Parent/Child link type

From Rodovid Engine

(Redirected from Make-believe people)
Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Ideas and reactions

[edit] Fictional characters

I found these fictional characters: Harry Potter, Mr. Burns, Homer Simpson,

I think that these recors must be deleted, or moved to the engine. But what about the genealogy of gods? Should They be deleted too? --R0MAN0 21:31, 31 October 2009 (EET)

I think it can be, why not?:)))

But it's good idea to provide some pretty template to mark them. Can you develop it?

--Igor 21:36, 31 October 2009 (EET)

yes, a template (like a warning) is a solution, but i think that these characters undermine the credibility of the database. --R0MAN0 23:58, 31 October 2009 (EET)
for other hand, some characters have reserved rights. Is it necessary some permision? And what if is it a kind of promotion?. --R0MAN0 00:05, 1 November 2009 (EET)
What do you think about this template? --R0MAN0 19:15, 2 November 2009 (EET)

[edit] Mixes between Fictional, real, mythological (etc.) persons

This is an old problem. Shall we ever begin to erase these kind of jokes?

--Christophe Tesson 20:19, 21 February 2010 (EET)

I agree totally I do not at all believe in cluttering up Rodovid with make-believe people. But there is a difference between mythological/legendary and make-believe. Make believe are people who are purely fictional and never existed (like Frodo Baggins and Harry Potter). But if through careful study of several comparative mythologies and reconciliation to the archaeological record indicate that a mythological/legendary person probably did exist in a given time and place and had a relationship to a person who can be historically verified then they deserve to be included right?

As an anthropologist I am trained to identify relationship through the use of Genetics, comparative records analysis, linguistics, and archaological record. If I am able to identify in the historical and archaelogical record a real person (whatever their name) using these means and am thereby able to locate a lost common ancestor then I should show it right? And I should include each name that they are known by in the records of their various descendants right? Well there are many who would argue that the Hebrew/English name Adam is not any less a mythological appellation (name) than Zeus or Osirius. After all, he appears in only one book (OK.. three books if you count the Bible, Talmud, and Quran... or 4 books if you include the Pearl of Great Price)... my point is that if I can show through comparative research (of these mentioned books, and the clay tablets of Mesopotamia, and the new emerging pre-diluvian Egyptian records) that Adam did more than likely exist and was a political leader in the Mesopotamian region then I have done nothing but bolster the validity of the Genealogical Record.

If you read through the notes in the English version of this database you will see that I have explanation of the identities and why they are linked into the record. This is in no way different than saying that Willem von Normandie is = to William the Bastard or William the Conqueror. These individuals were called different things by different people with different languages and cultures. But if they can be identified as individuals who lived or quite possibly have lived then they deserve recognition in the historical and genealogical record. Understanding this is what allows us as Historians and Anthropologists to push back the boundaries of man's limited understanding. So unlike Bishop Assur's handling of the genealogy of Alfred the Great. I have no interest in showing that humans were descended from make believe entities such as Gods. But I do know enough about archeology and history to realize that if enough time goes by even men become gods in the shared racial memory.

Ordinarily I would not touch the surname designations in other databases, but the generations from Adam to Noah were already corrupted to the point that everyone appeared the same color when you viewed the genealogical tree and it was incredibly difficult to view the extended relationships which is the entire point of having clan designations. I did not change anyone who was not already there. I only changed the clan designations to show who were the descendants of Seth and who were the descendants of Cain as reconciled between the Egyptian/Assyrian/and Hebrew records. By the way, if our purpose is to avoid mythological record then I do believe that Dynasty 0-C and Dynasty 0-S is historically and genealogically more accurate than "Sons of God". Almoustine 20:56, 21 February 2010 (EET)

Please Almoustine, use very basic english, and write short messages. Your point of view is too much personal. It might be shocking for religious people. It corrupts credibility of the entire historical database.
My opinion is that you should play your game in a special tree, disconnected from the rest of the database, because this game is the expression of an opinion, a special point of view. You should create double records, because the Adam or Eva you're talking about have absolutly no common points with Adam and Eva of christian peoples, jewish peoples, etc.
This could be a beginning in cutting historical trees from mythological trees, in an historical and scientific point of view. Don't you think so? These kind of link can be signaled in the notes of a particular person, but not as a link in the database. --Christophe Tesson 21:16, 21 February 2010 (EET)

So. I am confused now. Are you talking about Rodovid being a Christian only tree for descendants of Judeo-Christian People so that they can prove their descent from their God... But earlier you didn't want any Gods in the tree... or was it just other people's gods... What about historical persons who contributed to the common gene pool who some people only thing are gods? Where shall we put them. Plus if you read carefully in the English version of the tree you will see that the Adam and Eve of Dynasty 00 is the very same Adam and Eve of the Hebrews. I just put in more proofs (from sources other than the Bible) that he very likely is not mythological but very real and as the Christians claim the common ancestor of us all. Rodovid was designed to be the common genealogy base for everyone not just Jews and Christians. Almoustine 21:24, 21 February 2010 (EET)

  • Don't use irony in a multilingual conversation. It's hard to translate.
  • Don't try to make me saying what I haven't said.
  • Of course Rodovid is able to describe any biblical, mythological, fictional genealogical tree. This needs only one precaution: clear separations. Nowadays Che Guevarra is a descendant of Jesus Christ in Rodovid Database. It's stupid, no?
It could be easy to get out of this situation:
  • Make templates and categories as biblical Old Testament, New Testament, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, etc. And then start marking each record. Very simple.
The most important is to cut links between these categories with each other, and with real people (historical or not). If a historical person used to tell he had some mythological parent, it's easy to write it in the note-field with a web-link to the mythological record.
Then, it will be easy to clean up the database. (Long, but easy). The actual database state is disgusting to whom has a Cartesian mind. Just like peoples in Mediawiki foundation...
Of course, you're free to make a template and a category Almoustine's personnal mythology. But the records you make have to be separated from others, just like all the categories I was talking.
There are two other french sysops saying they are tired of these mixes (fr:Utilisateur:Markus3; fr:Utilisateur:Chorinjs), and in brasil there's one who tried to block you (User:Morais69br). In holland, a user try to come in french localization because his tree has been connected to adam and osiris (nl:Gebruiker:Bergsmit). I think it's enough --Christophe Tesson 14:22, 22 February 2010 (EET)
  • It's true ! :-) But I don't speak english, only portuguese, and I not write or discuss on articles... :-( I already registered my vision of GOD TREE - cristian catholic -, what Almostine persisted on change and I preferred to DELETE ALL of them from PT localization...
    The suggestion to use a CATEGORY for each different tree/view for same persons is a very good idea !!! :-) Sorry for I not participate much more... Thanks. Morais 07:55, 24 February 2010 (EET)

Morais what a good idea. Then users can selectively choose which ones of our ancestors we want to ignore. But why not just assign every new user their own personal database where they can do whatever they like without any help from anyone else. Or, maybe we can all just go back to using paper and wasting precious hours in the genealogy library on our own. Or... here is the best idea. We just pretend that there is no such thing as an ancestor, only DNA. Then we can all get tested and enter numbers. That way nobody, not Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddists, not even Atheists could get upset about the data that we enter. It would be pure science without any humanity at all. I have to ask Why do we do genealogy? Why are you doing genealogy? Almoustine 10:32, 24 February 2010 (EET)

Now Christophe who is using Irony? Why when I show an actual documented lineage you call it Almoustine's personnal mythology, and find it easy to criticize me for finding and including proofs of the Family of Adam that appear in Greek, Egyptian, and Assyrian records as well as supported by modern scientific archaeological and genetic inquiry?

Let's be clear here. What you are proposing is to separate my scientifically documented database from your mythological database. That doesn't make sense in light of your assertions that you want to remove mythological people. Who is to say that one person's mythology is more valid than another? Whose mythology do you want to start with? How about we start with the Hebrews... Then we can simply dispense with anyone who appears in the Bible or New Testament (even if they can be documented as living persons who contributed to the common gene pool). Or should we eliminate entire lineages because they believed in the concept of God-Kings and worshiped their ancestors? This would simplify things by eliminating most of the Ancient people (Romans, Goths, Egyptians, Greeks) and some of the medieval ones such as the (Langobards, Welsh, and Saliens) not to mention two thirds of the entire Asian continent. How about those whose only proof of existence is handwritten in an antique bible or a maritime journal? Oops there goes most of the American Colonists and half the American pioneers (not to mention the Native Americans who preserved their lineages in Oral tradition). Ridiculous!

I am deadly serious about my lineages (no pun intended). If you look carefully you will see that Che Guevera is not descended from Jesus Christ. Nobody is. Che appears at this time to be descended from Esus the Idumean who was documented in Roman records as a cadent member of the Herodian family who was a religious leader in what most people now accept as the 1st Century of the Common Era (CE). We did not force a merge between Esus and Jesus for religious reasons (so we don't offend the Christians). Likewise with the prophet Muhammad...we had a frank discussion with a Shia user of this database about the importance allowing historically documented lineages be reflected as descendants of the prophet even though the Shia don't believe he had any living descendants except those of Ali and Fatima.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to have databases corrupted with make believe people either. And I believe we should be careful about including mythological people in the database as well. But shall we really label the Saints as mythological because they performed posthumous miracles? It is my belief that all mythologies should be examined because mythological or legendary people aren't necessarily make-believe. Some people just live great lives and have reputations that outlive them. Over time they become legendary and are made into Gods by subsequent generations who want to honor and remember them. These people have additional traits, and mythic deeds subscribed to them after they are gone. It isn't their fault, and if they once lived, loved, and contributed to the gene pool then they deserve to be included.

I sincerely hope Rodovid does not fall victim to closed mindedness where people who contributed to the common gene pool are eliminated so that they don't offend one group or another, even if their name is Adam or Osirus (Osirus is the Eyptian Nebty name of Cain by the way). I think the problem is that there is not a good system of synchronizing name changes in the database. I suggest that perhaps when a name is changed in the database it gets reflected automatically in the alternate names used field (example) Cain... I update it to Sekken-Ka (the actual historical name of the person as known in Assyrian and Egyptian records) and add Osirus to the Alternate name field, and the name Sekken-ka gets appended to the Alternate first name field as Sekken-Ka (DB-English); Osirus (DB-English) so that users know which database holds the updated record. Almoustine 16:55, 22 February 2010 (EET)

Well, this conversation goes trolling. We need help from other sysops. The rule is: everybody can work in Rodovid without incommoding other peoples. Links between real and mythological persons incommodes lots of people. I proposed a solution: disconnecting categories, which is very simple. Maybe there's other solution allowing Almoustine working here. What are these solutions, and let majority rules. --Christophe Tesson 18:02, 22 February 2010 (EET)
Cristophe, I have seen this discussion and the contributions of Almoustine, and I agree with her work, she changed only the lineage names. She is an old user, she has done many contributions, and I not agree with your manner to she, it was very agressive.
Rodovid use a wiki engine, where anyone can edit, I think that, the most important is add the sources for every record that link with a biblical/mythological/legendary character. The genealogy always will incommode to the people, because somebody don't want to descend from a jew, an indian or a black, etc, and they disconnect those ancestors in their trees. But if there is a careful study with real sources we must to validate those records, links and relationships. All historical records (more 100 or 150 years) must have sources.
For other hand the "rules" must be created and discussed in the all community, and not imposed. First we need to define pillars or something similar, before to created rules.--R0MAN0 21:52, 22 February 2010 (EET)
Romano, because Almoustine herself wrote this line:
Just before my signature, I'm afraid you think I was talking about this particular work. Of course not.
I'm talking about the fact that almost all notorious peoples in Rodovid have genalogical trees running on 100 generations and more. For instance Che Guevarra descending from antic peoples... It's discrediting the entire Rodovid's database --Christophe Tesson 02:25, 23 February 2010 (EET)

Ahem... I am a DFA specialist (Descent from Antiquity) That is what genealogists are supposed to do. Why complain that Rodovid is succeeding where other Genealogy databases have failed. Success is what happens when we all work together. Almoustine 02:28, 23 February 2010 (EET)

Ahem again! Let's talk about Che. His record in Rodovid has a source: Wikipedia. Not so bad. So what about his father. Nothing. No document. How can we seriously track anything to antiquity?
Ok, the web is telling that DFA project is something. Settipani seems to be a central figure in this way to understand genealogy. The less that we can say, is that he is himself a controversial person. English wikipedia tells he works in CNRS (french national scientific research center). Wrong, he is not in the CNRS database. He's just working in a computer society near paris. All that we can find about DNA project has the same scientific seriousness.
So, why not exposing the DFA project opinion in Rodovid? It's OK but it's only an opinion. A controversal one. But let's expose it beside the documented database, as an opinion. No problem, we have enough space. --Christophe Tesson 09:16, 23 February 2010 (EET)

After all we are here and descended from a common source (Unless your ancestors were aliens from outerspace). If Person A has information that they link to Person B and it can be shown that Person B is related to C, D, and G then they tree gets linked. and so on... Eventually a DFA lineage may emerge. The farther back it is the more people will be tied in to it. It isn't something to be ashamed of; Rather, it is the natural order of things. People reproduce: That is a biological fact. Some nations are better record keepers than others: That is a historical fact. And no one single person can trace the entire lineage of mankind: that is a physical fact.

I only know my own family genealogy... and I input chart data from some of my consenting clients... but my real specialty is old historical lineages (Roman, Levantine/Persian, and Egyptian. I personally find that Greek records are a mess!). Not being a reader of Kanji my expertise is limited and I cannot speak for Asian lineages. I simply put in what I find, and note the crossovers where real persons from two or more sources unite with some archeological or contemporary evidence. If combined efforts of all users have conspired to give Che Guevera a DFA lineage then OK. I did not input his data so I am not exactly sure how Che relates to the rest of the database. But why be so concerned about Che? Perhaps he does have a legitimate tie with antiquity it might be through his father... but then again it might be a maternal link. If you personally question the validity of the record that links him to antiquity... verify it. If it is not correct, then change it. That is the beauty of the Rodovid format. Almoustine 20:23, 23 February 2010 (EET)

Well I just regret that other admins don't explain their point of view. French ones don't, because they think they speak a bad English. One of them erased the 2 last french translations of your contributions yesterday. I don't know why dutch and brazilian ones who are known to have an opinion about your work don't wrote something here. About the 38 others I don't know.
Anyway Almoustine, if you want to referee to a particular group of genealogists, you have to source it (DFA project):
  • who's in that group?
  • what idea of genealogy/history does it defend?
  • what is his sources? etc.
I begun to write something in french about this group to prevent Rodovid readers.
In the state of available web documentation about DFA project, it's clear that this is a small and empty bubble. So referring to this clearly explodes your argumentation. If you're Ahem a "DFA specialist", this precisely means that your work means absolutely nothing. It's just a fairy tale. Once more time I agree with the fact that fairy tales can be written in Rodovid, but they have to be written and signaled as fairy tales. Not with a pseudo scientific discourse, and clearly separated from documented historical database.
I think I shall begin to write the templates I was talking about, and to mark records, to see if someone disagree.
As you proposed, the first connection between historical and Mythological record I find, I'll cut the links, and replace them by web-links in the note-field of each record, so then there will be no loss of information. Then I will report that first cut right here on this page to see if someone disagree.
Last words: Romano, you think I was aggressive. It's nothing compared to some messages to Almoustine, written on discussion pages. Many peoples are tired of these mixes.
Have a nice day, you all. --Christophe Tesson 14:32, 24 February 2010 (EET)

I know I'm late to this discussion, but I have a few suggestions that I think would make all of this work better.

  1. Require that all mythological and Biblical profiles are put in relevant categories. By the way, most of the categories already exist.
  2. Require that, for historical people, everything is sourced.
  3. Require that for historical people/figures/myths there is no original research like the policy on Wikipedia. If you have a new theory about two people being in fact the same person it has to be published somewhere else by a reputable source before it goes on Rodovid. This includes many of the DFA claims.

What is everyone's opinion on these? Wikiacc () 22:47, 17 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Relationships

The question about relationships between real, make-believe people, mythological and fictional people arose again and I think it will never disappear. Unfortunately or fortunately )).

Some time ago a decision was proposed: the parameter should be added to every link between persons. In this one user can set type of link between people.

  1. biological
  2. adoption
  3. make-believe
  4. mythological
  5. fiction
  6. etc

And now I know how I can develop it.

So, I propose.

  1. Almoustine should unblock CharlesF (see details to #4)
  2. by July 31, Rodovid will change it hosting
  3. by September 10, I'll develop link-type parameter. AND, with this parameter I also will develop possibility to every user to select types of link that should be show by default (for this user) in trees. All the other types will be converted (just in tree view for this user) into special notes.
  4. until these changes are done, admins (& users):

so after implementation of the new parameter it will be easy to change links type quickly.

--Baya 08:24, 11 July 2015 (EEST)

Please, if you see/know better/other ways of solution, mention it here, maybe your way does not seem to you better, but in general it will be the best. More ideas - better results. Sincerely,

Personal tools