It should be used as like every other source. Scynthian (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That comment is about a document (and it's compiler), not any member of the royal family.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Few of us care about being rude to whatever royal family member Scynthian had in mine, and if that's the document it was compiled by William Courthope. In any case a family tree in the article would be inappropriate. At most we'd mention its existence. Doug Wellertalk 12:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I think(yes) a mention that BIists have complied dodgy genealogies would be fine. But we have to reflect what RS say about it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Except the chart is dated to about 1830, which predates full-fledged BIism. It would be more accurate to say BIists drew their inspiration from dodgy genealogies, but as you indicate, to be included we would want a reliable secondary source that this was the case. Note to Scynthian: There was nothing personal or rude in what I said, I just explored the varied motivations of pedigree compilers (accuracy, documenting what they find independent of accuracy, flattery, and I left out over-enthusiasm) that have long precedent in genealogy. It is vaguely insulting to have it suggested that is the best I could come up with - if I was intending lèse majesté, you would certainly know it. Agricolae (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)