Talk:Trojan genealogy of Nennius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mythology (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing [[::Trojan genealogy of Nennius|the article]], and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Title of article may need changing[edit]

I'm beginning to think that Nennius shouldn't be mentioned in the title of the article, as parts of this don't originate with the Historia Brittonum. Any suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Doug, you reinstated the word mythical here [1]. I consider this a weasel word, being that they can neither be proved nor disproved. Scientific testing of the human genome proved that all Europeans are decedent from seven fathers. Just like Nennius (but more directly from the Bible) stated. Nate5713 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the lead: "The Trojan genealogy of Nennius was written in the Historia Brittonum of Nennius and was created to merge Greek mythology with Christian themes. It was probably written by the Welsh monk Nennius in the 5th century, although there is little known about him. It serves little historic value but does establish the mythical genealogical line of Aeneas of Troy, Brutus of Britain, and Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome." This is a mythical genealogy, and thus 'mythical' is correct. What certainly is not correct is leaving it out and thus having the article state that those 3 really are the ancestors of Europeans. Your link to Sykes, by the way, doesn't mention fathers does it? Thanks for letting me know.
Mythical is not a weasel word, by the way. We have a whole project on mythology, if you want to discuss this further, start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The Trojan genealogy of Nennius is not listed under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology. As to my link, (well, actually, my source is do not open by John Farrndon, page 154, but I needed an internet link) it mentions seven mothers. DNA testing can only trace women, while genealogies only mention men. Therefore, I extrapolated, assuming that for every 1 mother, there is 1 father. Nate5713 (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It's part of the wikiproject, see its talk page at Talk:Trojan genealogy of Nennius. Even if Sykes is correct, and we don't know, there could be 7 mothers, one father. My genealogy certainly mentions women as well as men. And no scientific testing can determine the name of any of the fathers. Farndon is a popuar writer, having written over 300 books it seems, and we wouldn't use him as a source, we'd look for his sources, although that isn't actually relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
My point in removing the word is to stress the fact that they can neither be proved nor disproved. Everyone knows how Europeans got to Europe, but there names and families are open for opinion. Nennius (and his sources) are the oldest text that gives such opinion.Nate5713 (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources call this mythology. As an encyclopedia, we report what reliable sources have to say about a subject. These names are names of mythical characters according to reliable sources and that should be what we say. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
What reliable sources. Nennius wrote his book as precisely as a chronicle, maybe he knew something that that no one in the present day would know. Imagine if (or when) all references except 1 encyclopedia were lost by the year 2900 A.D. Such people as Ramesses I, Tiglath-Pileser and the Zhou Dynasty are called preposterous works of mythology by "reliable sources" of 2900 A.D. Thus any sources from the modern day have no backing (assuming you any sources yo give me). Thus unless someone challenged Nennius personally, you cannot challenge me personally. Nate5713 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate2357 (talkcontribs)
You misunderstand what I mean by reliable sources -- see WP:RS. And your comments are personal opinion, see WP:OR. If you disagree with our policies and guidelines you won't be happy here and probably should find another venue. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps editors should give examples here on the talk page, with full citations and quotes, of what is said in independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just a big misunderstanding. You write the word "mythical", which implies that these people are not real, they never were real, and they will continue to be mythical forever. All I ask is that you give me some resource that affirms that these men were ever mythical. (Remember I suggested that they might not have been considered mythical at the time of Nennius.) Therefore, I removed the word, as well as replaced it with "possible" (a more neutral word) until such time as you come up with a reference. Nate5713 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually it's the genealogical line that the article says is mythical. Even if whoever wrote Nennius thought it was a real genealogy, scholars now consider it mythical. Were you planning to edit articles such as Brutus of Troy in the same way? I think something needs clarifying. Page 12 here] calls this a British origin myth. It's a reliable source by our criteria. Does that end this discussion if if not, why not? Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Give me a moment, I'm gathering my references. --Nate5713 (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I was going to write a rebuttal, but I like the way the article looks right now. Nate5713 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Note that I removed a bunch of red links, please don't put them back without a discussion. I've explained why in the edit summaries, but basically where there is little to say about a name we aren't going to have an article so should not have a redlink. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking. Nate5713 (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)