Talk:Christian Settipani

Who is Christian Settipani?

Is this person really notable? They have been added to many Ancient Articles, and this article says that they work in IT? Markh 19:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Dr. Nathaniel Taylor's review article, Mr. Settipani have actually done his "homeworks" well. Sundehul 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The way the article looks now, it reads like a tremendous eulogy to Mr. Settipani. While it may be that professional genealogists (and among them probably the more "adventurous" kind, i.e. those who prefer antiquity over certainty) rely heavily on his work, I doubt that he enjoys much support amongst historians. Trigaranus (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly at least one editor who's a fan, and perhaps more, but yes, we don't do adulation. Cursory research suggests that Settipani's work on early medieval prosopography and anthroponymy is serious and taken seriously. His fascination with descent from antiquity is perhaps another matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if Keats-Rohan is willing to go partners with him in a decade-long (so far) publishing project, that would constitute a fair amount of "support amongst historians." Please see my other comments, below. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Settipani's reputation?

There seems to be a feeling among many that Settipani is somehow not quite "respectable" -- perhaps because he's not a working academic, or because he's a "mere genealogist." It should be noted that he's a good deal more than "IT Director" for some anonymous company. He is, in fact, associated with CNRS, the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris. He has also been thoroughly accepted in the contemporary academic history community in the UK, being co-founder and general editor with Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan (FRHistS) of the publication series of the Unit for Prosopographical Research at Oxford. Keats-Rohan is widely regarded as something approaching the godmother of modern prosopographical and network analysis research, which has become highly computer-dependent. Hence, Settipani's involvement. There's a lot more to the man than Descents from Antiquity, which I suspect many of his critics are simply unaware of. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okey-doke, but how about citing some sources? I edited the article to remove the eulogistic language and placed "godmother" in quotes. I find it odd that the remark here on the Talk Page was reproduced word for word in the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been to this page in a couple years, but it seems to have been rewritten (or perhaps reverted) to the previous fawning style. As you say, that's neither necessary nor desirable. --Michael K Smith^Talk 14:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The deleted language was not meant to be fawning and Septentrionalis' protestations to the contrary is generally accurate. I (not Mr Settipani) wrote it and far from hanging on Mr. Settipani's every word, I am in disagreement for reasons irrelevant here with one of his most famous hypotheses regarding the Rurician connection with the Anicii. Still, even those in this field, and I am referring to professional historians as opposed to amateur genealogical hobbyists - his influence on whom I did not consider in my edit- who disagree with him have benefited from some of his hypotheses. I have a few comments for Septentrionalis which I will add later below before any attempt to correct the damage. I realize that editing is an art to some degree independent from the content of what is being edited, and we are thankful for that because otherwise, Wikipedia could not function at near the level of quality that it does. Most of Septentrionalis concerns, objections, and the frankly rather abusive insult at the end (misrepresented the citation) appear to be based on lack of knowledge of the subject matter by Septentrionalis and it would appear lack of knowledge of the subject matter by Halfond. Halfond's review is more confused than he accuses Settipani's book of being. He begins by citing Werner as evidence that Settipani's prosopographical and genealogical identifications are less than rigorous, apparently failed to realize that Werner was one of Settipani's mentors and in print has referred to Settipani's advice and identifications as positively influencing (at least one or two of) his own conclusions and has cited Settipani's work. Heinzelmann cites Settipani so often in his Gregory of Tours, one can't fail to understand the former's appreciation of the latter. Constance Bouchard likewise cites Settipani (and is a confirmation of the paradigm shift I mentioned as having occurred since at least Gibbon. According to Bouchard the earlier paradigm dated back to the 12th century). And I could go on.

Halfond primarily complains that Settipani does not provide historical background or context for these families, and then notes that Settipani is focused on providing a large number of hypotheses. So his complaint as I suggested would seem to be based on the fact that Settipani's work is either inaccessible to the non-specialist or too broad (and hence he is unable to make it accessible). There has never been any indication that Settipani is writing for non-specialists so the point is not really telling but I wanted to have some negative comment to provide a counterweight to the laudatory comments Settipani usually engenders among his public. I can see I did not do very well.

Finally, Septentrionalis suggests that Halfond only regarded the book being reviewed as establishing contacts between later Frankish nobility and the Merovingians. I do not know if that was Halfond's intent or not but since the chart referred to contains established (Sidoius Apollinaris letters)members of two distinct Roman Imperial era consular families, I should hope not. Before I "revert" or more accurately "further edit" I will provide the text with suitable additional references and any alteration to remove doubt. There are those who idolize Mr. Settipani and would as you put it, fawn, but I hope you will understand I am not one of them. The complaints of historians that he creates lineages out of too little information and without methodological grounding are apparently made in ignorance of where Settipani learned this (as evidenced by Halfond'S reference to Werner as a cricitism of Settipani's presumed methodology, a criticism I greatly doubt Werner would have agreed with) Here I am sorry to say I think the work of editors, far from limiting "adulation" has made things worse than if it had not been done at all. For the record, I do not know Mr. Settipani but the work in this area, including all of the excellent work done by people "other" than Mr. Settipani is important to me (not DFA's but the historical work) and I do not like to see it misrepresented in such an important source as Wikipedia either by fawners or trolls. A certain amount of patience and cooperative spirit is generally in the best interests of everyone but this time I think one editor in particular got out of hand doling out abusive accusations where a simple request for clarification would have been adequate to elicit either correction, support or explanation of the text.

It has been a while since I signed one of these things (I don't edit very often) so I would take it as a favor if you remind me how to sign this so it is all done properly. Thanks. GradyELoy

I bet the guy's writing his own entry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.244.160 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be childish. --Michael K Smith^Talk 14:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't be abusive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Halfond

Halfond's review of Settipani's early book on the Midi is used for this paragraph:

His work is one important example of the trend in Early Mediæval Historical Studies away from the idea, dominant since Edward Gibbon at least, that elites of the late Roman Empire were entirely displaced in the West by unrelated Germanic invaders and "new men" or alternatively that to the extent they may not have been displaced memories of their origins and ties have become irretrievably obscured. Historians have remarked with favour on the breadth of his presentation, his extensive citation of prior research and alternative viewpoints and the inspiration of some of his solutions to genealogical and prosopographical questions, but at the same time they express concern that the very breadth and volume of the material he treats in a single work tend to make accessible presentation difficult.

Halfond's review is here (let me know if this requires registration). It does not support this text.

• Halfond says nothing about descent from the Roman Empire; it discusses the book in some detail, and makes clear it covers supposed descents from the Merovingians.
• Therefore it says nothing about this supposed idea of Gibbon's. Gibbon does not, of course, say any such thing; he discusses the Vandal kings' descent from a Roman princess in some detail.
• Halfond's review is misrepresented. It supports literally none of this praise; it does say all of the following:
  • Unfortunately, Settipani chooses not to include any substantial discussion of his methodology, allocating but a single footnote (1, note 2) to emphasize--without any substantial justification--his faith in the use of onomastic evidence for establishing family connections. Certainly, many genealogists and prosopographers share Settipani's faith in "leading names" (leitnamen) as evidence for a common lineage between individuals with identical or similar names. However, as Werner, among others, has emphasized, leitnamen alone are not sure proof, but rather "clues" requiring confirmation
  • Settipani constructs elaborate genealogies based on little more than onomastic similarities and probability.
  • but the hypothetical genealogy he constructs (129) will not likely convince the skeptical, as it assumes the existence of over a dozen otherwise-unknown individuals.

Please don't do this again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text accordingly. Somebody seems to have restored the text you removed, without giving a reason. bobrayner (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To Bobrayner: I originally placed the text in question in an attempt to provide some non-hagiographical background on just what it is that Settipani does contribute to early medieval historical research quite apart from what his legions of less than critical amanteur genealogical fans think of him. I also placed the Halfond citation and, as Pmanderson noted, managed inaptly to make a critical reference sound laudatory. Pmanderson could have handled the matter better but apparently felt that their usual trollish "take no prisoners" and "try not to know too much about the subject" approach (don't take my word for it. Check their record. I have worked with better editors and administrators.) The only one who knows why Halfond was originally cited to this article is me. Halfond is not regarded as an expert in this field nor is he even probably well known to anyone. I am the only one I know who has cited him in this area. But he provided balance. Period. The article was said to have a neutrality problem. I tried to fix it. That being said I cannot be responsible for the quality of his review (Read the Taylor reference for a much better review of a Settipani work) Much of Halfond's opinion is poorly arrived at and though he is an academic of the sort Wikipedia prefers we cite, he is not generally well informed or well regarded. I could not find any other credible detractor. I suppose if I read everything Ian Wood ever wrote I might find some ever so snide potshot at Settipani (Wood appears to be somewhat enamored of the new man paradigm but I admit I have read other things that make me not so sure) but who has the time. Now, knowing of the evils of serial posting and unposting of disputed material, I objected to Pmanderson's high handedness as you can see above and resolved to put together a list of citations and make corrections that would clarify the situation and provide a consistent understandable paragraph. In the interim someone else, finding Pmandersons action inapposite restored deleted text. Realizing that the text in that form did have certain of the defects complained of I corrected these and added citation support for all of it, every single citation provided of significantly higher objective quality than the Halfond citation. I even cited Gibbon though he was less straightforward that I would have liked. It is clear from these that Settipani is well regarded and trusted by the leading current ' 'historical' ' researchers and academics in this corner of this field, including Werner who Halfond rather incompetently cites as the prime justification of his complaints against and doubts concerning Settipani. Please do not delete this out of turn again. I will regard that as an abusive action and make complaints accordingly. If you have objections, communicate with me first. If in good faith we do not agree, then we will go about it however such things are done here. It is not that the sun will not rise tomorrow if this text is not in the article. But I am tired and irritated that sound information that provides needed context to subjects people may need to know about is unavailable because people with a need to feel more important at others' expense, more hubris than brains and more free time than courtesy have found a new playground in editing Wikipedia. Such people do more damage than the people they purport to protect us from. It is hard enough to do sensible work in this medium and separate one's own wishful thinking from the fact correctly with the help of competent editors without that sort of thing distracting one. I know that problem is not going to be solved anytime soon. Please let me discover to my great joy and relief that you are not that sort of person. Check the citations in the disputed text and the changes supporting and supported by them and if you still have issues get back to me. If more is needed I will provide it and if something is unsupportable I will let it go, but let us try it this way OK?GradyEdwardLoy (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However,

• "He directs an area of resarch into a prestigious unity of the French CNRS" doesn't even make sense. What's it supposed to mean? Why add that back into the article without a source? WP:BURDEN is not on your side, alas.
• Removing {{fact}} tags from disputed content is not a good move. Adding sources which support the content, or simply removing the content, would be more appropriate (I don't really mind which). Content should be verifiable; especially on biographical articles.

No doubt Gibbon is a landmark in history, but we can't really use his words to support comments about a modern-day person, and even on purely historical matters Gibbon should be used with care; he doesn't represent what mainstream history says nowadays. bobrayner (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I placed the Gibbon citation in the text because Pmanderson said that Gibbon never said anything like that when in fact he did as I demonstrated. I agree the Gibbon remark is not determinative as to te quality or value of Mr. Settipani's work. It was added to illustrate the longevity of the trend in historical thinking which Mr.Settipani is one small part of challenging. Anticipating this objection I included in the citations (which apparently you apparently did not bother to read) comments to the same effect by Bouchard, an respected contemporary academic in this field who is familiar with and has referred to Settipani's work. I met my burden on this paragraph. You lacked justification for removing it. It is going back in. Before taking it out again, kindly explain why the sources I have given to support it are inadequate and please, this time, be correct. As to your first comment I am indifferent to it. I have not had anything to do with writing the part of the article that concerns his present employment, have never edited it and did not change it this time. I do not understand what it has to do with what we disagree about. Seriously, check the references I have included or leave it alone. You talk about bearing the burden. I bore any burden before you started cutting. The problem here is that you are not bothering to read what you are cutting. You have no basis for deciding that Halfond is the reference that must be relied on to the exclusion of others in determining the relevance or quality of Settipani's historical contributions. You have not even acknowledged the existence of the half dozen other very pertinent citations. And as to Halfond, you did not make the original citation. I did. I think I probably know who I am citing and why. Respectfully. If you want to cut something tell me why. Or show the respect for other people's efforts that Wikipedia editors are bound to show. So far this is all incomprehensible.GradyEdwardLoy (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source for Settipani's CNRS connection. However, the listing of people in that unit (USR710 L'année épigraphique) has him down as one of thirty "Chercheurs non CNRS"; they have parent universities listed, but Settipani's university is "INCONNU". Searching [[1]] for Settipani yields Aucune réponse. Could you clarify? What is Settipani's position? bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know anything about his university education or employment and was not responsible for originally posting that information. I searched and provided the site this time to remove an item that was becoming a source of a problem for this article. I will check published sources again and see if there is anything that can be used to verify or correct his university education. I do not know Mr. Settipani personally, have never communicated with him and doubt based on his comments in the literature to date that he would be pleased to find himself the source of the kind of controversy, minor though it is, generated by the over-exuberant support and the equally exuberant dismissive responses associated with this article. My own additions in regard to this article have been strictly in response to earlier calls for more neutral, better cited information and information that elucidates his notability and I have no intention to expand beyond that. I will try to find the citation information you indicate would be helpful in a suitable source and put the matter quietly to rest if that will do it. Best RegardsGradyEdwardLoy (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent Delete of citations of scholarly discussion of or reference to Settipani reseearch

Re Christian Settipani:

The sources I cited were far superior to Hallfond. I am going to add two more sources from established historians (though nobody, and certainly not Halfond are as preeminent in this particular area of Early Medieval History in Gaul/France as Werner, Heinzelman, Taylor, Bouchard and Mathisen. All of them relied on Settipani's "genealogical idenfications" and other advice, often asking him for the advice in the first place. And if you had been paying attention, even Hallfond recognized that Werner was preeminent in just this feild. He just did not bother to read far enough to understand Werner's regard for Settipani'S work. Actually check the citations please. And when it comes down to it, I (not you or some other editor) added Hallfond in the first place as a way of providing some "neutrality" to the article which someone or other had complained was inadequate. Your mistaken reliance upon Hallfond as being the best in this area suggests to me that you may be making value judgments in this area without actually knowing much about it. I have complied with every request by editors, legitimate and otherwise, to provide supporting information. These serial erasures are seriously becoming abusive. If you are not prepared to say why you do not think the endorsements of Settipani's work by Werner, Heinzelman, Taylor, Bouchard and Mathisen are appropriate, please be prepared to indicate why that is the case and additionally why you believe these authorities are somehow less pertinent than Hafond when, frankly, few people including I am rather certain, yourself, would ever have heard of him and his review had I rather not regrettably cited it in the first place. Please do not delete or materially this material again unless you are able to do that. You are unfairly depriving readers of pertinent and researched information that falls clearly within Wikipedia standards. Editors are obliged to make articles better if they get involved at all, not make them worse.

Respectfully

Grady Loy

Re Bobrayner's comment the last time he significantly modified the article:

"If disputed text is fact-tagged, there are two solutions; remove the text or bring a source. Reverting the tags away is not a solution."

I added five citations by the preeminent researchers in this field for the last 20 to 30 years specifically referring to Settipani's work in this field. Bobrayner summarily deleted the entire text without, I would guess even reading it and certainly without checking the validity of the citations or the relevance of the scholars cited. Though that may not be an uncommon practice for a certain kind of Wikipedia editor, I would in this case ask that he restrain himself - or provide more of an explanation than "still don't like it" as I have done exactly as he required the last time he did this. GradyELoy (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)GradyELoy

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)