[WikiEN-l] The ahnentafel issue

[Charles Matthews]

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