Talk:Måns Andersson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
[edit] Connection to Bush disputed?
I don't see clearly the connection between Måns and President Bush. George Bush's Ahnentafel says about his lineage:
- 329.
- Unknown (presumably Swedish)
Are there other sources? / Fred-Chess 17:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whoever wrote this article failed to include the 2006 news reports that made this connection. [3][4] (As you can see it was reported pretty widely.) As for the "Ahnentafel" (not titled as such), Reitweiser, who has a fairly good reputation as a genealogist, does not seem to have updated his site to include this, which to me means he hasn't vetted it according to his own sources. In any case, that page pre-dates the announcement by the Swedish Colonial Society. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes I vaguely remember it being reported in the news for a brief time. But I just found an interesting note in the Ahnentafel: 82 -- The ancestry of John Mercer has been corrected by Dr. Peter S. Craig in an article titled "President Bush's New Sweden ancestry disproved" to be published in a future issue of the Swedish Colonial News. .
- So I must maintain that the disputed tag stays in the article, sorry...
- Fred-Chess 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The note in the Ahnentafel is promising, but how can we report on unpublished findings? As of Fall 2006, the Swedish Colonial News [5], p. 6, read "The Bushes are descendants of New Sweden colonist Måns Andersson who arrived in New Sweden in April 1640 on board the Kalmar Nyckel." We can say that's what they reported; if we also repeat and attribute the caution in the WARG Ahnentafel, could we agree that we can lose the tag? - Nunh-huh 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
(Something along the lines of: In Fall of 2006 it was widely reported that Måns Andersson was an ancestor of the Bush political family, and was the 8G-grandfather of the current American President George Walker Bush. Andersson's reported descendant Harriet Mercer married George E. Walker, a great-grandfather of Dorothy Walker.[1] However, more recent and as yet unpublished research has thrown his Mercer ancestry into question.[2].)
Then when the disproof is published, we can just remove the whole thing as irrelevant, or relegate it to a footnote. - Nunh-huh 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
(Actually what happened here is that the Ahnentafel was changed. When the article was written, the Ahnenafel supported the desxent as valid)
- Yea, sure, you can change it like that and remove the disputed tag. But are you sure that the new research is unpublished? / Fred-Chess 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's unpublished by its author. I'll know when it's published in the Swedish Colonial News. You could make a case that Reitweisner has published it (by embedding a private e-mail in HTML which is not meant to be seen), but it's not clear that he was authorized to publish it (and some would argue that's not publishing). - Nunh-huh 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The key issue is that this isn't rocket science. It's genealogy and much of it is educated conjecture (e.g. the lack of two people with the exact same name and age is an easy presumption but can often trip you up). Whether it's published or not, genealogists can and will argue over it and without fresh convincing documentation -- which in historical circumstances is often not forthcoming -- 100% backing by everyone of a relationship is not going to happen overnight, if at all. We say "Swedish Colonial says this, but Reitweisner says this", and cite both. --Dhartung | Talk 11:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- No one is going to argue this one, it's Peter Stebbins Craig correcting an obvious error. Once the next issue comes out, we can say "Swedish Colonial says this"; Reitweisner is simply repeating what they say. - Nunh-huh 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The key issue is that this isn't rocket science. It's genealogy and much of it is educated conjecture (e.g. the lack of two people with the exact same name and age is an easy presumption but can often trip you up). Whether it's published or not, genealogists can and will argue over it and without fresh convincing documentation -- which in historical circumstances is often not forthcoming -- 100% backing by everyone of a relationship is not going to happen overnight, if at all. We say "Swedish Colonial says this, but Reitweisner says this", and cite both. --Dhartung | Talk 11:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
Another thing I would appreciate your input on, is whether Måns Andersson is really notable enough to merit an article? Because Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. What do you think? / Fred-Chess 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, hard to say. He was in the second group of settlers at New Sweden, and he particpated in the mutiny which seems like a big deal, although it isn't in our articles for the colony or the governor, and he wasn't a leader. Weak independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 18:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The "not a genealogy" meme is meant to keep people from inserting their grandmas, not to discourage biographies. As one of very few settlers of America in the 1640, I'd think he's notable enough. - Nunh-huh 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
