While people are generally aware of the tendentious nature of some
infobox entries, there's a related issue that is just creeping into my
consciousness. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ahnentafel/doc
for a general idea what this is about - oddly enough Template:Ahnentafel
itself doesn't exist, but there are variants listed on that page. These
templates usually lurk in "hidden" form at the bottom of pages, giving
someone's ancestry going back about four generations. There are really
two points here: firstly that it is very easy for there to be unverified
information in such tables; and secondly that there is a fair amount of
pressure from those generally interested in genealogy and family history
for us to host this kind of information, when (it might be argued)
family history of most kinds isn't really encyclopedic.
The verifiability thing is more problematic to me right now. If you look
at [[Catherine Parr]], for whom as a royal there is some excuse for
interest in her antecedents, there is apparently a disagreement about
the father of Sir John Fogge, one of her great-grandfathers. There is
indeed a reference to a printed source. I think all that means is that
it doesn't make Wikipedia look stupid to include such information - it
certainly doesn't mean it's beyond dispute. As it happens the Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography entry has a different theory about
Fogge's father; and I'd be happier following that. One thing is clear
enough, which is that discussing this matter in detail on the Catherine
Parr page would be off-topic, unless it somehow mattered for her life.
So there are a couple of things going on here. NPOV on genealogical
matters cannot be achieved, when you go far enough back, just by citing
some reference, because you hit areas where there is a lack of
definitive and authoritative references. And there is a bigger picture,
which is what to do when genealogy-oriented references clash with
professional historians writing on the same matters. I'm with following
the historians, but that might be considered a bit snobbish by others.
Charles