Re :King Arthur is the ancestor of the present Queen Elizabeth
If he existed, and I understand prevailing wisdom is that there probably was at least one
dark age warlord behind the myth, and if he had progeny then its statistically probable
that he features in the ancestry of our current Queen and everyone else who has any
British ancestry.
WereSpielChequers
"When Adam delved and Eve span,
who was then the gentleman?"
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:38:26 +0100
From: doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability in Wikipedia
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <49F641F2.3030103(a)ntlworld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/27 <WJhonson(a)aol.com>om>:
> In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific
Daylight Time,
> doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com writes:
>
> If we can agree something is the sensible thing
to do, then we do it.
> That's what IAR is all about, and why
"multiple third-party sources" may
> be a good rule of thumb, but, like most
rules,
must never become Holy
> Writ. (See WP:IAR).>>
>
>
> -------------------------
>
> So we let creep in such chestnuts as "King
Arthur is the ancestor of the
> present Queen Elizabeth" because this is
repeated on 12 websites of "local
genealogy" societies.
That's completely unrelated. Using a source to
establish notability is
very different to using that source to establish
facts. That King
Arthur is mentioned on 12 local genealogy society
websites might well
be enough for him to be notable, but some other
source
would need to
be used for actually writing the article. There
is no
reason to take
reliability of sources into account when
determining
notability, just
that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was
trying to make near
the beginning of this thread.