User talk:Agricolae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note: effective immediately, all comments or questions left on my Talk page will be addressed here or on the Talk page for the article in question, not on the Talk page of the contributing editor, so check back if you want to see a response. Agricolae (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Regarding your edit to Gibraltar:[edit]

Your recent edit to Gibraltar (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user editing a page that experiences frequent malicious edits by banned users that continue to edit via shared IP ranges. Since these ranges are too large (collateral damage) to be blocked and user's IP addresses are not visible, edits to this page by logged-out editors of shared IP ranges or new users may be reverted. The changes can be reviewed and restored by established users. If you don't use a shared IP, you may be able to avoid this by making the edit while logged out. // VoABot II 01:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Philippa of Toulouse[edit]

You claim that Philippa of Toulouse was not married to Sancho Ramirez. However, she is referred to as being such in Eleanor of Aquitaine by Marion Meade, and also, I think, by Alison Weir. What reason do you have to think she wasn't, and (more importantly) is it verifiable? Michaelsanders 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't know if you know anything about this, but can you help differentiate between the two Aznars (or was there only one?) of the early ninth century. Who was count of Aragon (Jaca)? Who duke of Gascony? Who fought the 2nd Roncesvalles? Who died in 836? Who in 838/9? Etc... Srnec 06:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

el Cid[edit]

Hi there; ok, let's leave the bit about Jimene's paternity as you have entered it, otherwise we find ourselves edit-warring, which I do not want to do. You are doubtless aware that Rodrigo Diaz' father was also called Diego. Admittedly, a common name in Spain then and now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony.bradbury (talkcontribs) 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Ximena Moniz, mother of Theresa, Countess of Portugal[edit]

Hello Agricolae! I see you have reverted my inclusion of Teresa's mother's parents (Munio Moniz, Count of Bierzo and Muniadona Moniz), saying that that they're "still very much in dispute". Could you tell what the dispute is? You see, Genea Portugal, presents her, Ximena Moniz (or Jimena Muñoz - have no problem with that), as such, giving the following sources:

  • Actas do 17º Congresso Internacional de Ciências Genealógica e Heráldica, Instituto Português de Heráldica, Lisboa, 1986, Tábua III, p.317.
  • Luiz de Mello Vaz de São Payo, A Herança Genética de D. Afonso Henriques, Universidade Moderna, 1ª Edição, Porto, 2002, p.283.
  • Felgueiras Gayo & Carvalhos de Basto, Nobiliário das Famílias de Portugal, 2ª Edição, Braga, 1989, vol. VI, p.51.

Could you enlight me and reply at Talk:Theresa, Countess of Portugal? Thanks! The Ogre 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

About your recent moves of some kings of Pamplona, I can accept them (even if I don't think them necessary) save for the Jimeno I of Pamplona moved to Jimeno of Pamplona. The problem is that the current name is ambiguous: there were more than one Jimeno of Pamplona. Can you think of a better title? Srnec (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar (history)[edit]

Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
For extensive detailed additions to List of Aragonese monarchs and other articles about aragonese nobles, you are hereby awarded this Barnstar.--Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So you know[edit]

I am waiting for a comment at Talk:List of Navarrese monarchs, in case you forgot or changed your mind. Srnec (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for adding the regnal ordinals... but, wow, that is a lot of varieties! Perhaps we should put it all in a footnote explaining where some of them came from (if we can know). I can do some of that myself, but the articles are mostly rather short as of now and it would be better to expand some of them before worrying about adding lengthy explanations of regnal enumeration in footnotes! Srnec (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

removal of material from Simon I de Montfort[edit]

If you can find a source that refutes the material, please add it to the page, but until then, please refrain from removing referenced material from the page. How is it not verifiable? I have provided sources for all challengable statements. The material has been stable on the page for a very long time. Anyway, unlike your edit comment, you have not started a discussion on the talk page yet.--Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries[edit]

I (and I guess others too) would be appreciated if you could give a source since they vary a lot. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Answer (and apollogy) is on my talk page. --Floridianed (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Umar ibn Hafsun[edit]

I was notified by Joyson Noel that you had broken the three revert rule. When I checked the page history, I realized that you had both gone over three reverts in 24 hours and I decided not to block either of you. Instead I want each of you to discuss the edit on the article's talk page, and perhaps seek a third opinion. Further reverts pertaining to the statement will result in a block, but I don't believe this will be necessary. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Sometimes you have to pick the battles worth fighting for. Malinaccier (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Egbert of Wessex[edit]

I noticed your recent changes to Egbert of Wessex; your changes look good to me, but I noticed you didn't add any sources. You did mention some new points, such as specifying which versions of the Chronicle say what. Do you have specific sources you could cite to cover the new material you put in? It would be helpful if you could add them if you do, since currently the article is well-cited and it would be good to keep it that way. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So it is[edit]

Geez -- so what's going on with the NYT's Thursday "Science Times"?  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 06:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the statement not to overstate this NYT science writer's argument. Do you have a source for a refutation or critique to contribute? Thanks! :^)  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 11:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008[edit]

I notice you are enacting a rather bizzare full on assault on geneaology across Wikipedia. I'd kindly ask you to disist such vandalism of sourced material. Geneaology is important in ROYAL articles, since royalty rests on the very topic. Numerous users are reverting your removals across a wide range of article and with good reason. - Through Blue (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Ingelger, if you have a source for what you are claiming, then provide it. Wikipedia works of the principle of WP:VER nor WP:OR. These three scholarly publications disagree with your edit:
  • Palgrave, The History of Normandy and of England, 502.
  • Larned, The New Larned History for Ready Reference, Reading and Research, 35
  • Hookham, The Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou, 85.
Thanks - Through Blue (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
You're not simply removing non-verifiable information though. You are specifically removing information which is backed up by publicised sources. [Blanking is a form of vandalism. The ancestry of royal houses is of prime relevence to the subject, because without that ancestry they would not be royalty in the first place. - Through Blue (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agricolae, some of your edits appear aggressive. On careful review, it appears that you know what you are doing. Can I suggest, in the interests of cooperative editing and review, that post a brief explanation on the talk page to accompany significant edits that someone else might consider radical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming Garcías, Beni Alfons[edit]

We have García of Galicia (until recently García II of Galicia) and García I of León. What is the best way to enumerate these guys? I'm pretty sure I've never seen "García II" before, but I can't recall about García I. Should we use the numerals and just explain them?

And though I could find Collins talking about the dynasty without naming it via GoogleBooks, I'll have to look up what he uses in Arab Conquest in the library. Srnec (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agnes of Aquitaine[edit]

Okay, I see you have shortened it and moved it. Why did you get rid of my reference to Medieval lands? That is were I got most of the info from. --Daaviiid (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What I removed was a statement of misinformation, and its associated citation. If the whole article was based on this web site, then it belongs as an off-site reference, and not just as a footnote for one particular nugget. Agricolae (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Un posible interregno en la monarquía pamplonesa[edit]

Have you read Alberto Cañada Juste, "Un posible interregno en la monarquía pamplonesa (1000–1004)," Príncipe de Viana, 8 (1988), 15–18? I don't think I've seen you cite it. Is it accessible online anywhere? Srnec (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Srnec (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Catalonia[edit]

Agricolae, on this topic, I have one concern which maybe you can clear. The thing is that, if, as of now, we all think that "maybe the page is salvageable, but needs thorough overhaul" etc...then I am afraid that the most likely outcome is that the page is the very same state as it is now. And its current sorry state is worse than nothing, dont you think?

I would like to get your point of view regarding this, since maybe you are more experienced in similar cases. Cheers. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 05:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My experience in similar cases is that the rules and practices of Wikipedia work to its own detriment. The page, by all rights, should be deleted as rubbish, but you don't really AFD the content. You really are deleting namespace. The consequence, though, is that the fact that the same namespace might, at some later date, be used to write a good article then leads to the undesirable consequence that a muddleheaded article is then kept (or the poll results in a non-consensus outcome, which amounts to the same thing). It frustrates me every time it happens, and it happens enough that I rarely even participate in these discussions unless I know that the namespace itself cannot possibly be the subject of a worthy article (and even a good number of these end badly). I only butted in here to correct the nom's statement that Catalonia had no military history, but I didn't even bother to vote because I fully anticipate an unsatisfactory outcome. Agricolae (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Urgh, I see what you mean. 'Wikipedia working in its own detriment' sums it up really well. We've seen that before anyway, haven't we? In any case, I will change my comment to 'agree', should it matter. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 14:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your claim that "Catalonia had a military history" in the article's AfD entry. To sum up, if Catalonia had a military history in the sense that "wars occurred there" then another legitimate article would be "Military history of the eastern half of Andalusia", since wars occurred there too. Maybe the only one we shouldn't have is Military history of Antarctica (yet). --Taraborn (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony Haswell (printer)[edit]

Updated DYK query On July 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Haswell (printer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Plantagenet arms[edit]

Hi, I think the agument in favour of the quartered arms if far better than just the three lions.

  • It was the most recent arms: Richard III used the arms. All the cadet branches used the arms, including the Beauforts which continue on to this day.
  • Longest time period: 6 monarchs used three lions. 10 used the quartered (whether the liles were big or little isn't too relevent).
  • Their claim to France is relevent: they fought in the Hundred Years War under that banner and so took the claim to be the successors to Capet deadly seriously, with the quartered arms and just about all art suriving from the Middle Ages, such as ones in the article feature the quartered arms. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
And I disagree
  • All of them used the three lion coat, just some of them with a French quartering added
  • As many used the 3 lion coat alone, and for as long, as used the version you favor
  • last is not best, nor is anachronistic adoption
  • The claim to France was only relevant to three of them, Edward III, Henry V and Henry VI. As to the others, it had no more relevance than the Capetian claims to England. Agricolae (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't correct - see, Armorial of Plantagenet. They didn't all use just the three lions by itself, only 6 monarchs did. 9 used the quartered version, which contains liles and the three lions in quatered combination.
  • This is sophistry; a difference between the size and number of the liles isn't the same ball park as not showing them at all.
  • It is the most relevent, for instance on the article "Spain" it shows the most recent flag. Rather than randomly showing an earlier flag. Also this is the arms the Plantagenets used most, not only by the monarchs themselves, but also in the arms of various cadet branches and children.
  • Yet they still chose to use the arms with the liles on, a fact we cannot negate. This was the legal arms which they decided for whatever reason to adopt so it is not our choice, but rather theirs.
You haven't actually presented an argument of why it should be just three lions? - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't say they all used "just the three lions coat". I said they all used the three lions coat, meaning alone or in combination. It is the one arms universal to all kings from Richard I on.
  • Curious how the differences that support your preference are relevant, and the differences that do not are sophistry. If they weren't different, then why is there a consistent change from one to the other.
  • This is not an article about a modern country, for which the current status is relevant. It is not an article about the last Plantagenets, for which the last coat would be relevant. It is an article about a historical family, and should reflect the entire run of the family, not just the last across the post.
  • There is nothing more 'legal' about the more recent arms. It is just more recent. That doesn't make Richard I's arms illegal, and Richard I never chose an arms with France, nor did John, nor did Henry III, nor did Edward I, but all of the Plantagenets after Henry II did choose an arms with the three lions motif. Agricolae (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The argument why it should be the three-lions coat is that it is the coat common to the Plantagenet kings (with the sole exception of Henry II). Agricolae (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text[edit]

Agricolae, you are removing text from articles without obtaining consensus on the talk pages. Please stop as you are undoing a lot of hard work.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the normal process of editing. It is ridiculous to expect discussion for every change. Agricolae (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You are in the process of removing text which can be sourced. We need to gain consensus, otherwise an edit war can/will occur. I detest edit wars as they are disruptive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Good for you. Still, it is impractical to discuss every edit, just in case someone will take offense. The general process is to edit, and then discuss if someone objects. As to removing material that can be sources, so what. I can source a lot of irrelevant information. That doesn't mean it belongs in a WP entry.
In general, the parents of an individual are worth mentioning to place them into a genealogical context. The grandparents are not, unless they are particularly notable or the genealogical connection had some direct bearing on the biography of the individual in question. As an example, we say Edward III of England was son of Edward II. To say he was grandson of Edward I and great-grandson of Henry III is just gilding the lily. However, mentioning his mother's link to the French crown is noteworthy, since it led Edward to put forward that claim. If it explains something about the individual it is worth mentioning. If it is just genealogy for genealogy sake it is not. Agricolae (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It help a great deal, if ya choose to discuss article context 'before/instead of' editing out parts of it. It's never a good thing to cause tensions, even if it's not intentional. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Tell me you discuss every change you make before making it. If I had thought someone was so vested in the appearance of such irrelevancies, then yes, discussion would have been warranted in advance, but 20/20 hindsight and all that. The vast majority of edits prove non-controversial, and I treat them as such. If issues arise, they can be discussed. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I mostly do spelling, grammar, sentence corrections. Opening a discussion on spelling mistakes is a waste of time. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You need info about their family so you can get a sense of the person's origins and what great royal familes they descend from--David (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This misses the point. You get a sense of a person's origins from their parents. If their parents are notable, then the reader can pursue further if they choose. If the grandparents are less significant than the parents, why bother? Wikipedia is (or at least aspires to be) an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Does any other encyclopedia automatically list grandparents, just because someone, somewhere, may want that particular piece of trivia. What, exactly, of value do you learn when an article about an obscure English gentry-woman who probably doesn't merit a page of her own but has one anyhow, and is daughter of two people who are also historically insignificant also provide four more insignificant names? If the grandparents are just being named because everyone has grandparents, then there is no point in that either. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles, some of which were created by David and myself, have been used by genealogical websites, which indicates that people do find such trivial information useful. It is customary here to obtain consensus before removing people's work.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information, included simply because someone somewhere might find it useful. Wikipedia has a purpose, and it isn't genealogy. (In fact, they specifically created WikiPeople for just such information because it didn't belong in Wikipedia.) As to the 'genealogists cite my pages' argument, it doesn't wash. Genealogists cite the Encyclopedia Britannica, which doesn't name the irrelevant grandparents of anyone. Likewise, I have seen genealogists unknowingly cite fiction books and fantasy web pages, so 'what some internet genealogist decides to cite' is perhaps not the best indication of what is appropriate in an encyclopedia. As to it being 'customary here', it is customary to discuss all 'major changes' to stable pages, but it is sometimes hard to tell what is going to be perceived as 'major'. Removing one sentence in a long article certainly can hardy be rightly called major by any reasonable criteria, and yet for the most part that is all I did this morning. "How dare you remove even one sentence of my text without asking first" sounds a bit too much like a claim to ownership. Likewise, a page that has been recently created or expanded with questionable (either in terms of relevance or accuracy) material is just as likely to be reverted or significantly altered without any discussion, as what had been placed there did not represent consensus in the first place, but just one particular editor's opinion inserted without consensus. Agricolae (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me weigh in and say that I agree entirely with Agricolae. This project is not for genealogy hobbyists. And it is not at all customary to obtain consensus before making an edit. The custom is to be bold. Besides, it cuts both ways. Where was the consensus obtained to add such genealogical cruft? Srnec (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
How dare you denigrate me and all the work (over 28,000 edits) that I have done by labeling me a genealogy hobbyist and say that I do not belong on this project. I am glad to see such comradeship between you and Agricolae, but do not class me as merely a genealogy hobbyist to show solidarity with Agricolae.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Where exactly did I call you a genealogy hobbyist? Where did I say this project is not for you? I didn't say either, although both may be true. (If you have any more to say directly to me, take it to my talk page.) Srnec (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I got most of the dates from [http:/ article]. The Breton article of Fulk II Gerberge is called Gerberga van Maine (913-952), dochter van Rothbold II van Arles. The Catalonian article mention Ratburnus I de Vienne as Gerberga's father. The portugese article of Fulk II says Gerberga's father was Herveu dII states his second wife was Roscille Bleaz. In the Dutch article of Fulk a Bretanha, a conde of Maine (Count of Maine) //] and the erasing of the name of Roscille of Blois; it is mentioned in the French article of Fulk II that his second wife was Roscille de Blois and she has an [http:/and her birth year as 915. The French article of Fulk II says Gerberga was the daughter of Ratburn Ier, vicomte de Vienne. If you have nothing against this I would have to reverted your edits. Ok the dates before Gerberge seems questionable but after that it seems right. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh God! There is no need for you to undo Elizabeth II's Spy's hard work! Myself and Jeanne have created over 100 articles and we are probably to valuable users as well as Elizabeth II's Little Spy. By the way I've found a reference to support Elizabeth the Cuman's mother, do you do anything else besides undo everyone else's hard work!?--David (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

David, there is no need to invoke a deity. As to hard work, your effort is laudable, but all I care about is the outcome. If your 'hard work' produced nonsense or led to the incorporation of wild guesses and unfounded speculation and I see it, I am going to take it out. If your hard work led to choppy sentences that destroy the flow of the paragraph and I have the time, I will rewrite it. If you hard work led to a loss of focus that buries the important points of someone's biography under a pile of irrelevant genealogy or feel-good platitudes, I will take it out. If you have created a page for an insignificant non-notable person, and I have the time, I will nominate the page for deletion. You may have spent months, days, hours, or minutes producing the material, and I won't know, just whether it is worthy to be left alone (clearly written, appropriately focussed, reliable and noteworthy), or needs to be modified or removed.
You need to step back, take a deep breath and recognize a few of things. First, this isn't personal. I usually don't even look whose nonsense I am removing or rephrasing. Second, you don't own any articles. If you are so wed to the precise outcome of your work that you react so indignantly to alterations, a collaboratively edited format may not be best for you. Set up your own web page where you don't have to worry about other editors disagreeing. Third, I am as frustrated with the way you are screwing up pages as you are with me for fixing them - we are both trying to improve Wikipedia, just coming at it from different perspectives, and I am as unlikely to respond to this type of comment as you would be were I to ask you if you do anything but compose silliness and irrelevancies.
As to your new reference for the Kuman connection, if you mean the one you mentioned on Jeanne's Talk page, it is just the work of some genealogical hobbyist, and in no sense reliable. The man that it makes into Koten's father-in-law is elsewhere given as his son-in-law. Unless he married his own granddaughter, there is a serious issue here that needs to be resolved, not ignored. If you mean some other reference, I will have to see it before I can evaluate it. Agricolae (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Angevin consorts[edit]

I got most of the dates from [1] and the erasing of the name of Roscille of Blois; it is mentioned in the French article of Fulk II that his second wife was Roscille de Blois and she has an [http:/ article]. The Breton article of Fulk II states his second wife was Roscille Bleaz. In the Dutch article of Fulk II, Gerberge is called Gerberga van Maine (913-952), dochter van Rothbold II van Arles. The Catalonian article mention Ratburnus I de Vienne as Gerberga's father. The portugese article of Fulk II says Gerberga's father was Herveu da Bretanha, a conde of Maine (Count of Maine), and her birth year as 915. The French article of Fulk II says Gerberga was the daughter of Ratburn Ier, vicomte de Vienne. If you have nothing against this I would have to reverted your edits. Ok the dates before Gerberge seems questionable but after that it seems right. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Same for the List of Breton consorts.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't you see the problem? Gerberga of Maine, daughter of Ratburn of Vienne? Maine and Vienne are completely different places, and were never held by the same people. These are two contradictory solutions to the question of Gerberga's parentage, that have been crossed over and slammed together. That her name is Gerberga is documented. Her parentage is a guess, or rather numerous guesses, and there is no reason to pick one over another, let alone pick one solution for Gerberga's toponym, then pick a different one for her father, and there is no space on the table for the detailed discussion of the issue.
The web site used for dates either made them up or copied them from someone who did. It is not a reliable source. As I said, there are no sources that enable birthdates to be determined during this period, except for extremely rare occasions (even with the children of kings we don't know birthdates). Here is the thing - genealogists hate to not know these things, and some of them hate it so much that they just make a wild guess. Such guesses are not reliable.
Finally, 'Roscille de Blois'. There is not a single reliable source that names her. All the record that comes down to us says is that Fulk married the widow of Alan, who was daughter of Thibault. The name Roscille is completely unknown in the house of Blois. It looks to me like someone has gotten things confused. Alan married first, Roscille of Anjou (named for her mother, the wife of Fulk I). He married second the daughter of Thibault of Blois. Unaware of the two, someone has given the name of the first to the unnamed second.
What appears in other Wikis is not necessarily the best indicator of what should be in this one. There is so much copying, one from another (just as you have suggested we do here) that anything that has appeared in any of them, right or wrong, is likely to be spread all over. A while back, there was something that had been copied out of the pt version that made someone his own great-grandfather, yet it kept getting reverted back in because "well that's what the pt Wiki says". Another wiki is not a reliable source. If you have a reliable (published, peer reviewed) source that the daughter of Thibault really was named Roscille, then go ahead and put it back, but if you are just basing it on a web page, it simply isn't trustworthy. Agricolae (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not even proven that Elisabeth the Cuman was daughter of Koten. Koten is something hobbyists usually present, but the contemporary source about where Elisabeth came, indicaes that her father was a successor of Koten, not Koten himself. (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Message received[edit]

I have received your message regarding the Alianore de Lovayne article which you have proposed for deletion. I have offered my comment on the appropriate page. I am just writing here to let you know that whatever decision is made, I realise you are acting in good faith, and I bear no hard feelings towards you. Naturally, I do not agree with your deletion proposal, however it's the nature of Wikipedia that whilst we may not always be in agreement with one another at least we can strive for compromise and harmony. Thank you for reading this message.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Psst, Alianore de Lovayne has no deletion tag. Fences&Windows 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So much for the automated process. Agricolae (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Let's try and put all of this behind us. The Dukes of Aquitaine family tree had some interesting information [2]. It says that Agnes' mother was this Anne of Perigord. It also says that Beatrice, Alfonso VI's fourth wife was Agnes' half sister, being full sister to Agnes, Queen of Navarre and Aragon--David (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care what The Dukes of Aquitaine family tree says. The contemporary documentation explicitly states that Agnes, wife of Alfonso VI, was daughter of William and Mateoda (i.e. Matilda). This is completely unambiguous. The Tree provides no evidence for its alternative, and there is no evidence that would support it. The Tree needs to be fixed, not copied. Agricolae (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

re:Edit summary query at Pedro Alfonso[edit]

I generally only put in that genealogical information which will not be found elsewhere. Since Estefanía Sánchez is unlikely to have her own page, it is necessary to explain who she was (and anything she did, for that matter) at the page of her husband or her son or her father or whatever. Since a figure that is unlikely to have a page of their own is someone about whom there is little to say, I see no real harm in putting the little to be said on the page of another. I would not do this even if the information did not exist at Wikipedia anywhere, as long as I thought an article could be created. In this case, I would just have left her as a red link and her paternity would eventually have been mentioned at her article. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Urraca as Queen of Spain[edit]

Hello Agricolae! I'm glad that you read the beginning of the artical, hopefully the meat and bones of it will soon be fleshed out. I look forward to your eyes and contrabutions if you are so inclined!

As for the title Queen of Spain, according to author and professor Benard F Reilly, Urraca did indeed sign some of her documents as Queen of Spain, and her son Alfonso VII signed a document or two as King of Spain, too.

As early as June 26, 1110, seperated from husband Alfonso I of Aragon (their marriage was effectively annuled in 1111), and in her own constitutional authority as heiress of her father and the Leonese tradition as the Imperial heirs), Urraca issued a charter to the "very important Riojan noble Diego Lopez" and signed the document as Ispanie regina, that is Queen of Spain.(The Kingdom fo Leon-Castilla under Queen Urraca Chapter II). According to Reilly, the appearence of Queen of Spain was for all purposes equal to and synonymous with that of the imperial title but without the excessive masculine connotations appearent with "Imperator totius Hispaniae", (Chapter III: the imperial title had a masculine connotation [more so then the royal dignity] that Urraca naturally lacked) and Urraca more often then not chose Queen of Spain, "envoking the imperial title". Though addmittedly she used the title more sparingly then Alfonso I of Aragon, who seemed to continue to use the title after his annulment with Urraca (much like a spouse sometimes keeps the title or name of their spouse after divorce). And clearly, he ruled a far smaller domain then did Urraca.

As for Alfonso VII, he claimed the imperial title and signed his title as hispanie rex on September 11, 1125 chater confirmed by the Archbishop of Toledo and the bishops of Palencia, Leon, and Asorga.

And for a time, all three where envoking the Imperial title at the same time! ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an important distinction to be made between title and style. For example, Sancho el Mayor calls himself King in Castile. Likewise Edward III of England called himself King of France. In neither case do we follow their whim. There was no such thing as a Kingdom of Spain at this time, and my concern is that the use of the title is more likely to mislead than illuminate the situation. In reality, there was no Spain of which anyone could be Queen from the Muslim invasion to the time of Juanna la Loca. The Imperial title was just a style not corresponding to any actual entity, adopted by the whim of whichever monarch had the temerity to claim it. Some of them had themselves crowned, but not by only by their own authority, while most just chose to call themselves that. If it is that entity to which we refer, I would prefer we call her Empress. Again, the actual style she used is less important than that she was apparently claiming the same role as the so-called 'Emperors'. However, I have my doubts as to the propriety of using it as a title at all, and not just a style. Agricolae (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • nod* I see your point and do indeed understand the difference between title and style. And of corse monarch's make claims to titles and styles that they may not have any hope of actually excercising any real influence over (King of Jerusalem, for instance, by Juan Carlos). There was a notional understanding of a common origionator... the Visigothic kingdom, for which the rulers of Leon (as heirs to one of the last independent Visigothic successor state) sporatically claimed. Urraca claimed this title and style in her capacity as heiress of her father. Weather we use the style/title of Empress or Queen of Spain is not as important to me either (I understand the difference), though I think as we have a reliable creditable source we should use the title and style the professor uses in the text. Also, I do not think we should sell the readership short and think that the readership would confuse the title "Queen of Spain", used as a 12th century synonym for "Imperator totius Hispaniae", with the modern title "Queen of Spain". A simple notation could clarify the issue, no?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
" ... I would prefer we call her Empress" Done! I refer to her as "Empress of Spain" as analogous to that of Queen of Spain in which Urraca clearly adopted to envoke the Imperial title. I hope this strikes the right balance between our joint understandings of the title and style. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fulbert of Falaise[edit]

I note that my alterations to correct the historical inaccuracies in the article on Fulbert of Failise were then deleted by Agricolae.

No, they were reverted by Agricolae, and with good reason.

Agricolae uses just one source for his posting, and is not prepared to consider alternative contrary sources. However, I note that the information he is posting is changing.

Please learn to use the article History tab, so that you don't attribute to one editor the work of others.

I would ask Agricolae on what date he now asserts Fulbert was appointed Chamberlain? He now asserts it was after William's birth. Please provide contempory 11th century references. Good luck, as there are none. Please stop asserting assumptions as fact.

It is not the business of an editor to assert anything, and Agricolae has made no such assertion.

The sole source for the allegation that Fulbert was a tanner comes from the incident at Alencon. There is no contemporary historical source. The article as proposed by Agricolae has no substance in fact. It also does not reflect the realities of 11th century society. How would the Duke of Normandy have come into contact with the daughter of a tanner etc? He would never see them. He would likely see the daughter of his Chamberlain. The POD definition of 'Chamberlain' is 'an officer managing a royal or noble household'. Yes, such an official would in the event of a death of one of the noble family that he served send a messenger to the undertaker. His duties did not include those of 'being one of the persons reesponsible for burials' as proposed by Agricolae, or an embalmer or undertaker as proposed in previous versions.

Again, Agricolae proposed nothing. As to how a duke would have come into contact with a daughter of a tanner, well, I think we know exactly how he had to have come into contact with her in order to produce a child. As to how they might have met, that is not really any of our business, which is simply to report that this is what has been proposed by many historians. As to the role of a chamberlain, take that up with Lanfranc and van Houts.

Agricolae deleting postings with a contrary view does not make his version of history correct.

We are editors. We don't get to have a version of history - we leave that to the historians.

His deletion refers "Montgomery is not WP:RS; Crouch is just following van Houts study, already cited". Firstly, given the difference in interpretation I would query the comment regarding David Crouch. Regarding his dismissal of Hugh Montgomery, I would ask what reference works Agricolae has had published in print on the subject that he presumes to so summarily reject the contents of a published reference work?

Again, you mistake our role as editors - it does not require that we are published authors. As to Hugh Montgomery, well, an audiologist and expert in contract law who writes about the descendants of Jesus and rearranges historical sources to suit his mystical tale is not a reliable source. In the specific case in question, he attributes the 'tanner' version to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which says nothing of the sort: a good illustration of his value as a historian.

We are dealing with entries in an encyclopedia. It is supposed to contain facts. Not suppositions or assumptions.

Actually, it is supposed to contain a balanced summary of the scholarly consensus. (It is not supposed to contain unreliable fringe material like Montgomery.)

I note from viewing his 'Talk' page that Agricolae apparently has a penchant for simply changing articles by deleting submissions on a number of issues to fit in with his views with no effort to present a balanced view of the contrary posting.

You might get that impression from reading this page, but that is because every time someone's unsupportable pet theory or gets removed, they whine here, and the responses, until recently, have been elsewhere.

He can keep changing the article. I'll keep changing it back. One of us knows what he's talking about and the other doesn't.

Well, that may well be the case, but is irrelevant. It is not about you or Agricolae. It is about van Houts and Douglas and Freeman and Crouch. As to the threat to keep reverting the article because only you know what you are talking about, that is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Ian Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian C Brown (talkcontribs) 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, please sign your contributions to talk pages. Agricolae (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your nomination to delete Katherine Stanley:[edit]

I admit that she is a minor historical character, but she was the last person I could find any biography in the bloodline that links the medieval English king Edward I, to Barack Obama. I added a list of people that forms the bloodline. I tried putting this in the family of Barack Obama, but I got a lot of comments about Wikipedia not being an encyclopedia of geneology.Pacomartin (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't make her noteworthy. Bloodlines are just trivia unless there is some social/political context that makes it relevant. By the way, please add comments to the end, where I have moved this. Agricolae (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

de Clare[edit]

I am no expert on coats of arms, but it seems you have alot of knowledge in that area. When you do think the "de Clare" family started to use the coat of arms usually associated with them? I would like to study your sources, if possible. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, they can be shown to be using arms in the generation of Gilbert, Earl of Pembroke, but he didn't use the arms used by the later families. (And this is a very early adoption, his being one of the earliest documented coats of arms in all of Europe, so there is little chance they were used in an earlier generation.) As can be seen by his seal, he used a coat which is thought to have six chevrons (colors unknown: I would presume it to be red and gold, like the later three-chevron version, however, it would be original research to supply the colors). His son Strongbow used a three-chevron coat, but I don't know the colors (may be known, I just don't know). Rohese, niece of Gilbert, used a seal with six chevrons, suggesting that her father, too, used the same arms as his brother the Earl of Pembroke, but again, such a deduction represents original research. Gilbert Fitz Richard, Earl of Hertford, nephew of Pembroke, used a seal with the three chevrons which can be safely presumed to have had the same tinctures as later, and used it at the same time his uncle was using the six-chevron coat. The take-home message is that the earliest documented arms are in the generation of Gilbert Fitz Gilbert and probably started out as a chevrony coat, that was subsequently simplified, first to 6 chevrons, and then in the next generation, on both branches of the family, to three, while another branch flattened the middle chevron to give them a fess between two chevrons. Unfortunately, there is a long-standing pattern of older antiquarians and recent genealogists of extending the use of arms (and for that matter the holding of titles such as the Earldom of Hertford) back in time one or more generations, so care is required in following secondary sources not based on historical material. For the earliest generations, see Round's discussion in the reference I have given for the image of the seal of Gilbert of Pembroke. ( Agricolae (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is very interesting! I think I have put the coat of arms on pages where it did not belong. Anyway, as to this, I will copy and paste on my talk page to memorialize. I always thought that the coat of arms tradition was almost ancient in families, used in the Crusades, used in tournaments, etc. Certainly they were used in abundance during William Marshal's time as described by the writer of his biography. Alot to think about. THANK YOU and Happy Holidays! Mugginsx (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Your source is a fascinating read. I have downloaded it. Thank you again. Have you read the english translation of William Marshal First earl of Pembroke, from the Anglo-Norman Text Society? Perhaps it is not one of your interests but, as you probably know, it was written shortly after William's death by a close friend, perhaps the man who is said to be his long-time squire John or (Jean) d'Erley. Anyway, Happy Holidays. Mugginsx (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke[edit]

Since you have corrected many pages on medieval articles, would you please look at this on Richard de Clare, 2nd earl of Pembroke? The first paragraph states: Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, Lord of Leinster, Justiciar of Ireland (1130 – 20 April 1176), known as Strongbow, was a Cambro-Norman lord notable for his leading role in the Norman invasion of Ireland. Since the Normal Invasion was in 1066 - this is impossible, surely they mean his father? I am not an expert on the Clare family that you seem to be, although I am studying them. Anyway, if you know, would you correct this paragraph, or tell me what it needs to make it correct, if possible. Thanks for any help you are willing to give. Mugginsx (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing two different events. The Norman invasion of England was in 1066. The Norman invasion of Ireland happened during the reign of Henry II. Agricolae (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, as always. I follow your posts and your scholarly work. Reinserted the text. Mugginsx (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Geoffroi de Charny[edit]

I have been working on this article, there was practically nothing there, except an introductory paragraph. A dispute sign over a relationship between him and the Knights Templar of similar name (supposed uncle) which could not, at the time of the controversy in this article (and probably never can) be proven. Also, previous attempts to add Shroud of Turin information which also caused controversy were removed, and probably should stay out since they seemed to have be poorly referenced and, again, probably unprovable. All that remained was the statement concerning the well-known one-time recorded ownership of it in the Charny family. If there is a shield available, and I am sure there is somewhere because I have seen it and it is also described by Froissart, would you insert it into this article? Could not begin to know how to do it myself, and rotator cuff surgery a few days ago has left me typing with one hand. Would you response to me please either way? Thank you.Mugginsx (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I have no doubt that you will be able to add scholarly information to this article. I obtained some from the

Bibliothèque nationale de France, but ran into the middle french to modern french translation problem. Mugginsx (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for corrections[edit]

Thanks for the corrections for the Emperor's of Spain article. That colum is supposed to be for the dates that they claimed the imperial title, but the text was not clear (in their respective articles) for when they did start to use those titles. Thanks again!

David ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

de Clare[edit]

There is currently a discussion as to the coat of arms and when it began to be used in the de Clare family. Since you are well versed in the subject, perhaps you would like to participate. Mugginsx (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, as always your answers are scholarly. You are a walking encyclopedia on things medieval! I will use the terminology you suggested. Mugginsx (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking, do you think the section needs more information such as you gave? Perhaps you would like to add to it?Mugginsx (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
My reaction would be that an article about the family should be about the family, not about the coat of arms. I think this is much ado about a mundane detail, and the kind of thing that leads to there being more on Wikipedia about the most insignificant details of Hogwarts Academy than there are about major topics in Western philosophical thought and leads to many articles become so bloated with minutia (like the biographical articles that insist on naming the maternal grandmother and how she descended via eight intervening generations from the Earl of Duque, and how he married the daughter of a Duke of Earl, who married the daughter of an illegitimate grandson of the king) that the central focus is lost (as happened in this sentence). Of all of the things that can be said about the Clares, I find the precise timing of them moving from a 6-chevron coat to a 3-chevron coat among the least interesting. Agricolae (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Understood, and quite true. Mugginsx (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
One more remark, I laughed for hours over your remark about the pig!Mugginsx (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

de Clare, once again[edit]

I know you hate disputes over what you consider minor issues, and if that be so in this case I will understand, but before you decide, would you give a quick review of the de Clare talk page which will show you the trouble I have been having trying to keep the article according to Wiki standards. Tamfang decided to come in with no research done and rephrase the article without any regard as to whether what was said was true or within or wihout a reference. H/her comments on the de Clare Talk page range from the rude to the bizarre. Marmaduke has encouraged her because he always does in any matter I am involved in going back to the earl of clare. At one point Dr. Matthews (editor Charles Matthews) intervened and warned Tamfang twice both on the de Clare talk page and on h/her own talk page. Dr. Matthews put the article back in order and again issued warnings to Tamfang. Now, after he has gone, it has started again in the section Coat of Arms. I have tried to put it in your words and that of Tewkesbury Archives e-mail received, (doing the further research recommended by Dr. Matthews). They keep reverting it. If you would re-word it in whatever way you chose, I know it will correct and not be reverted. I just cannot stand to see words that Tamfang uses such as "either one or another Gilbert", etc., (like h/she doesn't even know there were more than 2). Any help would be appreciated. A quick look at the de Clare Talk page (and h/hers) tells it all. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, it was your knowledge that carried the day. And the pig was never named in the article! Your the best! Mugginsx (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongbow Seal[edit]

Here is a website with a description of the seal. Perhaps the seal picture is contained therein. [3] It mentiones the seal is affixed in a charter in the possession of the Earl of Ormonde. This is another Irish website. [4] Though Strongbow's shield is only shown here, perhaps someone there might know where to find his seal? Mugginsx (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The seal description given in my first reference to you sounds similar to that given in your reference [5] and about 15 right clicks after that (page stills says 48). I gave the information to Marmaduke who put it on de Clare website but it's as good as it gets and without NASA or Dead Sea Scrolls enhancement technology, I do not know how you could get a clearer picture. I thought though, and this is just an impression I have, that each generation, and each earl, had his own seal, similar perhaps, but not identical. You can not clearly see a long coat on the aforementioned seal but the conical helmet is visable and he is mounted on a horse. Still, the first source I gave you, [6] is describing the seal in much more detail and must have seen a picture of it somewhere. You have helped me so much and educated me with your answers and research, Hope this helps even a little. Mugginsx (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I recognize the description in the Strongbows Seal page. It is his father Gilbert's seal - the one already pictured on Gilbert's page. Several possibilities: seals were costly, and families tended to pass them down, so Strongbow, early in life, could have been using his father's (until he was able to have one of his own inscribed - after all, the description says that only the word "Gilberti" survives, so to whom does this belong anyhow?); he could have simply had his father's re-made or reinscribed; or the nun who wrote the work may have been misinformed and it may actually be a charter of Gilbert himself. One way or another, I am hesitant to draw any conclusion based on this description as to which arms Strongbow used. Round, in the article I cited, makes a definitive claim on p. 46 that Richard Fitz Gilbert (called just Gilbert by accident) used a 3-chevron coat. I wish I knew his basis for this, but I didn't see it made explicit. Agricolae (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand and admire that your standards are high. Personally, I am just thankful that not too many people in the USA here are named Gilbert. I think if I ever met one I would probably do something stupid like laugh out loud and unintentionally insult the poor unsuspecting person. The Ireland Library source, [7] does state: An impression on green wax of his seal still exists, pendent from a charter in the possession of the Earl of Ormonde. Now I tried to look at the peerage page to find a likely living heir, but, again as an American, I got totally lost. Seems to be a viscount but that is still disputed. Also would a viscount have the charter with the seal impression on it. I am afraid that is far beyond my knowledge, but there are so many peerage pages, and family sites on the internet, a search and an e-mail might produce an image. Anyway, good luck. If I come across anything, I will surely let you know. Mugginsx (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Received this reply to a recent e-mail to National Library of Ireland. Flag this message RE: Gilbert de Clare (Strongbow)Monday, March 15, 2010 5:45 AM From: "herald" <>Add sender to Contacts To: Thank you for your e-mail enquiry to the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland. It might be of some assistance to you to know that the Ormond family papers are held in the Department of Manuscripts in the National Library of Ireland. This cumbersome web address will bring you to the page of the NLI’s website from which you can download the collection list should you wish to browse it: The contact finder on the website will also give you contact information for members of staff in the Department of Manuscripts should you need further information or advice. Yours sincerely, Katy Lumsden Chief Herald Painter Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland 2 Kildare Street Dublin 2 Ireland. Ph +353 (0)1 603 0310 Fax +353 (0)1 662 1062 E-mail Web (My experience working in college libraries, as well as law libraries is that this "collections" need careful scrutiny, probably "hands on" help from the above mentioned members of the staff in the Manuscripts department physically looking at particular sections. The reason being is that these papers are. in fact, "clumped" together in sections, rather than as neatly described.) I will be happy to pursue but think you would do better yourself since you are able to describe more articulately what you are looking for?) Mugginsx (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Have subsequently received two more e-mails, both telling me they are referring the request to the manuscript dept. (address listed above). If it is anywhere to scrutinize either orignal, or more likely fascimile of some kind, it is there. Mugginsx (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ponce de Minerva[edit]

Inscription reads "Poncius comes"

I think this is a portrayal of Ponce de Cabrera. First, if the Privilegium was issued by Alfonso VII, then Ponce de Minerva was not a count at the time. He was raised to that rank by Ferdinand II. What I don't know is that this drawing is part of the original. For all I know, Ponce de Minerva was present when it was issued, as he was Alfonso's alférez, and that this elaborate version of the Privilegium is a copy made in the chancery of Ferdinand while Ponce was a count and the majordomo and so his importance in the miniature is an anachronism. But I do notice that the device on the shield looks like a goat (cabra), which was picked up by the Cabrera at least in the next generation. —Srnec (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right, at least enough to raise sufficient doubt. I was going by the host-museum description that called him simply majordomo, and the description of him as count in the inscription didn't sink in. I had also noticed the heraldry, but thought it was a cow. A goat, though, makes perfect sense as a canting arms (cabra - Cabrera). I will try to clean up the mess when I have the time. Agricolae (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Royal male consorts in Portugal[edit]

Hello! You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal male consorts in Portugal. Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

England and Charlemagne[edit]

Didn't mean to upset you, I was just wondering about England's relationship with Charlemagne, seeing that he never conquered the place. But from whom is William I descended from, who is also descended from Charlemagne? I can't locate a reference. As for the Capets, I am aware that there was some suspicion, but I am sure there is some relation. Although the Caroliginians tried and failed to prove relations to Pharamond, Merovich, Childeric and Clovis.--Blood3 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

William's line runs through his Breton paternal grandmother. Her mother was Anjevin, and hers from the Carolingian-descended Vermandois. The Capetian descent is problematic, because the same arguments that would be used to suggest they probably had such a line would likewise give them a good reason to invent one if they didn't. The most common one shown, Robert I marrying a Vermandois, is probably a misunderstanding/distortion of Heribert II marrying Robert's daughter. The descent to Henry of Germany, and hence to the wife of Hugh Magnus, has potential, but has only recently been proposed and hasn't been fully vetted. The marriage of Hugh Capet to the Aquitaine bride would definitely give a Carolingian descent, but at least one historian has concluded that it is without solid foundation, and perhaps invented just for this reason. As to Constance of Provence, wife of Robert II, there may be a Carolingian descent back there, but I have not looked into it. And this pretty much makes clear the problem of commenting on Carolingian descent. It seems pretty likely that some of the descents we think existed actually didn't, while people for whom we don't know of a descent may have, and it all requires so much discussion to give a fair accounting that it would give undue weight to this genealogical trivia. Agricolae (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Earls of Mercia[edit]

Leofric and his successors were Earls, not Ealdormen. You should also put a box round Wulfric Spot and Eadric Streona to indicate they were not related to anyone else.

Leofwine was Ealdorman of the Hwicce only (from before 997), so his name should not be in bold on the family tree. All sources state that his son Leofric was appointed Earl of Mercia in 1017 (while his father was still alive). You also have Ealhhelm as Ealdorman of "central Mercia" - not only was there no such division, he was, in fact, Ealdorman of the Hwicce, like Leofwine later. ðarkuncoll 08:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't just make it up. The Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain (1991), disagrees with you. I will stick with Ann Williams and Alf Smyth. Agricolae (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Please quote the passage where it describes Leofwine as Ealdorman of Mercia. ðarkuncoll 11:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Umm, that would be in his own entry. "In 1017, . . . Leofwine himself was promoted by Cnut to be ealdorman of Mercia in succession to the murdered Eadric Streona." Agricolae (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
How reliable is that dictionary? ðarkuncoll 11:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's break it down. Given their relative expertise, Kirby would have done the pre-Viking entries, Smyth the Viking and Scottish entries, Williams those for England, and I don't know for Wales. Thus, this is likely the work of Ann Williams. She is among a handful of scholars most qualified to compile such an entry. Agricolae (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Countess of Ribagorza[edit]

"Sancius…rex Aragonensium" granted privileges to the monastery of San Pedro de Siresa by charter dated 4 Sep 1082, the dating clause of which refers to "regnante rege Sancio cum uxore sua Felicia et filio suo Petro in Aragone et in Pamplona et in Superarbi sive in Ripacorza…domno Garsia fratre regis episcopo in Iaca…domno Sancio Ranimiri comite in Ripacorza, domna Sancia comitissa atque sorore regis presidente in Siresia…Raimundo Beringerii et Beringerii Raimundi fratribus comitibus in Barcelona"(113). That is the source for Felicia of Roucy and Isabella of Urgel, so if Ribagorza was not already absorbed into the crown of Aragon in Sancho's reign why did it disappeared after that, plus Ribagorza was a Catalan county and a fief of France and can't be absorbed into the Crown of Aragon (I'm sure on this but I have only seen counties absorbed into a crown if it was that crown that created it). Also have you taken a look at County of Ribagorza. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You had best reread that quote. It says that king Sancho, was ruling, along with his wife Felicia and son Peter, in Aragon, Pamplona, Sobrarbe and Ribagorza. Contrary to your premise, it means precisely that it had been 'absorbed' into a single so-called 'Kingdom of Aragon, Pamplona, Sobrarbe and Ribagorza'. While we can't ask him, I would bet that Sancho didn't think he was separately king of these four places, but rather singly king of an entity encompassing all of them. It certainly doesn't make him count of any of them. Further, the same quote does anything but support your claim for Felicia - that person that it calls "Count in Ribagorza" is Felicia's brother-in-law, not her husband. (And I don't see where this says anything about Isabella of Urgel.) Anyhow, it wasn't WP:OR I was asking for, but some historian or scholar (a WP:RS) that names Felicia as Countess Consort of Ribagorza (or name anyone by that title, for that matter). The Medieval Lands entry you cite calls neither Sancho count nor Felicia countess consort.
As to rules, there weren't any. They are all modern constructs to explain the make-it-up-as-you-go-along nature of medieval reality, such as the non-title used by Sancho Ramirez before he gained the Pamplona crown - "I, Sancho, son of king Ramiro, by the Grace of God, in Aragon". You tell me what title he is using and how you fit that into one of these pretty little tables. There is nothing to stop a Frankish county from becoming part of the Crown of Aragon. Aragon itself was a Frankish county until it was made subservient to Navarre, then absorbed by Navarre, then made a fiefdom that became de facto independent, then merged with Navarre, then donated to the Knights Hospitlar, then independent, but soon merged with Barcelona (itself once a Frankish county) into the Crown of Aragon and finally into the Kingdom of Spain. What rule is that following? You just can't declare today that there were hard and fast rules about what could and could not be done back then. It was all ad hoc.
The title of Count of Ribagorza effectively went out of existence when Sancho el Mayor conquered it from the Moors and brushed aside the remaining claimants. Gonzalo briefly held Sobrarbe and Ribagorza as a 'regulus', whatever that is in this context, before it was merged with Ramiro's holdings in Aragon, and he never used the title count nor king. On at least three later occasions, some form of the county was then given to the odd younger son, each time reverting again to the kingdom or Crown of Aragon. That doesn't make every king in between a count by default, in spite of what the County of Ribagorza page may say. You are going a step further. You might as well call Anne Boleyn the Lady of Richmond because she was married to someone who, along with an entire kingdom, also could be said by an overzealous editor to be the rightful Earl of Richmond by descent. This is editorial original research and listcruft run amok. Agricolae (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Not that this is directly relevant to the above but I might as well put my cards on the table. I don't think any of this body of work on consorts of anybody with a title belong in succession boxes, because the fact that someone happens to be married to someone else is hardly grounds for distinction. In many cases, there was no such thing as succession - the successor to many a dead consort was nobody, as a period of widowerhood followed, or a regency for an unmarried child. Likewise, the criteria has nothing to do with usage either at the time or by subsequent historians but is an invention of Wikipedians, smacking of soap-box revisionism. This practice, perhaps intentionally, blurs an important distinction between succeeding to an actual title (rather than a modern construct) and just getting married. It represents a loss of perspective to make it more important to call these women by the newly-coined pseudo-title of Countess Consort of Ribagorza, when nobody thinks it is important enough (and rightly so) to call their husbands Counts of Ribagorza - just calling them kings suffices. That being said, I am only going to object to or revert the most egregious examples, such as these. Agricolae (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay you have me convinced. I've removed most of the part about Aragonese queens being Countess of Ribagorza out of the list.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course you're right. I'd add that using the term "consort of X" rarely makes any sense. Does anybody speak of the "consorts of Aragon"?
I strongly disagree with this (I'm guessing this is Srnec talking). The article is a list of the Queen consorts of Aragon. So people do speak of the Queen consorts of Aragon; it just a shorter title than List of Queen consorts of Aragon or List of Aragonese queen consorts.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I added the list of rulers to the County of Ribagorza page, and kept the Aragonese kings in order to connect the earlier, independent counts to the later appanage counts. (In my defence, I also added the line "later absorbed into the Kingdom of Navarre, then Aragon".) Now listing the kings makes sense if the ordinals are are real, but I think I just copied them from the Spanish or Catalan Wiki. Are the numerals (like Peter IV or Alfonso VII) ever used in reliable sources or are they a fabrication of the Wikisphere, as it appears? Srnec (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about the numerals - part of the problem is that these people are rarely referred to at all, so if a reference is found it could just represent the quirky usage of that particular author. The quote above by the Queen's Little Spy does suggest that at least in the reign of Sancho Ramirez, he considered Robagorza as a fiefdom to be granted his illegitimate half-brother, not as a title that he himself was exercising (sort of like the County of Aragon after the death of Galindo Aznar II). Agricolae (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mayor García de Aza[edit]

Hi, this is what I posted on Snerc's discussion page, since I saw that you also participated in the thread. Regards,--Maragm (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We know that García García de Aza was born in 1106, as indicated in doc. 315 S. Millán when it says that on the feast of Saint Michael (29 Sept) baptizavit comes Garsia suum filium in Sancti Emiliani ecclesiam. This would mean that he could have started to have children around 1126, or earlier. Mayor García de Aza is already a widow in 1182 as shown by a diploma in that year when she accompanies her daughter Inés when she enters the Monastery of Santa María de Aza. Mayor and her husband Gonzalo founded the Mon. at Bujedo de Juarros in 1159, and both are mentioned in several charters, always Mayor and Gonzalo. Her sister María appears on 29 February 1141 in the Monastery of Arlanza when she and several family members confirm jointly with count Rodrigo González de Lara una cum consanguineis meis (…) domna Sancia Garciaz, domna Maior Garciez, domna Maria Garcíez, (…) Petro Garciez. This means that she must have been an adult in 1141. Therefore, it is highly unlikely, chronologically, that either Mayor or María would have married Fernando Núñez de Lara whose wife, Mayor González (Salvadórez) was still alive on 16 May 1231 (Oña) when, in the presence of King Fernando, together with her children Álvaro and Sancha Fernández, with the consent of their mother doña Mayor, grant the Monastery of Oña several properties in Poza, Alcocero, receiving the Abbey and several properties in Palacios de Benaver. Mayor González (Salvadórez) appears again on 15 June 1232 , with her children Álvaro, Sancha and Teresa Fernández making a donation to the Church of Santa María de Esperina of all their properties for the soul of don Fernando, the deceased husband of Mayor, and also for the soul of her son Fernando, this being her last known appearance in contemporary documentation. So, besides all the documentation, I believe the chronology here is quite important and it is unlikely that Mayor, daughter of García García de Aza, born, let’s say, around 1130 (remember her father was born in 1106), would have still been alive in 1232.--Maragm (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC) the document dated 16 May 1231, besides the donation made, they also confirm the donations, sales, etc. that had been made by count Rodrigo (Gómez - Salvadórez) and his wife countes Elvira (Ramírez) and count Gonzalo (Gómez de Manzanedo) and Rodrigo Sánchez to the monastery of Oña. This Rodrigo Sánchez, by the way, was the son of Sancho Díaz (son of Diego López III de Haro and countesss María Sánchez) and Sancha Rodríguez, daughter of count Rodrigo Gómez and Elvira Rodríguez, all members of the Salvadórez clan, forebears of the Manzanedo.--Maragm (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[edit] isn't a reliable source??? Now you've shown how little you know of these matters, and that at least some of your your edits are little more than vandalism. How can a website well organized and recognized with lots of sources and citations be unreliable? Read it before you talk! LoveActresses (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have already received several comments suggesting you educate yourself on what constitutes a WP:Reliable source. You might want to do so before you chastise others. As to what constitutes Wikipedia:Vandalism, you also seem to be ill-informed. While you are at it, a review of the WP:Notability standards, which have nothing to do with being a Marshall of this place or that, might be in order. Agricolae (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And why do you think a Marshal has no sources to make him "notable"? LoveActresses (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You have this backwards. The standard for notability is not "what makes you think an X isn't notable?". Agricolae (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You do. The standard for notability is having enough sourcing behind. My question was, do you think he doesn't have? LoveActresses (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Again with the 'What makes you think he doesn't?' question. 'Notable' is not the default. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, don't lecture me, has references to credible books that make it valuable. I know perfectly well about reliable sources, I've read it, you're the one who, with your subjective and wrongful views on it, accuse people of ignorance. Before trying to make people look bad as if we couldn't interpret things, try not to do so yourself. How can those books not be reliable? They fit perfectly the chriteria established on WP. That's why your removals are vandalism, because they destroy information needlessly. By the way, I've already seen WP on vandalism, and I'm sure everyone knows what it is: destruction. LoveActresses (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This is exasperating. READ THE WP:RS PAGE. A web page that cites books is not necessarily reliable EVEN IF THE BOOKS IT CITES MIGHT BE. Agricolae (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That's so stupid I didn't even read!... It's such a contradiction... LoveActresses (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You might think so, but here is the distinction. A hack can take reliable sources and compile them into a mess. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, so a website might not be reliable even if its sources are (despite the convenience in showing both on wikipedia for guidance, as mere reading material). But what you failed to explain is... WHY IS THIS PARTICULAR AND UNMENTIONED BY THE RULES WEBSITE UNRELIABLE? LoveActresses (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it a non-self-published, peer-reviewed source? Is it cited by scholars as reliable? Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What makes not reliable? Is it the picture of the organizer? Is it the aspect? They don't mention enough books or you assume they're not good enough? LoveActresses (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What makes you assume it is reliable, GIVEN THE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS? Agricolae (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That your standards are subjective and wikiminded, they do not represent nor assure in absolute that all these sites rejected by it are actually bad. It's just a mechanism where the just is punished with the sinner. LoveActresses (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I'VE READ, and the site doesn't match the standards to be excluded. If you want to point me which ones in your subjective interpretation of the abstract rules determin it?... LoveActresses (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to like it, but 'I will cite anything I think is kinda good' just doesn't cut it. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Under your interpretation and the ones of others, no website is good enough. They can go elsewhere with that... LoveActresses (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
With a few exceptions, at least as far as genealogy is concerned, that's about right, and with good reason. Internet genealogy is a quagmire. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You're the one who has to prove it's not reliable, not me. How can I prove it is? Well, it has letters... LoveActresses (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, a source is not reliable until proven unreliable. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it because of being published by one individual? "Public" websites too. What's the difference? If one person puts book information on-line, why is he less credible, because he puts his pic and says its his? Why is he less reliable than the individual that puts book and newspaper news on-line? LoveActresses (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses independent publication as a proxy for reliability, under the assumption that such a process entails its own review. This site is deemed not reliable because it is self-published, without external review of experts, and the compiler is not held in such esteem by the field as to merit his product being deemed trustworthy without such review. Basically, anything by anyone not recognized as an expert in their field that is self-published is considered unreliable. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What does the author need to be a respected investigator? What can he do if you keep calling him an unreliable personal websiter? LoveActresses (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, if he is English, he probably needs to be a Herald. If American, an FASG. We are not just talking about someone who has published an occasional scholarly paper, or someone who cribs together a web site from Burkes' and Debrett's. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You're basically a minor editor with little knowledge on genealogy scorning on fourteen years of work of a man!... LoveActresses (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Please, forgive me if he's "a litte" more trustworthy than you, who certainly didn't do anything for 14 years!... LoveActresses (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What I am is neither here nor there. Agricolae (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You're everywhere!... LoveActresses (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Whatever . . . Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You know what? Fine, it's a bad site, nothing I can say will move you. Either I get someone else to back me up or you'll keep erasing like a looney... Don't bother, I won't insist. LoveActresses (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, do me a favor, take a deep breath, and wait for a response. Your adding comments every three minutes is causing all kinds of edit conflicts. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

John de Lisle, 2nd Baron Lisle[edit]

   Thanks for your attention to John de Lisle, 2nd Baron Lisle. While i wanted to extend to the contributor both notice and delay until a second editor reviewed, that is accomplished and i'm fully in accord with the well summarized outcome and the second opinion that you provided. Thanks for your work, and prosperous farming!
--Jerzyt 16:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sibyl de Neufmarché[edit]

Hi Agricolae, saw you removed the arms from Sibyl de Neufmarché, Lady of Brecknock. Why do you suppose she was not entiled to the arms? Do you have any suggestion for replacement? I notice from your recent edit history that you have an interest in a similar historical period. Do you have any thoughts for improvements (I realise the intro needs a rewrite - to summarise the the article - a viewable link to Gerrallt Cymro's Journey Through Wales would be useful, and it needs a decent copy edit)? Any suggestions would be welcome. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

She was born, even married, before the earliest surviving examples of coats of arms in Medieval Europe, and the concepts that they were hereditary and could also apply to women were even later developments. Of course this didn't stop subsequent 'historians' from projecting them back in time. Agricolae (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the article on Coats of arms says that armorial bearings were first used on the battlefield to identify combatants in the mid-12th century. As Sibyl was born in 1100 and married in 1121, the arms would have been certainly anachronistic to her as well as her father. Thanks Agricolae.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


May he have been just a Clerk (position)?... In that case, and as it was mentioned before my edits, his daughter was his heiress. By the way, in my country, since way back, bastards could be heirs sometimes, specially at the lack of other children. LoveActresses (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk(position) got it's name because in medieval times it was the function of a cleric. There was no non-clerical middle-class. In England, with which this article deals, bastards could not inherit, although a father could sell/give them property, with the approval of his heir(s). Agricolae (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Too bad, then. What book is that, the one that mentions the de la Pole's? LoveActresses (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't remember, but I found the father referred to as a knight, which would not be the case for a cleric. Agricolae (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Could he have been a Clerk after widowing? LoveActresses (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Theoretically possible, but irrelevant to the question of his daughter being illegitimate.Agricolae (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir Michael McCorkell[edit]

Why have you removed that fact about Sir Michael's lineage? I agree with Western Province; it is a fascinating fact that should be there for all to see and appreciate. Perhaps Western Province was a little abrupt, but Western Province and I have kept tabs on this page for years and this proven, moreover cited, fact has been a part of the article for a long time. Dare I say it, long before you ever came across the page.

With all due respect, what gives you the right to decide whether, or whether it is not, applicable? I admit, it is somewhat romantic, but, as a regular wiki contributer, you must appreciate it is still cited! Sir Michael contributed far more to Northern Ireland than this wiki article will ever relate. Without being rude, I feel the editing of this article should be left to those that have a real understanding of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryside Alliance (talkcontribs) 20:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you failed in your attempt not to be rude, and to show all due respect. In the process, you all but claimed WP:Ownership and tried to tell me which pages, as regular wiki contributer, I should forgo editing. What gives me the right? You already said it, I am a regular wiki editor: what other criteria are there on Wikipedia for conveying the right to edit a page?
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Specifically, there are more than 100,000,000 people descended from Edward III, so why for this person is this trivial ancestral connection worth mentioning. Viewed from the other side, he is also descended from Edward I, William the Conquerer, Alfred the Great, Wifred the Hairy, Fulbert the Tanner, Kuthen of the Kumans, and Oneca, Rebel of Sanguesa, so why is this particular modern person's descent from this particular medieval person any more relevant than any of McCorkell's millions of other ancestors, or Edward III's hundred million other descendants? It is indiscriminate trivia, plain and simple.
Yes, the descent is cited, but it is cited to someone's personal genealogical web page, not a WP:RS. Anyone can put anything on a web page. Likewise, the web page cited neither specifically states that McCorkell descends from Edward III, nor even mentions Edward III or any royal ancestor of anyone named on the page. That makes its use to show a Edward III/McCorkell descent WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. It is thus your burden to support the inclusion of indiscriminate unreliable synthesis in an article, rather than trying to run off other editors. Agricolae (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Louis Ferdinand, Dauphin of France[edit]

Please give your opinion on Talk:Louis Ferdinand, Dauphin of France#Revert. I know you're really strict about what the sources say.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Godwin ancestry[edit]

The theory that the Godwins were descended from Æthelred I comes up again and again on Wikipedia. treats the theory as fact and also has Edward the Elder married to his cousin's daughter. It is used in List of monarchs of Wessex and several foreign Wikis. Godwin family tree links to several Godwin articles and also has the Æthelred descent and the Edward marriage. Can you advise how you think these should be dealt with?

I have created an article Ancestry of the Godwins which outlines historians' views, the Æthelred theory, and the very limited academic support it has. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question - I have been putting off dealing with it. I would suggest taking the tree at Godwin family tree and placing it at the end of your Ancestry of the Godwins article, appropriately explained as being the Anscombe/etc hypothesis, and modified to indicate which relationships are hypothetical - maybe I will give this a shot, as I would like it to show the actual state of things, with John of W's actual pedigree, and then the hypothetical equivalencies that would link this to the AEthelweard grouping, and then again the hypothetical connections that would link AEthelweard to AEthelred I. (but I won't be able to attack this anytime soon) Then redirect Godwin family tree to your article (in other words, do a merge of that article into yours). As to List of monarchs of Wessex, just take out the link to Wessex family tree, at least for the time being. That family tree has two problems. First, it has these hypothetical connections shown as certainties, but second, I just find it to be ugly and awkward, with lines zig-zagging all over the place and names and lines packed so tight you can't follow it very easily anyhow. The only solution is to redo it from scratch, again something I have been putting off.
Like your new article, by the way. Agricolae (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind words.

Sorry if I am being thick, but I do not understand your note on generational displacement. I do not have access to the Kelley article, but I had supposed that he argues that Wulfnoth was the son of Æthelmær the son of Æthelweard the historian, not Æthelmær the son of Æthelric, so why does he try to explain away problems with the Æthelric ancestry? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that was a bit thick was my prose. The old criticism is that if the pedigree were true, then two children of AEthelred II would be marrying two descendants of AEthelric, the first one generation down, the second 4 generations down. Hart basically rejected this as absurd on its face, that you could have such a 3 generation difference - Edward marrying his brother-in-law's great-grandniece. Kelley argues that Edward was a generation younger than his half-sister, so the three generation difference becomes two. Eadric at 40 could have married a 18-year old daughter of AEthelred, meaning the generation difference is now only 1. Edward could have married an Eadgyth a half-generation or more younger than he was, and Eadric could have been a half-generation younger than his brother AEthelmaer, completely removing the chronological problem. He was basically saying that, as ridiculous as the difference in generations appears on first glance, it is not as unlikely as it might seem.
As to why he is explaining away the AEthelric pedigree, one of the earlier authors had accepted the descend from Wulfric to AEthelmaer, and then suggested that Florence (recte John) had been confused between two AEthelmaers, and that Eadric was not brother of AEthelmaer the Stout. Kelley is simply saying that this need not be the case, that Eadric could have been brother of AEthelmaer the Stout, that the siblings shown by John of W could all be the children of AEthelweard. He suggests three possible explanations: A) that one pedigree showing Godwin son of Wulfnoth son of AEthelmaer was mistakenly or fraudulently linked into a second that showed Eadric Streona as son of AEthelric, B) there was an mistaken exchanging two names, such that the authentic pedigree originally showed Eadric, AEthelmaer and an AEthelric as sons of AEthelweard, and somewhere along the lines this was transposed as Eadric, AEthelmaer and AEthelweard as children of AEthelric, or C) that the authentic original pedigree showed the same brothers as sons of AEthel-weard, son of Ead-ric, and a mistaken contraction of these two generations resulted in them simply becoming AEthel-ric. Kelley favors explanation B. Agricolae (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes well it is complicated. I managed to understand it by making my own family tree on a bit of paper. Another way of putting it is that on any version of the theory, there is a surprisingly short but possible time between the birth of Æthelweard c 830 and his great-grandson Godwin c 893 (according to Barlow), but if this is accepted, it is quite possible that Edward could have married his brother-in-law's great-great-niece.

Kelley's theory is obviously significant from the Anscombe/Lundie Barlow theory, which just treats the Eadric connection as an error by John of W, and the article should make that clear, but I will need to look at the original articles before I can set it out with proper references. I should hopefully be able to see them at the British Library.

You suggest merging Godwin family tree into Ancestry of the Godwins, but the question is which one, the Anscombe etc one given in Frank Barlow's book, or the Kelley one. I take from what you say that you prefer the Kelley one.

Can you give me a reference for the Hart article/book you mention? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It would require a short generation time for the descent, but we are so lacking in chronological detail that we don't know the average generation time for the A-S nobility, and every date we have is a guess based on a guess of when they might become active at court. By later standards this would be on the short side, but not prohibitively so if it involved eldest-son to eldest son. At least one interpretation of the Cild byname would require the bearers to be younger sons, which makes the chronology more problematic.
As to Kelley being different from Anscombe and Barlow, not as much as it may seem. They all have the same descent to AEthelweard, and Kelley follows Barlow back to AEthelred. It only differs in terms of whether Eadric Streona is included or not, and I will have to reread the older articles to refresh my memory on them. Kelley doesn't so much say that the Streona connection is true, as he says that it is not as obviously false as has been suggested. (Kelley goes on to suggest a broader pattern of descendants of AEthelred I, also tracing Dunstan, AElfheah, AElfhere and Leofwine of Mercia from his other son, an argument I did not find very convincing, and suggests that a broad swath of the Anglo-Saxon nobility descended in the male line from the royal family.)
Which one to use? They are all pretty similar. Anscombe doesn't fill in the generations between AEthelweard and AEthelhelm while Barlow and Kelley do and with the same names, so effectively they can all be represented with the same pedigree, perhaps with a note indicating the generations Anscombe failed to name. I would prefer something that shows the pedigree fragments, and how they are hypothesized to fit together, but I don't know if I can pull it off with the pedigree format currently used.
As to the Hart reference that was a slip on my part, I meant Hunt. That being said, Cyril Hart did write a paper addressing the ancestry of Æthelstan Half-King that bears on AEthelweard's ancestry, and Kelley argues against the Hart solution and for that of Barlow. Agricolae (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have created a stub article, Æthelmær the Stout. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

García Sánchez III of Navarre[edit]

Could you please check the article referred to above. I've added some notes and references, and also erased any undocumented marriages. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, but I don't have access to any good articles on GSIII or his family. Agricolae (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry of the kings of Wessex[edit]

Thank you for your positive response and further improvements to this article. Redheylin (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought most of the changes were superficial. "Genealogy" didn't work for the name, though, as it could mean their interrelationships just as much as it could mean their ancestry. I was not troubled by a non-neutral title, because it represented the consensus of the scholarly community, but as long as the point that it is all nonsense gets across . . . . Agricolae (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
A very useful article: thanks once again. Yes, it was mainly just a copy -edit Redheylin (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Max Mosley[edit]

Hi. There has been an argument over the article on Max Mosley, son of the 6th Baronet Mosley, over something so simple as whether if we should include the name of his parents in law, or father in law, and information on his own children. They even claim he's not nobility. It's a false question, but some people, from outside lineages' issues, insists in not adding them. The discussion was brought up by User:4u1e on User talk:Konakonian, Talk:Max Mosley and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I'd thank you that you'd join with your good judgement. Konakonian (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to remind you of this pointless but paradoxally for that reason important discussion. I know you have a lot of work and you can't allways be on wikipedia, don't take this personally. I respect your work and knowledge and I'm only recalling you because of the risk of reversion of the edits that can happen at any time. In either case, I wish you good luck with any of your work. Konakonian (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


I have a doubt: was the title of Baron bestowed on Gregory Cromwell the same title his father had with the attainder removed, or was it a new title? On Baron Cromwell appears that they are two, but on it appears that Gregory was the 2nd Baron of his father's creation. Which one is right? Konakonian (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Cockayne's Complete Peerage, it appears to be a new creation. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thnaks. Konakonian (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Harold Godwinson[edit]

Is there any point in leaving the one sentence you have left undeleted in the "Legend" section ? As you say, the question is covered in the "Death" section. RGCorris (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

None whatsoever - I had intended to delete it too. Agricolae (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Two doubts[edit]

  • Should the traces between dates be – — or simply -?
  • All the edits you've made in articles about Hispanic Medieval noblity, are they based on, and if not, should articles on both wikipedias be periodically compared to make them mirror each other?

Thanks. Konakonian (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As to dashes, to be blunt, I couldn't care less. I am sure there is something in the Manual of Style, but I am more interested in content than formatting obscura.
For the Iberian stuff, no, I rarely if ever work from In a perfect world, they should be in harmony, but just making the two mirror each other is not good enough, because in some cases where they differ it is because one is based on recent scholarship and the other based on that of earlier scholars, since disproven. It is not always easy to tell which is which and the last thing we want to do is take an accurate article representing modern consensus and degrade it with bad material from an article on the other side based on 17th century mythologizing. It would take someone with true expertise, access to the appropriate reference material, the language skills in both languages, and loads of time, and people with those qualifications are rather thin on the ground. Agricolae (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a middle ground: create a version that mirrors both ancient and new views. Konakonian (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Why would you want to dilute accurate modern scholarly consensus with material that is demonstrably false, in an article in one language or the other because an editor didn't know any better? That is where that all-important expertise comes into play. Agricolae (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you caught it on your watchlist, but Konakonian was blocked as a G.-M. Cupertino sock. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

John de Sutton V[edit]

I noticed on the Talk:John de Sutton V page you were pushing for a speedy deletion. Also, the sources are NOT reliable. This is true. The one source is a personal self published source from rootsweb. The other is just listed but has no inline citations. I was researching the page for Ralph Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford. Someone quoted on that page that the children listed were from Burke's Peerage. They listed the wrong page as you will see explained on the Earl's talk page. Katherine Stafford, who is listed as Sutton's grandmother, is NOT listed under Stafford and Audley's children in Burke's Peerage, but is listed as Elizabeth, daughter of Edward, Lord Stafford on pg 504. We now have an issue -- as there are many different sources saying different things. See Talk:Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford. -- Lady Meg (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


I see you edited Wulfrida last year, so please note that I have nominated the article for deletion. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of fun things...[edit]

...have a look at the history of your user page. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi! It's been so long since we last talked.

Thank you for showing me why the page I created was so bad, and for merging it into a new page. I must say: with or without my individual kings reference, the page is a really good one, and I congratulate you.

I'm contacting you because I noticed that the page Gao Jixing is very similar to my Esla page, and I was wondering if you could help me do the same thing to the creator of this page as you did to me i.e. merge the page into a larger page on Chinese kings. It could be called 'Legendary kings of Jingnan', for example. Perhaps we could even get Drmies on board: that would be good. What do you think? I think this would be a really good project.

Get back to me!

John Gowers, mediæval historian extraordinaire! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Gowers (talkcontribs) 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is extensive material on Gao Jixing. I found several published sources that give him a page or more of coverage. He was a historical governor and monarch (not a wholly invented placeholder in a made-up pedigree), and hence merits a page of his own. The problem with the Gao Jixing page is that it fails to take advantage of this material, not that it doesn't deserve to exist. Agricolae (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could point me to those sources so I could build the page up; maybe it would be better to get some experience that way, rather than trying to create my own pages. J.Gowers (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, most of the good stuff will be in Chinese, but:

  • Xiu Ouyang, Richard L. Davis, Historical records of the five dynasties (2004)
  • Johannes L Kurz, China's Southern Tang Dynasty, 937-976 (2011)
  • Frederick W. Mote, Imperial China 900-1800 (2003)
Agricolae (talk)

Thank you! J.Gowers (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Agricolae. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 02:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

About you[edit]

I talked to my brother about you deleting my Esla page because you didn't think it was a suitable subject for a page, and he said 'That's not very nice; he was a king!' How can you not agree with that? OK - so he's only mentioned in one historical source but he was a king and probably ruled millions of people! I'm going to FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES and give you a chance to answer my argument, but I think you should agree that the Esla and Gewis pages should be restored.

Alas, there is nothing more to say.... J.Gowers (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

First, unless your brother is Simon Keynes or Cyril Hart (or even Ann Williams - who am I to judge), his opinion has no standing on Wikipedia, nor does yours. What matters is the scholarly consensus. Second, the one source that names Esla says nothing about him being a king, just "Elesa Esling, Esla Gewesing" (Elesa Esla's son, Esla Gewes' son). It is patently ridiculous to suggest that someone about whom that is the sum total of the historical record merits a page of his own as a historical figure (let alone a book). Third, it was not your Esla page. Nobody owns Wikipedia pages. Fourth, these exchanges do not seem to be very productive so don't count on further responses. Agricolae (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice. By the way, have you got any tips on how to get people to contribute to the Gewis chapter on my home page? Thanks in advance, J.Gowers (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
Try a different venue. This is not a blog and it is not a place to outsource the writing of your novel. All you will accomplish by trying to find a more effective way to misuse Wikipedia is to piss people off (again), and perhaps eventually see yourself dismissed. Agricolae (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I know when I see you name anywhere in Wikipedia to trust the information as you are knowledgeble, persistent and most of all diligent. You have taught me alot just by reading what you say. Mugginsx (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, where are your Archives, or am I blind. I go to your pages to learn things, like "not naming the pigs" I loved that remark. Seriously though, I do go to you pages for guidance in a general and sometimes specific ways Mugginsx (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. No Archive - what you see is what you get. Agricolae (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar[edit]

Good evening Agricolae! You seem to have a good knowledge about these things so could I ask you to shed some light on a couple of questions? I've been tinkering with the articles regarding Harold Godwinson and Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar. The article regarding Harold Godwinson (under Marriages and children) says he had two children by Ealdgyth, but the article on Ealdgyth (under Marriages and issue) is not so sure. Do you know if there actually is a definitive answer? Thanks Rickedmo (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have seen conflicting speculation about this, in sources of varying reliability. I have not looked closely enough to determine if there is a scholarly consensus. Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Rickedmo (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edith the Fair[edit]

And another question, if I may. In her article, Edith the Fair is variously termed "unwed consort", "common-law wife" and party to a more danico or Danish type civil handfast marriage, the implication seeming to be that her and Harold's relationship was not really considered a proper marriage in some way. Is life 900 years ago being viewed through 21st century eyes? Harold and Edith were together for 20 years and they had six children, none of which were considered illegitimate by the attitudes of the time. Did 11th century society consider them properly and fully married? It may well be that the church did not recognise the marriage but was that significant at the time?

Also, Harold married Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar, in January 1066, in an apparent strategic alliance. Edith the Fair was still on the scene (she is said to have recognised Harold's body at Hastings). Is that how it was in those days? What would have Harold and contemporary society have believed about this later marriage and the implications for Edith the Fair? It would be interesting to understand. The article seems to partially dismiss, or at least diminish, Edith the Fair's status. Is that the case, or are events being judged from a modern viewpoint? Thanks for any inisght you might have. Rickedmo (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, we are not entirely sure. There were a range of spousal relationships at that time, from outright concubinage to fully recognized, church-sanctioned marriages. We can see this in the marriages of Edward's father. The first 'wife' or 'wives' of AEthelred are so obscure we don't even know for certain if there was one or many, but they were never recognized as Queen and never mentioned by the Chronicle. That compares to Queen Emma, and yet all of the children were viewed as equivalent in status. The same applies to Canute, whose elder, Harold I, was son of a spouse of lesser status - high enough status to be made regent of Norway, yet not so high a status so as not to be set aside when the chance to marry Emma arose. It is hard to tell whether this is a recent (for them) cultural phenomenon or older - we see spouses of debatable status in earlier generations, Edward the Elder for example, but the failure to name AEthelred's earliest wife/wives stands out. Part of the problem is that we have no contemporary sources for Harold's 'marriages', just the writings of later Norman chroniclers, who had a more church-centered view, and also had motivation to diminish the status of Harold's children. Yes, we are viewing it with a modern viewpoint, but that is invariably the case: here, though, we are viewing with modern eyes the 12th and 13th century view through Norman eyes of the 11th century English situation. Agricolae (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - even more interesting than I thought. Rickedmo (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

More on Edith the Fair[edit]

Dear Agricolae, I've taken the liberty of adding a note about marriages of that time to Edith the Fair's article, based upon what you have written above. I'm not entirely sure about it, or whether is should actually appear on Harold Godwinson's article. I would welcome your view. If (in the extreme) you feel it should just be deleted I will not take offence at all, but on the whole, I feel it serves a useful purpose. Best regards. Rickedmo (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd feel more comfortable about this is you had an actual reliable source, rather than just repeating my off-the-cuff comment. Agricolae (talk)

I think you are right: I'll go off and see what I can find. Do you have any pointers of where to search? I think the note is sufficiently useful to leave in place but I have added the "citation required" template to it. Regards Rickedmo (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stephen2nd (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reading problem, or did you choose to ignore that part there that says ON A SINGLE PAGE? Or maybe I have lost the ability to count. It doesn't go 'one, two, more than three', does it? No, I didn't think so. So tell me, then. On which SINGLE PAGE have I reverted MORE THAN THREE TIMES. I thought not.

It is pathetic and lazy to use threats to win an argument, particularly when the grounds you use to make those threats have more to do with your inability to read properly. And no, you don't get to define edit warring as not letting you put onto a page any nonsense you want. I note, though, that you have threatened to take it to Admin if I don't stop reverting, and then you have taken it to admin without me making further edits. What kind of nonsense game are you playing? Agricolae (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology DRN thread[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Journal of Cosmology". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gulf of Sirte Front[edit]

You know, I've been watching the developments in Libya since March, checking into Wikipedia every couple of days to see what happened. It was really exciting when Tripoli fell to the rebels and when Gaddafi was killed, but these weren't what I got the most joy out of. No, it was your comment when you changed the Gulf of Sirte map to its final form: "turn the lights out". I don't know why I was so happy to see it, but maybe it was because this signals a new era in that country. Nevertheless, it made me smile. Thank you. Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

New paleo definition ?[edit]

Check Talk:Anatomically_modern_humans#def. Do you really mean AMH = PDH ? (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No. All whales are mammals, but not all mammals are whales. While 'mammals' is not a synonym for 'whales', it would be perfectly legitimate and not the least misleading to label an image of a whale as being a 'mammal'. Present-day humans represent a subset of anatomically-modern humans. Agricolae (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Great Fire of Pittsburgh[edit]

What a fine article on the Great Fire of Pittsburgh. There is not much for me to add to it, save some "See also" entries. How did you decide that the title would not be Great Pittsburgh Fire, which is the case in some other articles?

I made it class=C on the discussion page and added other projects. Perhaps that is not very generous of me, but for a new article, I am cautious. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I chose the name because that (or something similar) seemed to be the form preferred by the first secondary sources I laid my hands on. (Perhaps this is due to regional influence. My grandmother used to always call it simply 'The Great Fire' with no need to specify location, so maybe it was added to the end to not break up the typical local usage, rather than shoehorning it into the middle.) It also reflects the contemporary usage in the prints, which were Great Conflagration at Pittsburgh, rather than Great Pittsburgh Conflagration. This may give you the wrong impression that I put a whole lot of thought into it, though. Just as I was posting it I did check the first other city fire that came to mind, which happened to be Great Fire of London, so I went with it. Agricolae (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a redirect, so both ways the article is covered. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done...[edit]

Nice Vandal reference. I guess that is 99's complaint, I thought about it, and dismissed it out of hand, yet, that is the only explanation. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC) the freezer[edit]

LOL. Frustrating, ain't it? :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Great Fire of Pittsburgh[edit]

Thank you for creating this interesting article. In the future, please consider adding more categories (see my recent edit), as well as WP:RED links. Red is helpful! Please see my suggestion at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Fire of Pittsburgh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification[edit]

You have been named an interested party at a request for clarification, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cota de armas de Portugal[edit]

Na Lista de monarcas portugueses, mais uma vez, alguém anda a tentar fazer brincadeiras. Veja, por favor, a recente mudança da figura das armas reais. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Great Fire of Pittsburgh[edit]

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


Re [8]: there is no AFD. If you want to create one, feel free. If you want to remind 86/SH/AC, feel free. Please note that the page is subject to 1RR William M. Connolley (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

86* had been reminded - I wanted to give them a chance to fix it rather than having to start from scratch. Since you want to discuss this, though, how is the lack of a completed AfD justification for removing a separate POV tag? Let's all just pretend everybody loves the page, shall we? Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

About the new "Crown Prince Miguel" for Portugal[edit]

Tá bom, Agricolae?

Please, read my proposition of the article's text, in «Draft», on the discussion page. The notority of the subject are the actual affirmations done by genealogic publications, such the German that is referred, and by genealogic sites on Internet. I think the article is useful not only to demystify this particular case but also many more similar cases with the same base and "source". The Medieval Lands (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) is already going to correct their affirmations, and I think they are going to make a note thanking the discussions on anglophone as lusophone Wikipedias for having attract their attention to the matter. If you change your opinion and you would agree with what I'm saying, I ask you, please, to correct my awful english in the text. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Judith of Flanders[edit]

In the article on Judith of Flanders, I cited Asser for giving Æthelbald a reign of two and a half years, and an anonymous editor changed this to four years without explanation. I changed it back pointing out that four years contradicts the source cited, and he has again changed it back without explanation. I see that Janet Nelson in her DNB article on Æthelwulf also dates Æthelbald's reign as 858-860. I have been lucky enough not to get involved in edit wars before, and any advice would be welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not much you can do about it, other than fall back on the sources. If someone is intent on forcing something in, then you are stuck with trying to convince the other to go to Talk, and if they won't take it to ArbCom. Agricolae (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC), Medieval Lands and Oswald[edit]

I see that you had an argument a while ago about I would add in support that although it cites sources, some are obviously unreliable. It gives King Æthelbehrt two non-existent sons, one of them an obvious confusion with Æthelred's son, Æthelwold.

I view as nothing more than some hobbyist's web site. Even when it cites sources, they are rarely scholarly.

Medieval Lands (I see that you are correcting citations of it) sometimes puts forward theories which no academic historian accepts (so far as I know). It suggests at [9] that Æthelwulf's son Athelstan was too old to have been Osburh's son, and must therefore have been the son of an unknown first wife of Æthelwulf. It also argues that the reference in King Alfred's will to Æthelwulf's three sons and Æthelbehrt as a kinsman (Keynes & Lapidge ed p. 174) means that he cannot have been a full brother and was probably illegitimate. It does however seem quite trustworthy in explaining its sources and reasoning.

As to my latest edits, let's just say that there are people closely associated with the FMG that think it is an embarrassment that this material is being hosted, and thereby being given implied support, by the Foundation. At least the distinction is important - some editors seem to be attributing it to FMG intentionally to make it sound more reliable. My general impression of MedLands is that by its very nature, such a project is impossible for one individual to do. One can not cover the breadth of Medieval royalty and nobility at a scholarly depth necessary to maintain accuracy. You end up with a compilation prone to follow the whims of the compiler, and of whatever references the compiler happens to have at hand (which in some cases are just laughably wrong), and often still repeating stuff from the 19th century that is no longer given credence. I tried getting some corrections made and found the compiler somewhat receptive, but also arbitrary in choosing which of alternative hypotheses to represent (rather than representing the controversy), and whoa-fully ill-informed in some of the regions he is trying to present. It is not what I would consider a WP:RS, but with all of the genealogy being forced into articles, it is probably better than some of the alternatives they might be relying upon.
As to AEthelstan, he has been a conundrum ever since the different renditions of the Chronicle put him in different generations. I don't recall where I have seen it, but the theory that he was an illegitimate son of AEthelwulf has been floating around for decades.

It also appears to be alone in identifying Oswald, who witnessed charters as an Ætheling between 863 and 875, as a son of Æthelwulf. He is generally considered as a son of Æthelred, e.g. PASE at [10], and I cited this source to list him in the Æthelred article as one of his sons. Keynes and Lapidge (p. 322) suggest that Osferth may have been Oswald's son and Æthelred's grandson. However, it is thought that Æthelred and Alfred agreed to hand their property in trust to Æthelbehrt in 860 because they were too young to hold it themselves, and Miller in ODNB states that Æthelred was a year or so older than Alfred, and thus born about 847, so could he have had a son witnessing charters by 863? (PASE suggests Alfred as a less likely alternative father!) P. H. Sawyer et al at [11] point out that in Alfred's will, he gives an account of an inheritance dispute at the time of his accession which refers to only two sons of Æthelred, (the older and the younger) presumably the sons listed later in the will, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold, but Oswald was still alive in 871. He is rarely mentioned by historians, but when he is it is generally as a son of Æthelred, but even though I cited a good source I am not sure I was right to add him to the list of Æthelred's sons. Any views? Dudley Miles (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably better safe than sorry - if in doubt, don't put him in the list. Maybe put in a footnote describing the controversy. Otherwise you risk feeding the animal. As it is, anything that appears in MedLands is prone to be incorporated into Wikipedia, and from there repackaged and republished across the web. Agricolae (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was under the impression that MedLands is the view of FMG and if I had cited it, would have attributed it to them. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear on what it is, the 'Foundation' is not a body of scholars of some sort, but rather a non-profit established and endowed by the will of a prominent medieval genealogist and run primarily by the donor's grandson, with the goal of fostering scholarly research in the field. Its membership consists of anyone who drops a donation (membership/subscription fee) on them. Their journal is peer reviewed by experts, and though poorly distributed is of high quality (as high as one can expect for such an obscure non-academic pursuit). As far as I am aware, Medieval Lands gets no such review, and there was no input from the general membership on the propriety of hosting it. Agricolae (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit [12][edit]

Hey, I saw you made this edit earlier today. I would like to point out a major error you made. You should not have linked European to Caucasian race. Ignoring the fact that Caucasian is not of real biological value, not all Caucasians are European, so it is rather misleading to link Europeans to that article. I have fixed your edit so European links to European people. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

First, European people is a disambiguation page, and you never link to a disambiguation page. Caucasian is the closest page there is on Wikipedia - there is no similar page as there is for Asian and African people. Second, linking something in Wikipedia does not establish that the terms are identical, just that the linked page is the best place to find information on the subject. Third, the authors call this group, not Europeans, but "Caucasoid", and last time I checked, it isn't misleading at all to equate Caucasoid with Caucasian race. Most importantly, as I said, the authors call them Caucasoid ("The level of pairwise difference found between the two Neanderthals was higher than the average values found in random samples of 300 Caucasoids ( 5.28 2.24) and Mongoloids (6.27 2.29)—less than 1% of Caucasoid and Mongoloid pairs differ at 12 or more positions—but comparable to a random sample of 300 Africans (8.36 3.2), where 37% of pairs differed at 12 or more positions.") - what ever gave you the idea they were Europeans to begin with? They may well have been from Utah, the sample most used to represent those of 'European descent'. Unless the authors provide specifics to better enable this group to be identified, we need to reflect their language rather than read anything into it or try to 'fix' their dated language with terminology that you yourself insist is not equivalent. Agricolae (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If the authors use Caucasoid and mongoloid that suggests that they are not in fact sampling "europeans" and "asians" but sampling people according to physical anthropological phenotypes regardless of origin. We should retain the study's wording - the question is if we should present the study in this form at all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I am going to take this back to the Neanderthal talk page. Agricolae (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Leonese Queens[edit]

Hi, Agricolae, I am glad to meet you. I am Michele of Croatia. I am very interested in Leonese queens. As we can see, for some of them we know only their geneaology. However, some are mote notable, like Sanchez sisters, daughters of Sancho I of Pamplona. I think that we should keep articles for them.

Best regards, your Mychele.

What is you basis for this claim to notability? Take for example Oneca. We only know she exists because of the Codice de Roda and all it says is that she was daughter of Sancho and Toda and that she married Alfonso. There is no evidence whatsoever that she played any role in government, in politics, in international relations. In fact there is no evidence that she did any thing but marry, and no scholar has had the slightest thing to say about her other than the bare genealogical facts. I don't see how that meets Wikipedia's notability standards, which require significant coverage. As interesting as someone may find them, no scholars have shared that interest and so they remain historically insignificant. Agricolae (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should do this - create article called Sancha, Oneca and Urraca Sanchez and then wrote about them on that one page. We should then redirect their pages to that one page for all three sisters. I think idea is very good. What you think? And I don't undestand that claim about Sancha Gomez. Her father was Gomez, but it is not known was his father Gonzalo or Ramiro. She was born in Saldana, so she is "the one of Saldana". Don't you think? :)
I don't know what the policy is, but this seems an awkward way of addressing the problem, taking three queens about whom we know little and putting them together on a single page just created as a hold-all for them. Typically if a subject is insufficiently notable, one would just redirect to appropriate existing page(s), which in this case I would think would be those of their husbands, rather than create a new page which effectively amounts to "Three non-notable Queens of Leon". Basically, almost all of the information on each of their pages is on their husbands' pages already anyhow. As to Sancha, I think you are confusing her, in part, with Velasquita, plus you have some information that it not as solid as you think. It is Velasquita Ramirez who is daughter of either Ramiro Gonzalez or Ramiro Menendez (uncle and nephew, although I forget which is which). Sancha is documented (in contemporary documents) simply as Sancha. Due to the political alliances of the time, it has been speculated that she is sister of count Garcia Gomez de Saldana, making her (only if this supposition is true) Sancha Gomez de Saldana, daughter of count Gomez Diaz. It isn't a question of which generation or which Gomez. It is that she is Sancha (unknown) unless the guess is right, and only if so is she Sancha Gomez, is she from Saldana, is she daughter of count Gomez Diaz and Muniadomna Fernandez - this is the preferred solution of historians, but is almost never expressed by historians without an accompanying indication of uncertainty ("e.g. "Sancha was probably daughter/sister of . . . "). People hate uncertainty, so it is not uncommon in web sites and compilations to see such qualifiers as 'probably', 'perhaps', 'may have been', etc. left out. Agricolae (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert de Lacy[edit]

The Medieval Lands project ... listed in this article ... it's pretty much not peer-reviewed, right? I'm not finding anything besides Medieval Lands that claims Gilbert was the son of Hugh rather than the son of Roger - Wrightman in Lacy Family agrees with Lewis in the ODNB and with Keats-Rohan. Think we're safe with just excising the Cawley information? Oh, and hi, it's always great running into you and all that conversational stuff. I'll finish rewriting William the Conqueror sooner or later... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Medieval Lands has no peer review at all. It is just Charles Cawley's personal project, and represents his own opinion only. The FMG has simply decided to host it on their site, but have no input into it. That being said, I have seen this, that Gilbert was son of Emma, in a published source. Unfortunately, I am remembering it from about 25 years ago, so I wouldn't know what that source might have been. Does CP have anything to say on the subject? Agricolae (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid digging into the CP... it's always such a mess to find the barons in there... looking now. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it MIGHT be under MEATH, but I cannot read my copy's entry for MEATH, as they had some sort of printing error and have double printed those pages.. lovely. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it wasn't under Meath - I wouldn't have been looking under Meath. I distinctly remember a chart showing it, just not in which book the chart was located. It must have been somewhere else, EYC maybe. Who knows! Wherever it was, it would now be dated and superseded by the more recent works specifically looking at this baron. Agricolae (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I was confusing two different charts. The one in CP (I still don't know exactly where, but it doesn't matter) shows Ilbert de Lacy, the Domesday tenant, as son of an Emma, and is hence irrelevant. However, Henry Alfred Cronne, in The Reign of Stephen, 1135-1154: Anarchy in England (1970) on p. 161 has a table of "Claimants to the Honour of Hugh de Lacy", in which he shows Gilbert de Lacy as one heir, the son of Emma, daughter of Walter de Lacy, and nephew of Roger who he says forfeited his rights in 1095, and of Hugh, who ob.s.p. ante 1121, the other heir being Cecilia, wife of Roger fitz Miles, daughter of Payn Fitz John by Sibyl, daughter of Geoffrey Talbot by Agnes, probably another daughter of Walter. I don't have the associated text copied, but from a Google Books snippet view, I find on p. 157, "This Lacy fee came into the hands of Agnes's brother, Hugh de Lacy, who died without issue before 1121, leaving as his heirs his sisters Agnes Talbot and Emma. The latter's son Gilbert, by an unknown husband, took his mother;s patronymic (probably for reasons connected with the Lacy inheritance). Here was one claimant to the large Lacy fee in Herefordshire and Shropshire. Meanwhile Payn fitz John, another claimant through his wife, a co-heiress, gave his daughter Cecilia a marriage portion from the honour of Hugh de Lacy. . . ." Agricolae (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I note that Judith Green, in "Aristocratic Women in Early Twelfth-Century England" (Hollister, ed., Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance, pp. 59-82) explicitly addresses this controversy, stating, (p. 77) "The theory that Gilbert de Lacy was a grandson of Walter by a daughter, Emma, was dismissed by Wightman, Lacy Family, p. 169; cf. Cronne, Reign of Stephen, pp. 157, 161." She shows Gilbert as son of Roger. This seems to represent the new consensus of the field. Agricolae (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've cleaned the alternate bits out of the article, and I'll work on incorporating the Wrightman stuff. I did not copy the Green article when I last had Anglo-Norman Political Culture out so I'll need to go get it from the library again to get Green's article. Nor do I actually own Cronne's Reign of Stephen (I have every OTHER biography, it seems like...) but Wrightman should be sufficient. Should get it sorted out eventually ... although if it turns into a nasty slugfest like either Gundrada or her hubby ... I may just wash my hands of the situation... yikes! (I've totally unwatched Gundrada and only peek in there and William occaisionally to see if things have calmed down.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


I saw your recent warnings to Cmach7 (talk · contribs) about his edit warring. In previous situations, Cmach7's mother has posted to alert us to the fact that he is a 13-year old high functioning autistic, and this may explain to some extent his difficulty in communication. See for example this thread. I'm not excusing Cmach7's behaviour, but perhaps we have to be a little sensitive as to how we handle the situation. Best wishes --Deskford (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Agricolae. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Easter, dear Agricolae. How is in Spain?-Mychele (talk)


Hello Agricolae, I just left a message in a user's discussion page [13]on several articles translated from the Spanish wikipedia. Can you check it over when you have a chance? Since I'm not participating often in the English wiki, I'm not that familiar with the policies here on translations, etc. One of the articles I mention, Pedro Ruiz de Villegas II should NEVER have been translated. I had a long argument with the original author who claimed that the Villegas descend from the Goths, are the same as the Laras, etc. etc. and, after clearing up a lot of rubbish, I left it as it is with two warning signs on the article hoping that the original author would correct it, which he hasn't so far. Best regards, --Maragm (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

English wiki is no different. Any translated article should be tagged on the Talk page. It is fundamental to the chain of documentation for the creative commons copyright - you have to be able to trace the text back to the individual editor who contributed each word. Agricolae (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


I am thinking of nominating Redburga for deletion, as there does not seem to be any real evidence that she existed, but I see you have done a number of edits to the article. Any views? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, she hasn't received the kind of significant coverage that demonstrates notability. That being said, I suspect that if it gets deleted it is likely to be recreated from scratch down the road without any indication that it is other than fact. I think the documentation of her non-existence is worth saving, so I would suggest a merge into her husband's page, where all of the material relavant to her would it would all go into a footnote (if it isn't there already), leaving just a redirect. This would mean that you can be bold and just do it rather than going through the AfD process. Were you to go to an AfD, I wouldn't vote against a deletion, although I would probably make the same suggestion in that discussion. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. There seem to me two issues, notability and whether she existed. She seems to have had some notability in the nineteenth century. W G Searle showed her as Egbert's wife in 1899, and he appears to cite Lappenberg, a German historian who wrote a history of England in the early nineteenth century which was translated into English. 20th century discussion seems to be entirely by genealogists. I could do a footnote to Egbert on the following lines: "W. G. Searle's Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles p. 343, published by the Cambridge University Press in 1899, showed Rædburh (or Redburga) as Egbert's wife, but the original Dictionary of National Biography entry for Egbert, published in the same period, made no mention of his wife's name. Modern historians are also silent about his wife, and Janet Nelson, in her 2004 Oxford Online Dictionary of National Biography article about Egbert's son Æthelwulf, states that his mother's identity is unknown." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sancha González[edit]

I replied to your query on my talk page. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

More translations[edit]

Hello Agricolae, I wrote to you a few days ago on some translations I saw by user ClarkSui. I left him a message in his talk page [14] indicating that he should tag the articles that he translated directly from Spanish wiki to mention that these were translations and not original work. So far nothing. I see he has translated more articles [15] from the Spanish wiki [16] and has not tagged them as translations. In this last one, I believe that the coat-of-arms is out of place since it was not used at that time. I also see that he has not corrected the title of another translation [17]. I would name him Pedro Fernández de Castro as in the Spanish wiki since it was the name by which he was mostly known and so appears in contemporary sources. Even though we do not "own" the articles we write or in which we contribute, I believe it's only fair to give credit where its due by tagging translations from another wiki as such, and also to be sure that the translations are correct, especially when it comes to the sources and references. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a formal warning (necessary before taking the issue farther). There are really two problems here - the first is that of translation and attribution. The second is the quality of the articles themselves. An editor is well within their rights to take a badly written article from and translate it, as long as they attribute it correctly. We can only clean it up (or if unsalvageable, suggest deletion). So, I have removed the coat of arms and fixed the name typo (I am not familiar enough to know if the whole page name should be changed, but you can take care of that yourself) plus some more general cleanup. I have also cleaned up the references on Pedro Alfonso, as best I could. I will work my way through the others as time permits. Agricolae (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. I'll also help to clean up. On Mécia Lopes de Haro, I really have my doubts since I believe that the article should not have been transferred to another name since she was Spanish, not Portuguese. Will have to get used to editing in and maybe translate or write the articles myself. Having the same problem in pt.wikipedia since someone is copying articles directly and, what's worse, word for word but adding portuguese references which I had not used and omitting the ones I had included in the Spanish version. Best regards, --Maragm (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
With page names, the form most frequently used by English language scholars is that which is used here. If there is no English standard form, then whatever name is used first gets to remain unless there is some good reason to change it (such as disambiguation). With Gonzalo Menendez, I have been resisting an attempt to change it to the Portuguese form because I can cite three English-language Iberian scholars, plus the Encyclopaedia Britannica that all use the Castilian form of the name, but with Mecia/Mencia I am unaware of any English-language coverage at all (not that there isn't any - I just haven't looked). Short of that, I am hesitant to make a change, because I can almost guarantee you that if I change it to the Castilian form because she was Castilian, someone else will change it back because of her prominent role in Portugal, and it is an unwinnable comparison of apples and oranges. So as awkward as it looks to me, I left it as it was. If you can find a preponderance of English-language sources calling her Mencia Lopez, then you have the ammunition you need to make the switch. It's enough to make you wish Alfonso VI had managed his family affairs better. Agricolae (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Manrique Pérez de Lara[edit]

Hello Agricolae, I notice that in the article on Manrique Pérez de Lara, eight children are mentioned. I only have six documented: Aymerico, Pedro, Guillermo, María, Sancha, and Hermengarda. In that article, it is mentioned that Mayor/Milia (Manrique's daughter) is the wife of Gómez González de Manzanedo. Manrique Pérez de Lara did not have a daughter named Milia/Mayor. The one who did marry Gómez González de Manzanedo is, as mentioned in the article on Gómez, Milia, daughter of Pedro González de Lara. In the article it says "possibly", but I think it has been demonstrated that she was in fact his daughter. Regardless, of whether she is left as a possible daughter, there is an inconsistency and the article on Manrique should be checked. Best regards, --Maragm (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Good work. Not sure about the use of "by" - seems a bit bestial, but the mistress bit was genius. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of issues[edit]

Hello Agricolae, I wrote to ClarkSui regarding the coat of arms of Álava placed in the pages of Rodrigo of Castile, Álvaro Herrameliz, and Fernán González of Castile. The boundaries of Álava at that time were quite different from the current ones and I don't think that coat of arms should be inserted in those articles. Also, I noticed the article translated from Spanish wiki on Sancha Sánchez of Pamplona, who is now called Sancha Sánchez de Pamplona (in any case, it should be "of", rather than "de" in the English wiki) but see that when I click on Sancha Sánchez of Pamplona I am redirected to Fernán. Also ran into the article on County of Coimbra and just don't know how to tackle the many mistakes, mispellings, and lack of references. I've been busy at with the Osorios [18] and have given up on that seeing that the reader is only interested in the greatness of her last name and as soon as I can, I want to tackle the existing article on Jimena Muñoz [19] . Could you take a look at the above? Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Maragm, I am not familiar enough with the history of Coimbra to know what the problems are, or more precisely, I can see many, many problems (I can't even make sense of some of it), but I don't know what the accurate history is with which I can replace the problematic material. Does have a better article I can use as basis for correcting it? I have been putting off dealing with Jimena Muñoz in, as there are two competing schools of thought on her birth, those of Canal and Salazar y Acha vs Vaz de Mello, and I don't have access to the works of the latter (I still haven't gotten his other work I asked you about, having concluded that there is not a single library in the whole county that has the appropriate issue of the periodical in question). Given this, I have been hesitant to start an article based on just one side, or to put in the other side without seeing what the proponent has to say and how much his interpretations of her biography differ. I note that seems to be following the Vaz version, if indirectly, but the Dialnet link to the Rodríguez González paper is broken so I can't look there for more details. (Thanks for highlighting my Albornoz problem - I must not have been thinking clearly that day, and getting it wrong once, I kept copying it again and again. I think I got them all now.) Agricolae (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither am I. I've just looked at the article in and it's just as bad. See that the article in is more complete and has references, but I'll have to do more research on this before I get it right. On Jimena Muñoz, I'm still a bit confused and that's why I haven't tackled it yet. I see that the link to the article is broken and will try to find another way to access it. No luck on my part either on the Vaz version, but will keep trying. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You can view and copy the article on Jimena here:[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maragm (talkcontribs) 17:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
While we are at it, everything about this page: Flávio Teodósio de Coimbra screams 'hoax' to me. I think this is one of the names that is unknown outside of those forged Lorvao charters that appear to have been created with the intent of portraying the history of Coimbra, and with it the Lorvao foundation, several centuries earlier in time, and adopted by the Portuguese nationalists because it does the same for them. Agricolae (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does look pretty suspicious, especially looking at the patronymic of his supposed children. Also noticed in the entire article County of Coimbra that the "Mariños" have been inserted. Had a problem with that in since this family, which was important, claim to come from the Traba, but I haven't documented that.Regards, --Maragm (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
As I look further, I find that traces the second son down to the historical Echega Guiçoi, (who is made to marry a daughter of Munio Fernandez, "illegitimate son of King Fernando I of Leon"), and on to the Sousa, which explains the whole thing - more glorification of noble families by inventing descents. This is an epic mess. I just wish I had a better basis for purging it than that I 'know' it's wrong. I am going to pare down the Counts of Coimbra article as best I can, and nominate this abomination for deletion. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good cleaning up of County of Coimbra. I don't have that much, but agree on the ones you left in. Will find sources to add to that part. A Portuguese who contributes in argues that he much prefers the old authors rather than the modern revisionists and in you'll find atrocious undocumented genealogies and haven't even gotten to clarifying the Castros, etc. is to blame. I erase that reference whenever I find it. --Maragm (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mariño, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Zibart (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Or maybe rather than vandalism I was cleaning up a page that was absolutely abysmal. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For the excellent work with designing family tree diagrams for William the Conqueror. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Flávio RIP[edit]

I see that Flávio has passed away to a better life. Don Osorio sort of survived since I was forced to mention him in the Osorio disambiguation page [21]. Really busy with work this week but think I might be packing my bags soon and moving over here. is unbearable, too much politicking and fights, can't concentrate and tired of arguing trying to convince people that there are no proven Goths in their precious family tree or that the work of 16th & 17th century revered genealogists contain a lot of myths and inventions that have been debunked. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Back and Forth with CS[edit]

I think you are right about the "Day of Zamora" Arabic names. Generally I just translate articles from the so the names consistent with the Spanish equivalent pages. That being so, "Maovia" and "Abul Kassin" are not typical Arabic form as you said.

I dug some more, and this is even a problem in the Spanish-language books that summarize the events of the period. It will take a look at the Arabic chronicle to tell what the form used in the original source is. All I have handy are some partial transcripts of Ibn Hayyan (only events that are relevant to either Pamplona, or the Banu Qasi), but I will look and see if it includes mention of Ahmed. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Elvira of Toro[edit]

Someone at left me a message referring to the talk page in on Elvira of Toro, surprised that the Ovando's may not descend from this infanta. I left a message on the respective talk page with the link to her will, where she makes no mention of any husband or offspring. It's a good article, in French. [22]. Best regards, --Maragm (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Deadling with dead links[edit]

I understand the impulse to simply delete references based on dead links, as you did at Washington Referendum 74 (2012). However, per WP:DEADREF, it's best not to do that. I've marked the reference you've deleted as a dead reference, but am avoiding further efforts in that direction simply because the current power outages experienced on the east coast may have made the link just mostly dead, to be brought back to life in a few days by Miracle Max and how powerful bellows. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the events in question occurred in Washington State, there is no reason to insist on citing a dead Washington (DC) Post link. There are other newspapers, and I bet some of them still have power. Agricolae (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ramiro I of Asturias[edit]

With your edit to Ramiro I of Asturias, could you be less destructive in your editing. I am guessing that these people or facts are of later invention and no contemporary sources speaks of them, but could you give them the benefit of the doubt and include them in the text but cite the problems and mistakes of history alongside them instead of removing everything you find wrong and walking away. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there something in particular that you didn't want removed? There is much completely unsupportable Iberian genealogical material floating about on the web and in older unscholarly publications. To include it just because it is out there does a disservice to the reader, in that the very act of including such baseless material gives it unmerited credibility. Giving a detailed description of why a particular genealogical fable is false would bloat the article with text that is of no value in elucidating the subject, and would invariably be only an arbitrary selection of the various material that exists. Unless they are notable enough for some scholar to have spent significant time dismissing them, a discussion in the article gives undue weight to the made-up genealogy, particularly when no reliable secondary source is given for it to begin with. It is just not practical for an encyclopedia to waste space reporting then refuting all of the incorrect material that exists in the world. Agricolae (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Agricolae, removing content and, worse, sourced. Is a much serious issue, don't you think? More like vandalism and other things. --Pedro (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
First you accuse me of POV, then sock-puppetry, now vandalism? What comes next? rape? child molestation? murder? genocide? This is not a productive way to approach a content dispute in a collaborative project. Agricolae (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Pedro, I am not anybody's sockpuppet and you can check my contributions in [23]. The source that you are adding is not scholarly work but a biographical novel [24]. That Theresa calls herself queen, that Fernando refers to her as queen in more than one charter, does not make her a queen. Maragm (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course a sock puppet would deny being a sock puppet just as you have done. You have thereby proven the accusation. Torquemada! Agricolae (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Núñez de Lara[edit]

Yes, the inquisition shall burn me at the stake!! I was looking at the article on Fernando Núñez de Lara and see that he supposedly married Mayor Garcés, daughter of García Garcés de Aza. I don't believe that is right, going back to what I wrote some time ago in your talk page [25]. I wanted to "wikify" the article, fix the links, and add some sections to break it down. I see some section headings were added but are invisible. How can I go about it? What titles would you suggest for some of the sections (besides one for family and issue). Many regards, Maragm (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The ones that are there are a good start, at least until I see what you make of it. I will unhide them for you. Agricolae (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


I am only asking you because you seem to have a fanaticist about facts and comtemporary records which I lack. Do you know if Peter, King of Hungary is more known in scholarly sources as Peter Orseolo or just plain Peter and the same question for Samuel Aba?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The first is usually Peter Orseolo (perhaps given the naming standards, Peter Orseolo of Hungary). The latter I only recall seeing in English as Aba Samuel, but that is in the works of just one author, Hungarian genealogist Szabolcs de Vajay, and perhaps is simply his personal preference. Agricolae (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Martín Alfonso de León[edit]

I fixed the article on Martín Alfonso de León. If you read the sources I mention, especially Lodo de Mayoralgo (google books) you’ll see that his supposed son Gil Alfonso de León never existed. I guess his respective article may as well be deleted, and then it would be necessary to check the genealogical line followed in various subsequent articles. The thing about Alfonso’s illegitimate children is that some are not that well documented and those old genealogist adopted some of them as the ancestors of several families. Regards, Maragm (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC) pd: other candidates for deletion besides Gil Alfonso de León: Pedro Gil de Mogollón, Pedro Gil de Mogollón, Lord of Arroyo del Peche, Alfón Gil de Mogollón. Sorry to pester you with this, just until I learn the ropes in this wiki. Regards, Maragm (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI regarding college athletic conference maps[edit]

There is a discussion on the Project College Football talk page regarding the overview maps that are used in the InfoBoxes of college athletic conference pages. We're trying to develop some sort of consensus on how the maps should be built (which states are/aren't shaded, colors, non-full members, etc.) and your input would be welcome. The discussion is here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency Mdak06 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Human genetics[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans#Chimpanzee and human admixture which you might be able to help with. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

DNB to Cite DNB[edit]

If you decide that the text of an article no longer includes text from a DNB article and wish to convert it into an ordinary reference. Rather than making an edit like this, you can do the same thing by changing {{DNB}} to {{Cite DNB}}. This will remove the leading attribution string with no need to alter any of the parameters.

Template that access public domain text usually come in three flavours eg three of the most common:

-- PBS (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

List of English monarchs[edit]

I am posting this notice here to advise that on the talk page of an article to which you have made substantial edits I have asked a question concerning the validity of the article. The question has been there for some time but received no replies so I am giving my question wider distribution by notifying selected editors who have been involved with the article and giving them an opportunity to respond. Please do not reply here on your talk page or on my talk page but on the talk page of the article where other editors can easily see your comments so that hopefully we can have a constructive debate. The article is List of English monarchs. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 06:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Currently this entry reflects a Whig view of history. The amends that you object to start to address this to reflect that the Angevins were an alien dynasty building on the Norman conquest. These were later anglicised to justify a political context of monarchy, parliament and protestantism. I don't see that you objections account for this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My objections are that 1) in English Wikipedia we should use English name forms for everyone, not everyone except for one person; 2) when two branches of the family that the article is about spent so long fighting over the kingdom that they drove the family to extinction, it is probably relevant to the summary to name the branches; and most importantly 3) when making such a significant change to a page, particularly once it has been objected to, discussion on the relevant talk page is the appropriate way to achieve consensus. Thus I don't think your characterization of what my objections take into account is at all accurate. Is there some particular reason you seem entirely unwilling to talk about your changes? Agricolae (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

1) The key question on this is political. The use of nomenclenture should be cosnsistent, I agree, but the use of nelologisms and modernisms hide important historical fact. English history was in effect written backwards from Victorian times to justify the political consensus at that time. In doing so any evidence that countered a direct line of cultural and legal development from Alfred the Great was erased from the narrative e.g. Catholicism prior the reformation & the foreign roots of much of the aristocracy. 2)The family did not become extinct - I will amend with evidence to correct this assumption - it became politically expedient to hide their descent in the face of a murderous Tudor establishment. 3)The reason is that you didn't attempt to back your objections with primary or even secondary sources. If you do I will be interested to discuss - though you must admit this entire article is riddled with unfounded assumptions and historical inaccuracy.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

While your view of history is not devoid of POV itself, that is an issue for elsewhere. My objections, here, are about policy. 1) No, the key question is NOT political and has nothing to do with the errors you perceive in English historicity. The key question, as per Wikipedia naming criteria, is which form modern scholars writing in the English language use. It doesn't have to be right, it doesn't have to be proper. We simply reflect current scholarly usage. They call him Stephen, and his own page on Wikipedia calls him Stephen and to call (and only him) by a form from some other modern language just to make a point about Victorian historians is arbitrary and unnecessarily confusing. Given the tone of your notes here, perhaps this would be an appropriate time to remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox 2) Even assuming that your peculiar version of the family narrative is correct, that is no justification for ignoring the major events that led them to be cowering in their hovels under assumed names. It violates WP:UNDUE to ignore the Wars of the Roses and the rival houses that brought them about, whether you think historians make too much of it or not - again, this is about the family, not English history in general. 3) Read WP:BRD - if you make a change and another editor objects, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it on the article's Talk page, not to simply keep putting back the text because you think you are right. The Talk page is where we can discuss whether the material is appropriately referenced or has a Victorian bias, not simply in dueling edit summaries and not by haranguing me on my own Talk page. This has nothing to do with the flaws of Victorian historians and the 'true history' you are trying to advocate, and everything to do with Wikipedia rules and policies. Make your point there, then when consensus is achieved for the change, it can be incorporated into the article. Whether I agree that the article is 'riddled with unfounded assumptions and historical inaccuracies' or not, the place to resolve this is the article's Talk page. So I repeat my last question: Why are you unwilling to discuss this on the article's Talk page? Agricolae (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I have looked at this for the past day, and I just can't help myself any longer. You do realize, right, that your theory of "a direct line of cultural and legal development from Alfred the Great" is every bit as much Whig history as giving the credit for such progress to the French Plantagenets, don't you? Yours isn't anti-Whig history, it is anti-French history. Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Many apologies Agricolae - I didn't intend to aggarvate you so much. I stand corrected on the nomenclature. Also, if I gave the impression that I was giving credit to the Plantagenets that was not my intention. Progress in this period happened despite them. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate place to have this discussion is (and always has been) Talk:House of Plantagenet. Agricolae (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


You probably know, but in case you don't, the Online DNB article at[26] on Æthelweard the historian says that his son Æthelmær's charter of 1005 founding Eynsham Abbey records acquisition by both of them of lands from their kinsmen Godwine and Bishop Brihthelm. There were several Bishop Brihthelms, but none of them seem to have been active later than the early 970s, so the Godwin referred to must be too early to be Harold's father. Presumably Godwin was such a common name that it is not really significant but interesting? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This Godwine is probably the earlier Ealdorman of this name, whom Kelley hypothesized to have been kinsman (? brother - I don't remember) of Leofwine, ancestor of Ealdormen of Mercia. The Anglo-Saxons tended not to recycle family names (AEthelred II, naming his sons after his ancestors, is the exception and he probably did so for political reasons given the dubious manner in which he acquired the crown). They frequently used front or end alliteration among siblings, but there is no reason to think a later Godwine had any connection with an earlier one. Kelley does suggest both maternal and paternal relationships between that Godwine and the hypothesized kindred representing the descendants of AEthelred I and Alfred. Agricolae (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Might not Aethelred have been following the example of his father, who also gave his sons the names of former kings? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It could be viewed that way, but I don't. Given how many names had been used by the royal family by that time, the father would have been hard pressed not to use a name that had been used before and still maintain the vowel alliteration of the dynasty, but at least with naming a son AEthelred, I see no reason to think that it was king AEthelred that was being memorialized and not, say, AEthelred of Mercia - in other words, I don't see AEthelred as a 'family name', just a popular name with the right alliteration that happened to be used twice in the family, four generations removed. When it comes to AEthelred's children, you cannot make such an argument - with so many sons and every one of them named for a predecessor, it can't be coincidence. Agricolae (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That redirect[edit]

restore and AfD? I told Paul that electronic documents can only be used if on their original site (and pointed out we still don't know what the role of the president was, how long he was president, etc). Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I still think the redirect is the way to go. However, I was Bold, and if you want to Revert and then propose Deletion, it is not like I am going to edit war over it. Agricolae (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Big East[edit]

Thanks for this hysterical snark. And I just had to revert someone who had UConn leaving next year, which hasn't even risen to the level of juicy rumor yet. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


I think I'm making sense there at the AfDs - but I've got a nasty sinus infection and it's entirely possible that my sinus meds are talking rather than my brain... if so, I apologize! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making sense - it is the pages that don't. I hope you don't think my WP:CIR comment was directed at you. Agricolae (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. And now, I'm going to go take my semi-sick self to bed before things get stranger on wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Speaking as an amateur genealogist.... it's guys like Hughes that make me ashamed to do genealogy as a hobby. (Yes, I do it much better ... I have some idea of reliable sources, and I don't do medieval genealogy myself - I follow published experts - i.e. actual scholars not hobbists.) Has this sort of thing been going on long on the early medieval articles? I'll admit I don't have many of them watchlisted. (And for obvious reasons, bishops don't seem to attract the same genealogical ... attachments as royalty does.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
No, not often, but they tend to be real headaches when they arise. There are two recurring problems - one is the lack of appreciation for the gulf that separates ancestor collecting (old-school genealogy) from modern scholarly genealogy, particularly when it comes to medieval material. Someone will come in with their 19th-century references or fringe nonsense from Google Books or just an online pedigree from or the like and set about trying to 'correct' things. The second problem is that they get so invested in their own ancestors (or the distant ancestors of someone famous, like E2R or Lady Di) that any attempt at holding them to a reasonable standard of notability or avoiding UNDUE weight is fought kicking and screaming. The worst is when both behaviors are engaged in at the same time. Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Let me know if I"m not helping... I can't believe anyone would attempt to write articles on this period of Anglo-Saxon history without owning Yorke, Kirby, and Stenton at the very least. Heck, *I* have to have them for the bishops - how much more would you need them for secular history (not that there is much to distinguish secular from ecclesiastical in this period...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you are helping. I don't have the time for this, but if it is ignored then it will only get worse as more and more bogus pages are created. I am not even worrying about the material that is simply incorrect. I am focusing on the outright embarrassing and hoping the rest will take care of itself with the AfD. Agricolae (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ancestry of the kings of Wessex [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Ancestry of the kings of Wessex , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Paul Bedsontalk 18:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Agricolae. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What a mess[edit]

You're keeping your temper admirably. It appears the fundamental problem with Paul is, as you've pointed out, that competence is required. I don't think I've run into a similar case before. It looks as though all three of his pages will be deleted, and the merge to Anglian collection will go through (with very little content, if any, actually needing to be merged), so I suppose we can wait and see what happens after that. I hope he then realizes he doesn't understand the material, and goes and works on something where he can be productive. If he does decide to keep working in this area I think we would need to make a case that he is being actively disruptive, and needs to be asked to stop by someone who can make it stick. I hate to think of the number of hours of pointless work he has caused editors like you and Ealdgyth to put in over the last week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not keeping it well enough, unfortunately. It makes it harder to press for action when it looks like a simple heated content dispute, although now with his blatant declaration of his intent to "overwhelm the opposition with so many articles that some of the truth(sic) gets through", that case is more easily made. Agricolae (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I saw Doug Weller's suggestion of an WP:RFC/U and I think that's probably the right next step, unless Paul stops completely after the AfDs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's one down (Genealogia Lindisfarorum is no more). Agricolae (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
THe only reason I'm keeping my temper is that I got unexpectedly out of town for Sunday night. Never let your husband's ex-wife take your stepdaughter to the airport on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. She will manage to not get the stepdaughter on the flight and you will be stuck in Chicago for an extra night (with no clothes, no toothbrush, and no laptop!) while Wikipedia blows up while you're gone. So ... I'm hoping the whole "legendary kings" thing is under control for a while whilst I catch up on things in ArbCom land... Where did Doug suggest an RfC? My watchlist is a bit swamped, obviously. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Here (User talk:Dougweller#Descendants of the Emperor of Atlantis) Agricolae (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy Lindsey[edit]

Thanks for tagging this for G8 speedy. Please note that you don't have to do this if you don't want to; User:Legobot goes around once per day finding redirects to deleted pages and tagging them for G8 speedy. Of course, if you want to do it, go ahead. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi! What exactly is "unsupported and not accepted by scholars" here: ? СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That claim that the de Sousa Girao family descends from Inigo Arista in the male line is entirely without foundation. The last known male-line descendants of are the grandsons of Fortun Garces named in the 10th century Codice de Roda. Insufficient evidence is given to identify them with individuals found in the sparse historical record of the time, and there is no historical basis for any modern claims to having such a descent. This renders the haplotype of this family who fantasize about descending from the nation's founder irrelevant to a page about Arista, and the inclusion of the information based solely on their say-so would be to give it undue weight. Agricolae (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank You. That's what I wanted to hear. I agree with You. СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Paul Bedson[edit]

The last few edits to Langfedgetal and Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies convinced me that an RFC/U is necessary; there's no point in waiting for the remaining AfD to finish. I'll put a draft together in a sandbox; would you be willing to review it before I start it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The question was whether when this critical information got AfDed, would that decision be respected or would the mess just be transferred to another page. We now know the answer without waiting for the third shoe to drop. I would be willing to review it. It definitely should include his stated intent of tring to get specific material anywhere on Wikipedia that he could, by putting it so many places that some will slip through, (and matching his pattern of behavior following the latest AfD) and his admission to having made an edit with the intent of embarrassing another editor. Agricolae (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is an initial draft. I haven't created the evidence section yet, since I thought we should agree on the first two sections first. I don't know if you've created an RFC/U before (I haven't) so you might want to read this guidance for background. I also found this essay very helpful -- I think the key is concision and a limited scope.
Go ahead and edit the sandbox draft as you see fit. Once you're OK with it I think I'll ask Ealdgyth to take a look (Ealdgyth, if you're stalking, please jump in there) and then we can put some evidence diffs in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to get to it tonight or tomorrow (still seriously backlogged here... catching up though!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll start adding evidence diffs tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sweyn Forkbeard's mother[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Sweyn Forkbeard#Mother. Do you have any views on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no special insight, although I was involved in the parallel discussion on Harald's Talk page, trying to prevent a rush to judgement. Agricolae (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


I've given him a warning about personal attacks and other things including a reminder about the ArbCom sanction warning. Please just make sure that you consider your language also when referring to him. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a look at User:Mike Christie/Sandbox and recommend some diffs showing poor logic, and use of primary sources? And please make any other comments or improve the rest of the text as you see fit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the diffs. I should have time to review tonight. I think Doug is going to provide some diffs too; with luck we'll be close to ready to go tonight. Do you have any comment on the statement or desired outcome? There's a relevant discussion on my talk page, here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If it is all right with you, I think it would be a good idea to centralize discussion on the Sandbox Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure -- I'm at work so can't do much till this evening, but I've blanked the talk page there. If you want to post there, and post pointers to that page at whatever locations you see where discussions are already occurring, please do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I am about to head out myself, and won't have time 'til this evening either, but I suspect my 'evening' falls at a later GMT than yours, so having it go active tonight may not be practicable. Agricolae (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to get sick...[edit]

So I'm leaving this Uffingas in your hands. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did what I could, given that the family is notable. When the merge is done, someone needs to apply the heavy hand of scholarship to the material already on the target page itself. Agricolae (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


As this is a clear duplicate, and Wuffingas seems to be the usual name, I just redirected this. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, that saves waiting for the obvious outcome. Agricolae (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


Well, it appears you've convinced me; though reluctant to give up on what I really think is notable, I understand there are legitimate and rather serious problems with sourcing. I have stricken my !vote. dci | TALK 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U launched[edit]

It's launched, here. If I understand the format correctly, if you want to certify, you should add diffs showing you attempted to resolve the problems and failed. (Those should not be hard to find.) You could also just endorse, but it would probably be worth adding your certification, in order to show the additional efforts to resolve the problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: William the Conqueror[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of William the Conqueror know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 25, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 25, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

William the Conqueror

William the Conqueror (c. 1028 – 1087) was the first Norman King of England. He had been Duke of Normandy since 1035, although his illegitimate status and youth caused him difficulties and he did not secure his hold over the Duchy until about 1060. In the 1050s and early 1060s William became a contender for the English throne, then held by his childless relative Edward the Confessor. Other potential claimants included the powerful English earl Harold Godwinson, who Edward named as the next king on his deathbed in January 1066. William argued that Edward had previously promised him the throne, and that Harold had sworn to support William's claim. William invaded England in September 1066, defeating Harold at the Battle of Hastings, and was crowned on Christmas Day 1066. Several unsuccessful rebellions followed, but by 1075 William's hold on England was mostly secure. William's final years were marked by difficulties in his continental domains, troubles with his eldest son, and threatened invasions of England by the Danes. In 1086 he ordered the compilation of the Domesday Book, listing all the landholders in England and their holdings. He died in September 1087 on campaign in northern France, and was buried in Caen. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

As this article says "This page is intended to reflect the page Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States." I am notifying all those who !voted in the AfD for that article about this AfD discussion. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thane of Calder[edit]

Thanks for tidying up my Thane of Fife page. Much appreciated. I thought I'd mention another potential POV problem I might have over at Thane of Calder too. You see along with the association with Clan MacDuff on my father's side, Mary Calder was my Great Great Great Grandmother on my mother's side (Alex Cassidy's mom). Thought you might like to check that one over because you never know what could happen when those two streams cross. Paul Bedsontalk 22:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ordoño Ramírez[edit]

I have to go over this again and look for the other hypotheses on count García Ordoñez's filiation. Until I find them, I'll make it less definitive. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings...[edit]

Fenster Hl Drei Könige Köln um 1400 KGM Berlin.jpg Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


Christmas Lights house display.JPG

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


Trophy.png Knowledge Award
Dear Agricolae,

I wondered if we could communicate in private about Spanish genealogy, and related things.

My email is,

Regards! Vagabond1989 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

William the Conqueror edit[edit]

Hi there Agricolae. I saw you reverted my edit on William the Conqueror, I just thought I'd explain why I made the edit a bit more. I saw on Talk:House of Normandy that there was a consensus on it being "House of Normandy" instead of "Norman Dynasty", that along with the infobox parameter being called "House" as well was why I editted it to say "House of Normandy." Norman Dynasty also redirects to House of Normandy. Anywho, look forward to your reply. Cheers, —  dain- talk   02:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. There was no consensus on the Talk page for it being House of Normandy. Rather, there was equal opinion for both versions, but rather than closing it as 'no consensus', the closing administrator chose the version they preferred and moved it anyhow - it never should have been renamed. That being said, what's done is done. The more immediate problem was that your edit summary was not clear, such that I did not notice you were bypassing a redirect in making the edit, as opposed to just inserting your personal preference. Agricolae (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Ohhh I see, I spose I can be more clear with my edit summaries in the future, dually noted. Another thing I noticed was it is House of Normandy on Template:Norman Dukes. Consensus would be nice I spose whichever way it went whether it be House of Normandy or Norman Dynasty.—  dain- talk   05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

H.G. Wells and Neanderthals[edit]

Re: your reversion of a mention of H.G. Wells in the article on Neanderthals because it supposedly confuses fiction with scholarship, I'm sorry to say that you display your ignorance of the significance of Wells's contribution. Wells's 1920 history of the world, The Outline of History, which in Ch. 8 & 9 discusses Neanderthals, is still cited as an important work in this field by competent historians like William Hardy McNeill. Wells wrote as many works of non-fiction as he did of fiction. Julian Huxley, who presumably passes muster as a scholar, said on Wells's death that his contribution was "nothing less than having done more than any single man of the present century to alter the current of modern thought, and to alter it in a progressive direction" (Spectator, Aug. 16, 1946).

Mark K. Jensen (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We need to base the article on modern paleoanthropological scholarship, which does not count Wells as one of the forerunners of modern thought, whatever was said of him in 1946. That being said, who wouldn't go to Storyteller Magazine for scientific insight. It ranks right up there with Nature and Lancet. Agricolae (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Harald undo[edit]

Hi there, just as an fyi I didn't write that that was "the reason" for his nickname just that it is suggested by some archaeologists and anthropologists that it may be the case. When I get some free time I'll add some other theories unless you beat me to that. I think putting an additional standalone opening sentence for the section, something like "There are multiple theories as to how he got the "Bluetooth" epithet" would help to state that there is not one clearly defined reason for his epithet. Cheers, — -dainomite   12:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this approach - it just seemed terribly POV to give just this one novel explanation when the others abound. Agricolae (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha, I hadn't intended on it being interpreted that way, but I'm glad you informed that it did so I can reword it. Do you have any suggestions of where to go for good references regarding his epithet? Cheers, — -dainomite   16:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed material from articles[edit]

Hello; I'm curious about your removal of the royal ancestry of Anne Hutchinson and the wife of Edward Hutchinson in those respective articles. Your comment in the edit summary was that the material is non-noteworthy, but I'm not sure why that is the case. This seems to have been done unilaterally, without any discussion on the talk pages. It concerns me most with the Anne Hutchinson article, since this article has come under the scrutiny of many editors since last October. Though I've done the lion's share of recent editing on this article, I've tried to maintain or enhance the work of other editors, and this little section represents such an undertaking. So, I'd like to get your reasoning on this. Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There are millions of people, hundreds of thousands with Wikipedia pages, who descend from Alfred the Great and Charlemagne. It is not a distinction that merits mention on every page of everyone with such a descent. In the case of, say, Elizabeth II, the descent from Alfred the Great perhaps merits mention as it is directly relevant to her context as queen of the state that represents the political descendant of the one he played an important role in founding. Likewise the descent of Matilda of Flanders from Alfred the Great is relevant because this descent was one of the motivations for William's choice of her as marriage partner. However, we gain no greater understanding of Anne Hutchinson as a person or an actor in history by knowing the name of one of the 16 million ancestors she had 24 generations before, whoever it happens to be. She didn't know she had such a descent, her contemporaries didn't know she had such a descent, her major biographers didn't know she had such a descent (or didn't feel it was worth mentioning). It is genealogy for genealogy sake alone - indiscriminate information that provides no insight into her as a person, her actions, interactions, social status or context. Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have copied this discussion, and continued it on the Anne Hutchinson talk page.Sarnold17 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

House of Wessex family tree[edit]

I have just noticed that an editor suggested a year ago merging House of Wessex family tree to List of monarchs of Wessex. I seem to remember that some time ago you commented that the tree is unsatisfactory. I do not see a case for merging as it is unclear what should be merged. The best option would be for someone competent such as yourself to create a better tree, but you probably do not have time. Alternatively, I think it might be best to convert it to a redirect. Comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the Wessex tree is that while most genealogists have accepted it as fact, most historians have dismissed it as nothing but wishful thinking (to which genealogists are particularly prone). The part of the tree from AEthelweard the Historian back is guesswork, but not far off the mark as we have his own testimony that some such descent existed. However, getting back to him requires one to 'correct' the only source. I would be hesitant to give it the kind of validation that would come from incorporating it into the monarchs list page. I think what really needs to be done with it is not to present it as a historical fact but to present it as a genealogical conundrum - there have been three scholarly papers (by three different authors) published on this pedigree, which perhaps establishes that the problem has notability independent of the accuracy of this particular solution. Agricolae (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe until/unless that gets done it should be tagged with a 'disputed accuracy' banner. Agricolae (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I have already added to the article: "The links tracing the ancestry of the Godwins back to King Æthelred I are based on theories put forward by genealogists which are rejected by almost all historians." I think this says much the same. It is also why I suggested converting to a redirect rather than incorporating with a merge, but I take it that you think it has too much notability for that solution, and you prefer replacing the merge proposal with a disputed accuracy banner. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bedson[edit]

Those who remember this editor might be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson and [27]. One of his socks is over a year old. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted you to that that you cracked me up[edit]

... with your comment on the Annette Jaimes book on FT/N. Maybe it shouldn't have been funny, but the irony of it got to me. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

harald 2.0[edit]

Hi again Agricolae, in your edit summary did you mean the citation used wasn't noteworthy, or him being in Civilization 5 is not noteworthy? Is there somewhere that says X things are acceptable and Y things are not acceptable to mention for popular culture sections? Just so I know for future reference. Thanks, — -dainomite   22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant that him being in the game is not noteworthy. See WP:Popular culture. You need a source from outside the gaming community that thinks this merits mention. In has to have a broader bearing on the culture, rather than just existing. Agricolae (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hrmm, gotcha.. I thought it was okay since most of the other leaders in the civilization games have it in their popular culture sections as well... Napoleon, Elizabeth I, Wu Zetian, Boudica, Dido, Nebuchadnezzar II, Harun al-Rashid, George Washington, Alexander the Great, Oda Nobunaga, Askia, Augustus Caesar, Genghis Khan, Gustavus Adolphus, Hiawatha, Kamehameha, Ramkhamhaeng and Sejong all have it listed. — -dainomite   06:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why these sections are such a problem - they have added every instance of the person, object or concept being mentioned in any TV show, movie, book or game, and it just sort of accumulates cruft. Agricolae (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
So anything minus what WP:POPCULTURE says should be removed from all those wiki page pop culture sections (or respective pages in some cases? Face-confused.svg I guess I don't understand why it's on some but can't be on others, unless it's a lack of standardization or something... if it's okay for some pages but not others I mean. — -dainomite   20:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a lack of standardization. It's not OK for some pages and not for others, its just that you can't wave a wand and make it all go away. Someone has to look at the page, conclude 'this doesn't belong here' and remove it, and available time for most editors is finite. Just like you can find hoaxes, vandalism and nonsense on Wikipedia pages simply because nobody has spotted and removed it yet. Agricolae (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Bedson (2)[edit]

Have you seen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive - I've deleted a lot of articles. The IP is in Australia, but ? Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have. But when I looked today I found a new one had been added, Julius Know. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed that Dougweller chose to completely ignore my comments and edits. May go further with this; not happy that you flagrantly ignored me. I would request undeletion of the articles I removed the speedy tag from while discussion occurs. (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Odd I'm being singled out here. I will say that with the very large number of articles created by 5 socks that no one should waste time worrying about a few minor edits and the removal of speedy tags. Editors can recreate them, IPs can suggest their creation. But this singling me out is a bit suspicious. As for comments, what comments? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
What's suspicious about it? Agricolae has at least engaged in dialogue, on my talk page and at Talk:Exorcism of the Pentagon (oh, wait, you deleted that page), but you have simply deleted, when deletion was obviously controversial. (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You somehow came across a set of unrelated articles all by one sock puppet and edited them. That's suspicious, no? Then you accuse me of deleting all of them, which is completely untrue. And as you've been told, this is accepted practice. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote on my talk page, I am obviously not an administrator, so I can't see which articles were deleted, except for "Exorcism of the Pentagon", which I remembered by name. I think it was a reasonable (although now admittedly incorrect) assumption to assume only editor had been involved, considering you seem to have had previous interactions with the creator. I apologise, however, and I hope you see where I was coming from. (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Also, I've changed the header to "Bedson (2)" as there is already a sub-section called "Bedson" which means the table of contents is useless. (Hope Agricolae doesn't mind) (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, apology accepted. Several Administrators have been deleting these sock puppet articles. I didn't delete any of the Ambassador ones. I think if you were aware of the amount of problems Bedson has caused, and his explicit attempt to blackmail us into unblocking him, you might be more sympathetic. He also has a pattern of either using unreliable sources (fringe,etc) or using sources to back claims not in the sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── His socks have been busy creating attack pages for Agricolae and myself. Pretty pathetic ones at that. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

removal of content[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at County of Portugal, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Pedro (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Pedro, accusing those who disagree with your edits of vandalism, bias, bad faith and now disruptive editing simply for reverting them and asking that the changes be discussed first is not a productive way to approach a content dispute. Agricolae (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
removal of content is vandalism. It is not the first time you have this kind of behavior. ---Pedro (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
No, Pedro. I have already given you the relevant policy link: WP:NOT VANDALISM. Please read it. This approach you are taking to editing, trying to force content into an article by leveling frivolous accusations against anyone who disagrees, is unproductive. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Agricolae, when you have a minute, can you look at Hermenegildo Gutiérrez. Whe the article on the County of Portugal is no longer protected, I will link his name (changing it from Guterres). Regards, --Maragm (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ero Fernández. I don't have any Portuguese sources for him.--Maragm (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful about the link to Diego. It is out there, but is clearly based on nothing but a shared patronymic, while chronologically Diego appears to be a generation younger so it may just be coincidence. As is always the problem, it is OR to discuss this in the article, but we can mitigate the problem somewhat by being more circumspect in the way we refer to it. Let me add in that we know Lucidez is the wrong patronymic for Diego's wife - this was actually the name of a great-granddaughter of theirs, confused in later reconstructions with her grandmother because they had the same given name. Justo Perez de Urbel suggested she was Jimenez, but this was little more than a guess. Agricolae (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed Onecca's patronymic before I saw your note since I also had my doubts and had read somewhere that she might have been from Navarre, but you're right, there's no evidence on her filiation. On diego, I could just de-link. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
She and Diego had a son Jimeno and a daughter Leodegundia; there was a royal princess named Leodegundia who married a prince from Pamplona, so JP de U put it all together and suggested that princess Leodegundia's husband was the otherwise unknown father of Garcia Jimenez, king of 'another part of the kingdom' and father of Sancho I, and that Oneca was their daughter and named her own children after her parents. The Oneca Lucidez interpretation is based on the name appearing in a much later charter, but that the date of the charter showed her as being much too late to refer to Diego's wife was conveniently ignored. In allowing Oneca to be made granddaughter of Vimara Perez, this gave the impression of a dynastic continuity that didn't really exist. I think this is explained in both the Salazar y Acha paper and Mattoso's. The one in the document was, IIRC, the daughter of Lucido Alvitez, apparently maternal grandson of Diego and Oneca and paternal grandson of Lucido Vimarez. Agricolae (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Since I feel a bit more comfortable in Navarre, I added this one today which I wrote in and edited in I've been participating in lately, but it's overwhelming since many nobles/royals are just copies of personal websites and that awful gen site, Regards, --Maragm (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose 'of Sangüesa' and not 'of Uncastillo'? Agricolae (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Because I saw that someone in one of the other articles where I subsequently linked him had named him as such, although I don't mind, and actually would prefer Uncastillo. Should I move him and change the links? There weren't that many articles involved. --Maragm (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I recall several secondary sources highlighting Uncastillo, so that is probably the better name. If you move it I will help with the links. Agricolae (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ramiro Sánchez, Lord of Monzón[edit]

I was planning to enlarge Ramiro Sánchez, Lord of Monzón. Firstly, I think he was born before 1070, considering that his parents were already married by 1057. There's an interesting article by Alberto Montaner that you can check online (and download) on El Cid. In pages 55-56 he mentions that Menéndez Pidal in La España del Cid, p. 824, considers that Ramiro must have died c. 1116 because in that year, his son (future king García) was tenente there. This, he mentions, is accepted by Fletcher in El Cid, p. 189. Nevertheless, Ramiro continues to confirm documents: tenente in Tudela in 1117 (although he mentions that the document is not reliable), but certainly in Erro where he appears as senior between 1122 and 1129, the probable year of his death. So I think he may have been born a bit earlier and we can "postpone" his death until 1129. Also, I would remove that pretty picture of El Cid's daughters since the Infante de Carrión story is simply a legend. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Have at it. The full text of the two cited Principe de Viana articles have recently been added to DialNet if you don't have them handy. I was just thinking last night that the picture is of doubtful value. I am wondering if there shouldn't be a page created on the Infantes de Carrion legend, which while fictitious has been written about a good bit and so perhaps is culturally notable, if not historically authentic. Even if that is done, the Menendez Pidal Historia de España volume V has a much older representation that I would prefer to this more modern rendering, although the use of both might highlight the notability of the legend. I am sure Menendez Pidal wrote about the legend in Historia y Epopeya and within the past few years a historical analysis was published (perhaps Martinez Diez?, I will have to check when I get home). Or perhaps this should just be a section in Cantar de Mio Cid. I won't have time to do anything about it for several months though. Agricolae (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This one by Díez, I think. Srnec (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the one I had in mind. Agricolae (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson. There's one there that needs more evidence, can you help? It's [28]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am of two minds on this one. At first look, it just appears to be a newby genealogy-pusher, not very familiar with Wikipedia practice (e.g removing a hatnote on Gaini, which I wouldn't expect of PB). It just doesn't look like his style. That being said, it can't be a complete newby, as his 5th edit includes the edit summary "Edited page, no need to undo", when none of his prior edits had been undone, so he has to have some history of editing, but it could just be as an IP. I'd AfD the new creations, but I am pretty sure they would be kept by vote, even though the AEthelwulf one is just a string of genealogical connections (some of them speculated, implied or SYNTH) and a death notice. There are some aspects of the edits that border on Bedsonian in terms of the credulity, but it doesn't seem too conservative for his style, but some of his latest socks have experimented with trying to slip though conservative material presented with faux-naivety so maybe he is just getting better at it. Agricolae (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Or worse, he's done some really bad editing recently. Of course he's watching all these discussions. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Compromise of Caspe[edit]

Could you intervene in the article on the Compromise of Caspe. The typical war is going on and, besides removing and placing the deed on the bottom of the article and deleting the respective references, the County of Barcelona has surprisingly become a "principality". Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, user Agricolae. I'm going to clarify some things. The discusion between Maragm and I not include the term "principality" (the user who changed "county" and wrote "principality" was Galazan [29]). And I am not opposed to references (Maragm put the references now and nothing happens). If I deleted it, was accidentally. The problem is the image of the document which proclaims Ferdinand as king. I think that the image that should head the article is the image of Ferdinand of Aragon (the king who was elected in the compromise) and not the image of the document of his proclamation (now located in the part of the article that talks about the deliberations in the Compromise). Discussion seems trivial, but it is not. Fernando was king, that is an objective fact. But the document is controversial (you can read it in "Revisionism") and I think that is not appropiate put the image in the head of the article (and favoring one of the two theories in dispute). It's best to seek the maximum neutrality.--EeuHP (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The Principalty of Catalonia was in fact a medieval and modern state, with constitutions and officials. I don't know why you talk about it as something fanciful, Maragm you can learn it reading some books of history.--Galazan (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Being groovy[edit]

Hey Agricolae dude, you keep deleting my funky article entitled The Sun and the Serpent by Hamish Miller (Dowser) saying the "Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices" mentions "similar" lines to those theorized by Miller and not those discovered in the book. I don't mean to come down all heavy on you or nothing, but if you check the Encylcopedia source, you'll see it doesn't speak of "similar" lines at all, but directly references Millers St. Mary and St. Michael lines which originated and were the main topic of the Sun and the Serpent, the only ley-book reference in the Encyclopedia. As does Carl's PhD thesis and the "Resurgence and Ecological" review. I see you're not a newbie here, I've not been editing long, so could you explain the deletion a bit better, and how I can improve things, that would be far out and groovy. ۞TrippingHippy۞talk 14:49, 20:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You appear not to understand what constitutes notability for a book. You need secondary sources that talk about the book, not just that talk about the same concepts as discussed in the book - it has to speak of the exact book in question explicitly. You are also making broad claims about the influences of Miller on how certain people view the world. To do so, you need a secondary source that says, in as many words, that Miller had those influences. You cannot just look for the same themes and conclude for yourself how influential it all was. Agricolae (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanksabuncha buddio! I won't create the book again as you suggest. Instead, I've made the article about the St. Michael and St. Mary ley lines that grooves on about the famous ley lines and the dudes that have commented about them and where they go, waving around through all the magical and groovy landscape. ۞TrippingHippy۞talk 14:49, 15:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
We have no idea what you're saying. If you're trying to communicate something other than nonsense or want to be taken seriously, you need to drop the fake hippie role-play persona immediately.- LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow man, that's far-out. Y'all can communicate by telepathy or something and know what each other can and can't understand. That's way freaky man. I thought I could do that once, but it was only the mushroom people. I've made an effort to write my article for the squares too, just like you jived at me. ۞TrippingHippy۞talk 14:49, 15:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I know it's not really your cup of tea...[edit]

But Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1 would not be hurt at all by your considered and helpful subject matter expertise. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Assistance and recommendations[edit]

Could you help out with an article about an alleged Spanish noble house? I was initially suspicious of the article House of Silva because it has no non-WP sources and it was created by someone with the name "Silvafamilie" -- strong indicators of it being a hoax. Maragm on eswiki said that they existed, and that Salazar y Castro wrote a treatise about them -- but that the article is less than accurate.

Maragm said that he couldn't help more than that, but that there are some "very good genealogists" on enwiki -- and recommended you by name. Do you have time to take a look?

Thanks in advance. DS (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I stubbed it, which is all I have time for right now. Agricolae (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A science question[edit]

I remember you answered a question I once had about membrane proteins and how they worked. Well, after doing some more reading, I have a further question, and decided to ask you directly here. So, according to you, the higher concentration outside will increase the rate of inward diffusion. However, I was wondering how that would work, because, considering a single transporter, which transports the exact same ratios of molecules each time in either direction, wouldn't the rate in either direction not really make a difference if the protein cannot change back to an outward-facing conformation on its own? Or considering multiple proteins, if the inward rate is high, then wouldn't the vast majority of transport proteins be stuck facing inwards, and thus not allowing further entry of substances because the outward rate would be slow? I did happen to read one book on google books that suggests that the amount transported can vary, which I suppose would make this work, but is this book correct? Brambleclawx 02:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

(If I understand what you are asking, and somewhat simplified - ) The time for a full cycle is the sum sequential events: (in-binding + in-transport + in-release) + (out-binding + out-transport + out-release). Overall, no matter how slow out is, changes to in will still affect the total time taken. The transport and release steps are usually so much more rapid that the binding events have by far the biggest effect on the speed of the whole in-out cycle, and binding is concentration dependent. The higher the concentration, the faster the binding, up to a point. If the concentration gets too high, then effectively a new one jumps on as fast as it can move, as soon as the spot is available. Once binding is that fast, it can't get any faster, but most biological systems never have concentrations this high, so the overall rate will usually depend on the two concentrations. Agricolae (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that regardless of the time taken, if a given protein transports the same amount in either direction (say, 1 glucose) and the transport protein cannot change its configuration back without transporting in the reverse direction, how can concentration on either side ever change? Ex. I have 10 particles outside, 5 inside, and 1 protein, whenever 1 goes in, this changes to 9 outside, 6 inside, but can never get to 8 outside, 7 inside because the protein's substrate binding spot is now inside, which means it cannot bind a new particle from the outside without first transporting a molecule from the inside back out, turning it back to 10 out, 5 in. Brambleclawx 14:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. I thought you were talking about a specific type, an antiporter, which works by passing, say, sodium one direction and potassium the other. If only one is involved, then that is a different story (see below). Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to a uniporter... Brambleclawx 01:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding on, what's confusing perhaps is that different textbooks seem to claim different things. Here it is claimed that the protein changes shape when substrate binds, after which the protein can change back on its own (which would seemingly allow for what I suggested in my question on the ref desk to work because such a system could only allow transport one-way), while this text suggests that the protein changes constantly regardless of whether substrate is bound. Brambleclawx 14:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't access the first one - Google Books can be quirky and it is not willing to show me that page. That being said, one reason for confusion is that there are multiple different types, and a second is that, until very recently it could only be guessed what is happening because the way precise protein structure is usually determined, X-ray crystalography, could not be done on membrane-spanning proteins, so its all just educated guesswork and models. For the passive transporters, I have seen three different models that immediately come to mind. One model is that the receptor has two configurations, in and out, and is constantly flipping back and forth. If an ion happens to bind on one side, it ends up being on the other. A second model only applies to a case when there is always a concentration gradient in one direction. The receptor's unbound state places the binding site on the side with the higher concentration. The binding of an ion on one side induces a change in the receptor shape, flipping it to the other side. When the ion is released, the receptor goes back to its unbound shape, pointing back to the original side. (Where concentration comes into play is that, in this model, if the concentration is too high on the 'destination side' then the ion will not release for long enough for the receptor to change shape.) A third model I have seen, based on some low-level structural data and some guessing, is that it is a tube with specific shape and charge characteristics that only allow a single specific ion to flow, passively, with no change in shape - it is basically an inflexible ultra-selective pipe (this is more a 'channel' than a transporter). Which of these is correct may depend on the individual transporter involved - some types may work one way, some another. Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The first two models were extremely helpful! Thank you for your help! Brambleclawx 01:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Archaic homo sapiens[edit]

Can you look at Talk:Homo rhodesiensis#Homo sapiens? Any views on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

On Manriques and Manzanedos[edit]

Hello Agricolae, I found an excellent article (with a couple of mistakes though, re Ava Pérez de Trava) by historian Carlos Estepa Díaz. He is also the author of the two volumes on the Behetrías Castellanas. You can download here, in case you haven't seen it. On p. 54, note 305, he also mentions what I have suspected for some time....that Gómez Glz de Manzanedo could be the nephew of Rodrigo Gómez, as the son of Gonzalo Gómez who on 15 feb 1144 is attested as Gonzalo Gómez "filius comitis", being the only count Gómez at that time. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Roman vs. Byzantine[edit]

In regard to your comment at the AfD for General list of Roman emperors, there is a coterie devoted to breaking down the conventional periodization of Roman Empire vs. Byzantine Empire. This pointy crusade has resulted in frequent duplication of content in articles in which the scope is intended to be delimited by (again) conventional periodization of "antiquity" and "middle ages". You may already be aware of this, but it concerns me because I think it produces unnecessarily confusing and unwieldy articles for the kind of readers Wikipedia is intended to serve. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


I have replied on the Talk page. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of Bosnian pyramid hoax[edit]

Seems like we have a lot of detail in the lede that should be summarized there but expanded upon within the article as you did. [30] Personally, I always wondered if we could ever find a reliable source about their opening a grave, taking the body, shipping it for study, then losing it. --Ronz (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree about the lede. I thought the dubious supporters bit went best with the dubious collaborators part, but that it all should shift down into the body, but I got mid-edit and couldn't figure out how (or where) best to move it, so I left it where it was hoping someone else would have more insight. I don't remember seeing anything about the body bit. Agricolae (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

FTDNA is not a reliable source?[edit]

Hello, I notice you have been removing comments about DNA research in articles citing FTDNA and other groups published on line. You often refer to published material from this company as Original Research or no Reliable Source. Family Tree DNA is a professional DNA testing company listed on Wikipedia. It uses a professional testing lab in Arizona. Is your primary objection is that DNA results presented by this company is hobbyist and thus not a valid source? Curious. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No. My objection is that FTDNA takes a cheek swab sent through the mail and tests it for SNPs and microsatelite markers, and then report their result to whoever sent the material. That is what they do and that is the basis of their expertise, DNA testing of whatever sample they were sent. Separately, FTDNA are also web hosts for family surname DNA groups, but they do not play an editorial role in that process. Rather, each group has a volunteer who compiles and sorts whatever results are submitted to them. This individual usually makes no effort either to confirm that the result was from the person reporting it, nor that the genealogy that person is claiming for themselves is accurate. FTDNA has no expertise in genealogy, nor do most of the group coordinators. (Expertise in the Wikipedia RS sense, means that they are among the predominant practitioners of their field - in the USA, you pretty much have to be an FASG, an editor of NEHGR, TAG, NGSQ, etc., or perhaps the head Genealogist of the DAR, Mayflower Soc. or the like to be given that benefit of the doubt.) If as a Wikipedia editor you look at the haplotype information reported on a FTDNA family group site and conclude that since everyone claiming descent from colonial immigrant William Carpenter have the same haplotype, then that must be his haplotype, you are doing original research since nobody tested William himself. If you conclude that William Carpenter likely came from East Anglia, because that is where that haplotype is found most, you are doing original research, because even were both facts true, it is original research to put the two together. If you find a source (say, a FTDNA group site) that has already drawn this conclusion, unless they have published it via a process that involves editorial peer review, then it is not a RS unless it was the conclusion of one of those rare experts and is posted by them on their personal web page or blog. So, FTDNA is a reliable source for what FTDNA does (if you want to say FTDNA claims to be the largest haplogroup testing company, you would certainly cite FTDNA for this). FTDNA isn't even a reliable source on the process of DNA testing, because nothing that is self-published is reliable (and no company is considered an 'expert' by this standard, so they need to publish something in, say a scholarly journal, but then the journal is the source). FTDNA would certainly not be a reliable source based on any of the myriad surname group project sites that they host but do not supervise. Agricolae (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: There are two William Carpenters born about 1605-1610 in Wiltshire, England. One is later of Providence, RI and designated as progenitor of Group 2. The other is later of Rehoboth, MA and is the progenitor of Group 3. Both through verified genealogy and by genetic testing. Knowing this will help in the following.

Please see:
WILLIAM1 CARPENTER OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND by Eugene Cole Zubrinsky, FASG Ojai, California, 2008 - Last revised 9 December 2010. Page 15 which reads ...
"Traditional genealogical research methods provide good reasons to doubt also that Providence William and Rehoboth William were closely related (see NEHGR 159:64–66, 67n63). Results of recent genetic testing coordinated by the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project support this conclusion: Based on a number of 67-marker tests, “we can state with 95% confidence that the most recent common ancestor of the two groups [descendants of the Providence and Rehoboth Carpenters, respectively] was more than 2 generations before the immigrants and less than about 20. Therefore, the DNA testing has very nearly ruled out the often-repeated claim that the Williams were first cousins. The most likely estimate is about 7 generations, but that is a very rough estimate, and the 95% confidence interval is a more reasonable description of what the DNA is telling us” (Carpenter Cousins)."
At the bottom is:
"Thanks to Jim Bullock (Littleton, Colo.), John R. Carpenter (La Mesa, Calif.), Terry L. Carpenter (Germantown, Md.), and John F. Chandler (Harvard, Mass.) for reviewing the original sketch."

John F. Chandler, Phd. "Experimental tests of general relativity; planetary ephemerides; interplanetary radar ranging; astrometric optical interferometry." He also teaches & supports genetic genealogy for several DNA projects. You will also see his name on as a web page maintainer and he provides genetic analysis. He is also a published science author and editor.
Terry L. Carpenter - Staff Genealogist, Office of The Registrar General, National Society Daughters of the American Revolution - 1776 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-5303. He is also an author. AKA Diluvius.
James "Jim" Bullock - Rehoboth, Massachusetts: the Curious Ancestral Home of Many Gaspee Raiders by Jim Bullock, Littleton, CO - Webmaster, Rehoboth Roots. He is considered the expert many FASGs go to on the early American Colonies. He is a good advisor and editor.
John R. Carpenter - The less professional of this group, a genealogist (BA)& published author on Carpenter genealogy and people person for Carpenter Cousins. He also maintains a genealogy database of 147K plus Carpenters.
and ...
Eugene Cole "Gene" Zubrinsky - He is a FASG and an editor of NEHGR, TAG, NGSQ, etc articles. Go to the bottom of the intro page for the Carpenter sketches here and scroll to the bottom for a few articles he has written and referenced for this particular page. Each sketch has its own sources.
These are part of the professional team that runs Carpenter Cousins - the genealogy, the Y-DNA Project and for support.

Genetic genealogy to be effective needs accurate genealogy to a common ancestor. This paper trail from the person submitting to the common ancestor, in this case William Carpenter of Providence (Group 2), must go through two or more verified lineages. Then a Y-DNA test of 25 or more markers is taken and results compared to the verified lineages or paper trails. The process is called triangulation. Person A & B with the MRCA (say William Carpenter of Providence) provide three points of the triangle. But the verified lineage of A & B only complete two parts or sides of the triangle. By applying a confirmed genetic match to the third side, then you have real genetic genealogy. Repeat this process many times and this confirms the lineages and genetic connections. Then remove mutations and focus on the mode or standard DYS markers and you have re-constructed the ancestor Y-DNA markers. This is the scientific method to determine ancestral DNA markers. Another explanation is here.
Please note that I mentioned 25 or more markers are needed. The reason is that there is a 24/25 marker match between Group 2 & 3 in the Carpenter Cousin Y-DNA Project. With more markers there is more separation or division between these two groups.
Now, in most DNA Projects they do not discriminate between genealogical AND genetic matches and just genetic matches. The Carpenter Cousins does and provides a link to a lineage page. In addition, most DNA Projects are not ISOGG reviewed (peer review) or professionally maintained like the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project. Nor do they publish on line and off line like the Carpenter Cousins Project does. Unless you are familiar with genetic genealogy and the requirements to run such a program professionally, then it is easy to lump them all together.
The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project started in 2002 but the database collection and publication started in 1999. It has been cited by two professional DNA scientific reports and used as an example by ISOGG, FTDNA and others.

Finally, FTDNA has a computer that sorts the DNA markers into standard reports. This removes the group administrator from the role or sorting and matching for DNA comparison at FTDNA. Each time you see a FTDNA generated DNA report on a FTDNA page, it is generated at that time for you. See: FTDNA public page for Carpenter Cousins (Please note the Group Administrator names) Click on the Y-DNA Reports tab and selected Colorized. Reset Markers to Y-DNA 25 to see 25 marker comparisons and Page size to 1000. The report will regenerate. Scroll down to Group 2. Look for Mode. The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project has members from other DNA testing companies and maintains a separate page to show all members from all DNA testing companies.
I hope the above provides some education that not all DNA projects are haphazard and unprofessional. And how marker results are posted from FTDNA to avoid transcription errors into useable reports. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Does the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project meet the requirements you set out above to be a proper citation in Wikipedia articles such as William Carpenter (Rhode Island)? Jrcrin001 (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Oh, and see my note about it being indiscriminate information. Agricolae (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on six previous references above ... It appears that any genealogy or genetic genealogy from anywhere, regardless of if it is professional, that is not published in the traditional hard copy formats "is indiscriminate trivia, plain and simple." You talk and say one thing, but is it is now obvious you have a strong bias (POV) and ignorance toward on line publishing, of what genetic genealogy is and what it can do. I seriously doubt you will change. It is ironic that by your own criteria nothing on Wikipedia is valid because it is self published and not done by professionals. This is exactly what many detractors of Wikipedia claim that it "is indiscriminate trivia, plain and simple." I feel sorry for you. Good bye. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You are mixing apples and oranges. The publication site and support for genealogical material determines whether or not it is reliable (in the Wikipedia sense). As much as you meant it to be ironic, you have recapitulated Wikipedia policy - Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, which is (one of the reasons) why you should not cite Wikipedia pages in other Wikipedia pages. As to it being indiscriminate trivia, that is independent of whether it is reliable - there is perfectly reliable information that is still indiscriminate trivia. What the justification why a general biography of William Carpenter should include the fact that at site DYS565 he has 13 copies of the tandem repeat? What exactly does this tell you about William Carpenter, the man? Just as we don't give celebrities' blood types or astrological signs or the location of every mole on their body, this is not information that informs you sufficiently about people, that helps you to better understand their lives, historical or cultural relevance - that is what makes it indiscriminate. It doesn't matter if it is published in NEHGR by an FASG, indiscriminate is indiscriminate. Your sympathy is noted, but if you want to make a genealogical shrine to your colonial ancestor, there are more appropriate places to do so. Agricolae (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it a Copyright Violation?[edit]

You have provided no evidence of any copyright violation. Please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Citing copyright violations ("Added material is verbatim from on-line pages - WP:COPYVIO."), you modified this:

In modern molecular biology and genetics, a genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information, including both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the DNA/RNA.[1] The human genome is a model of the complete set of genetic information found in human (Homo sapiens) individuals, as a composite model of human genetic material that is stored as DNA sequences within the 23 chromosome pairs of individual cell nuclei and in a small DNA molecule within individual mitochondria. The haploid human genome (contained in egg and sperm cells) consists of three billion DNA base pairs, while the diploid genome (found in somatic cells) has twice the DNA content.

to this:

The human (Homo sapiens) genome is the complete set of human genetic information, stored as DNA sequences within the 23 chromosome pairs of the cell nucleus and in a small DNA molecule within the mitochondrion. The haploid human genome (contained in egg and sperm cells) consists of three billion DNA base pairs, while the diploid genome (found in somatic cells) has twice the DNA content.

You have provided no evidence of any copyright violation. Please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. The first sentence is a verbatim copy of material found elsewhere. You may have copied it from the web, you may have copied it from elsewhere in Wikipedia, but you obviously copied it. Agricolae (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Those damn hills[edit]

Better leave it alone now - do you know you are at 3RR! Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It hadn't occurred to me because of the way the third came about, although I am pretty sure I would have tweaked to it before I made a 4th. Thanks, though. Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's something that worries me at times. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Human genome[edit]

Hi Agricolae. Please understand that while the three revert rule is a bright line, it does not intitle you to three reverts every twenty four hours without every receiving a block. Please be aware that WP:EDITWAR can still be applied in situations where the 3 revert rule is not violated and blocks can still be issue for continual edit warring. If you continue to engage in an edit war at Human genome, there is a strong possibility you could be on the receiving end of a block. Best, Tiptoety talk 05:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are talking about the three on the day before, those were COPYVIO, but I get your point. Agricolae (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh no![edit]

I have no idea how I missed that one when I looked at it the first time. Great work! Stalwart111 11:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Matilda of Normandy[edit]

Good day, Agricolae! I believe we spoke before. So, you do not believe that one day Princess Matilda can become notable? Maybe we find out in the future something about her. Until then, why that red link cannot stay in her father's article?--Miha (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I very much doubt that she will ever become notable. If, by some wild chance that happens, then it is always possible to add the information in. Until then - why bother ... she's not notable NOW. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Speculating about the future is pointless. Redlinks are for people about whom an article could now be written, but none has yet been, to encourage someone to do that work. That is not the case here. We have an individual about whom almost nothing is known, and clearly not enough to consider her notable or to justify her having a page. Were that to change in the future, so be it, but based on what is known about her now, a red link is not justified, and will only encourage someone making a stub which will then, for want of notability, be converted into a redirect that points right back to this page. So, you ask why not? I ask why? Agricolae (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quit Vandalizing My Wkipedia Page!!![edit]

Your apparent vendetta against FTDNA has caused you to repeatedly remove a section of my article "Van Tuyl" If you have genuine complaints about FTDNA, then make them in a reasonable way, not by doing malicious edits. The claims in my article are well-researched and quite defensible. Rory Van Tuyl (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not your Wikipedia page: see WP:OWN. Perhaps it would be useful to edit other articles on Wikipedia to get a better feel for the collaborative editing that takes place here. Attribution of my actions to a "vendetta" or describing my edits as "malicious" violates WP:CIVIL. You also suggest my actions are those of a vandal, but vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia (see WP:VANDAL) that does not include removing text you want to remain, because it has no reliable source. For reliable sourcing on Wikipedia, see WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Gonzalo Núñez de Lara[edit]

Hello Agricolae, I finally gathered the courage to tackle Gonzalo Núñez de Lara in and just translated it into English. Would appreciate your remarks, corrections, etc. Best regards, --Maragm (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a look when I have more than a few minutes of free time (some time next month, the way things are going). Agricolae (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring Neanderthal Page[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Whatever explanations you offered are invalid and have regardless been roundly dismissed. The onus is on you to back up your claims with sources, for one, and two get consensus from other editors. Also, being that my edit is a valid edit, you do not just remove it because you don't like it and if you do have a source that refutes it it does not mean you remove my edit, you add the refutation after it. No one is forcing anything other than you who is trying to force the removal of a perfectly valid edit. And please do not be hypocritical asking me to take it to Talk as it was I who told you to go there in the first place. If this was this much of a concern to you you would have asked to go to discussion several reversions ago.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I did go to the Talk page and discuss it several reversions ago, back in August, and again, after explicitly pointing you there today. You have yet to address my explanation. Oh, and you have the burden backwards - yours is the change from what it was before, yours is the burden to reach consensus. Agricolae (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You said nothing in your edit notes about going to discussion which I find now here: "Ancient Population substructure, not interbreeding". Thanks for wasting my time dude.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
To quote my first of today "-> Talk". As to wasting time, that discussion has been there since August. How is that me wasting your time? Agricolae (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
==Jimena Alfonso ==

Good day, Agricolae! Now, I must ask about King Alfonso: although he maybe had only one son-in-law, Fernando, what about patronymic of his younger daughter? Why you removed it? Also, I must complain about dates: according to Spanish Wikipedia, Sancha was born in the same year when Alfonso married Elvira, which can be viewed as an unwanted pregnancy. Should we clarify such claims by explaining why there are several dates of Sancha's birth that are mentioned in various articles? Only what is clear is that she was elder than her brother and half-sister. (And please, answer soon!). - Miha

OK, here is the deal with Jimena. The tradition surrounding El Cid made him marry Jimena, kinswoman of Alfonso VI. Older genealogies indicated that she was the daughter of Alfonso V, even though this was chronologically dubious, given that El Cid's wife appears to have been younger than Alfonso VI. Menendez Pidal drew attention to a document (the authenticity of which is not uniformly accepted) that showed Jimena Diaz, wife of El Cid, to be daughter of a Count Diego by Cristina, and niece of Urraca Fernandez, daughter of Fernando Gundemariz. Separately, he found a document in which the infanta Jimena Alfonso appears, along with Fernando Gundemariz. It occurred to him that this could solve the problem: if Jimena Diaz was daughter of Cristina, daughter of Fernando Gundemariz by Jimena Alfonso (remember, he had no evidence they were married, just that they appeared in the same document) then that would make Jimena Diaz and Alfonso VI cousins, as remembered by tradition. The problem is that Fernando Gundemariz can be shown married to someone else a few years before the two appear in a document together, and there is not enough time for that wife to die, for him to remarry the infanta and have Cristina, and for Cristina to have Jimena Diaz. Given that the only reason for hypothesizing that these two people appearing in the same document were husband and wife is so that Jimena Diaz could be Alfonso's kinswoman, the whole house of cards comes crashing down. It was actually really rare for royal princesses to marry - most didn't. With 14 kings between Alfonso III (who had two daughters about whom we know nothing, not even their names) all the way down to Alfonso VI, only four Leonese infantas are known to have married: a daughter of Fruela II (who may not have married until after her brother was deposed, I don't remember the chronology of her marriage); a daughter of Ramiro II who married Garcia Sanchez I of Navarre; the daughter of Vermudo's rejected first wife (she would come to be viewed as illegitimate), and Sancha, whose marriage to Fernando of Castile was made necessary by the peninsular politics imposed upon Leon by Sancho el Mayor.
I removed the patronymic because it is unnecessary. Her name was Jimena. She could be called Jimena Alfonso to identify her father, but it was not a formal part of her name, just a tool of convenience, and we don't need it since we are naming her right after telling everyone that she is Alfonso's daughter, which is all it means. Bermudo III was also Bermudo Alfonso, and Sancha of Leon was also Sancha Alfonso (and Jimena was also 'Jimena of Leon'), but we leave out the patronymic for them too. While we are at it, there is no direct testimony that Jimena was Alfonso's daughter by Urraca. Historically she has been viewed as his bastard instead. However, the name Jimena had not been seen in the royal family (nor any of Alfonso's maternal ancestry) since well over a century before, and given that Urraca's mother was named Jimena, that Alfonso's Jimena was by Urraca is extremely likely, so I haven't quibbled with that.
As to Sancha's birthdate, I suspect it is all just speculation based on when Alfonso was married (even that being guesswork based on when his wife first appears in the incomplete documentary record) and when Sancha herself was married and started having children. Certainly the timing is not known well enough to speculate about anything irregular. We should probably be removing any birthdates that appear for her (at least any that are not hedged with 'about'. Agricolae (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Re Fernando Gundemáriz, I just translated article on his father that I wrote for es and pt wiki: Gundemaro Pinióliz. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll give it a look when I have time. This reminds me of another problem of Menendez Pidal in that same reconstruction (in his España del Cid) - he made Gundemaro son of Piniolo Jimenez, actually Gundemaro's nephew. Agricolae (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I mention that in the article. --Maragm (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for explanation! - Miha — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


Torman - can't find any sources for this, hoax? Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't know anything about it - at a minimum it should be redirected to Fili, since all it says is that the Fili system includes five, and this is one of the five. It doesn't say anything about this specifically. Agricolae (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking again, I'm pretty sure it's a hoax, the sock sticking his finger up at us. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It does look this way. At a minimum it is WP:NAD, but the way User is now arguing that it really means a different dictionary definition than he has given it on the page, it is starting to look awfully squirrelly. Agricolae (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor[edit]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "Enable the visual editor. It will be available in the following namespaces: $1". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...[edit]

Waltensburger Chur2.jpg Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Polio 2012 Map[edit]


I noticed you meant to add Democratic Republic of the Congo to File:Polio_worldwide_2012.svg last year, but you accidentally shaded it's similarly-named neighbour Republic of the Congo instead. It's a simple chage that I'd do myself if it were raster but I don't have an SVG editor installed, any chance you can fix it? If not let me know and I'll take it to the Graphics Lab instead.

Tobus (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, you seem to be on holiday. I ended up downloading Inkscape and did it myself :) Tobus (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

074 Frontal d'altar de Mosoll, els Reis d'Orient.jpg Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


Hello Agricolae, could you please give your opinion in this talk page regarding the Visigothic origin of the Velas? Happy New Year. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...[edit]

Saturnalia by Antoine Callet.jpg Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ridley, M. (2006). Genome. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-019497-9