Talk:Charlemagne to the Mughals

Ladislaus I of Hungary was not the father of Irene Doukaina. It's pure nonsense. Stalker, please stop disrupting Wikipedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Irene Doukaina

Obviously she could not be the wife of the emperor John II Komnenos - she was his mother. Please stop reverting abakharev 08:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. Hope this is the way to pleasant future cooperation, collaboration, and cohabitation. Truthseeker 85.5 08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

what's the route to Shah Jahan?

If this lineage starts among the Mughals with Shah Jahan, then obviously, his mother was the link. But his mother was the Rajput princess Manmati Bai (1573 - 1619),, not someone of Persian birth. So how does this lineage connect with Shah Jahan? Hrishikes (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No route through Boso

Boso of Provence was not the grandfather of Rudolph II of Burgundy through his second wife Ermengard of Italy (d/o Emperor Louis II), but through his unknown first wife. See the entry on Boso's daughter Guilla of Provence. Therefore, better to pick a more established route. For example, instead of picking the maternal grandfather of Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor (Rudolph II of Burgundy), we may pick his paternal grandfather Henry the Fowler, who had descended, through his father, from Pepin of Italy and through his mother, from Louis the Pious (both sons of Charlemagne). Hrishikes (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge into Charlemagne#Marriages_and_heirs

• Support Too little to stand on its own and the content as well as notability would be better assessed there.--regentspark (comment) 16:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• How to merge with a non-existent article? The destination article is already merged with Charlemagne. However, Support. Hrishikes (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see a whole lot I'd like to see integrated into Charlemagne's article, for starters there's not a single reliable source in the article and a quick search of Google books didn't indicate it's significant. I suggest deleting the article rather than merging it. Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  Sure. Why don't you prod the article and we'll see what happens. --regentspark (comment) 19:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Nev1 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Genealogist reference cited in the article may be a reliable secondary source; difficult to assess without seeing it. However, comment about this specific source by another genealogist, William Addams Reitwiesner is as under(see here):

  Those interested in the details and sources of this line (and many others) should see the series of articles on "The descendants of Theodora Comnena of Trebizond" by M. L. Bierbrier in *The Genealogist* [ASG], starting in the Fall 1997 issue (vol. 11, no. 2) and concluding in the Fall 2000 issue (vol. 14, no. 2).

However, the issue of notability is more important here than sources (if the matter is notable, a source will exist somewhere and even if not cited in the article, can ultimately be found by someone and inserted). Of more concern is the situation that the lineage is already long-stretched & quite thin and therefore, of dubious notability. To become worthwhile, it requires high degree of notability at the end of the line. If the lineage indeed touches Shah Jahan (unlikely because of his Hindu mother), then the later emperors become included and notability is conferred; but if it reaches Dilrus Banu, then there is no notability. Her son Muhammad Azam Shah ruled for only a few months and got replaced by his half-brother Bahadur Shah I and the line continued with the latter's descendants. For such a long-stretched lineage reaching a emperor of only a few months, notability approaches zero and Delete is the better option. Then, if the source is reliable, the information may be preserved by mentioning a line in the articles on Ismail I and Dilrus Banu. Hrishikes (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw this article had been deleted, contested it since IMO it met the requirements of WP:GNG, and found that the deletion was the result of this discussion. Some comments:

1) I have seen but can no longer find the article by Bierbrier. It supports the descent from the Trebizond Comneni to the Safavids which is the key cultural bridge that must be crossed. It is certainly a reliable source. Bierbrier is a noted genealogist, a Fellow of the UK Society of Genealogists, with particular expertise in New Kingdom Egypt (he was an assistant keeper at the British Museum for many years) and in Byzantine studies -- which is what is relevant here. He has also published studies of Muslim genealogies, also relevant to establishing his credentials.

2) Bierbrier is not the source for the statement that Shah Jahan was of Safavid descent. I don't recall whether he discusses Mughal descents in his article, though I think he does -- the quote from William Addams Reitwiesner comes from a posting where he gives the descent to Dilras Banu, and I think this comes from the Bierbrier article. I do have another article by Bierbrier where he mentions descents from Sultan Muhammad Akbar and a prince Azim (d. 1712) as being the earliest he could find. I agree that it is well-known that Shah Jahan's mother was a Rajput princess and the claim that he was of Safavid descent should be struck.

3) The descent from Charlemagne to the Comneni should be sourced, but it is not particularly controversial that there is one, even if some details are debated.

4) There are several reasons to object to Hrishikes's assertion that the article is not notable if the descent only reaches the Mughal line through Dilras Banu's marriage to Aurangzeb:

a) At least three of her children by Aurangzeb were certainly historically notable, as a cursory read of their WP entries will show. The rebellions of her sons Muhammad Azam Shah and Sultan Muhammad Akbar, particularly the latter, were major events in initiating the collapse of the empire. Her daughter Zeb-un-Nisa was a noted Sufi poet.

b) The article is about descents from Charlemagne to the Mughals, not from Charlemagne to Mughal Emperors. In any case at least one (very minor) emperor, Nikusiyar, was descended from Dilras Banu.

c) Even if one accepts Hrishikes's view of the content, that does not mean the article is not notable according to WP policy. WP's guidelines for "notability", as stated in WP:GNG, do not require content to be notable. They only require that there are other sources which have noted the content, however inherently trivial that content may be: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, where "significant coverage" is defined as sources address the subject directly in detail. Bierbrier's article certainly meets that criterion.

The article certainly needs work. It is poorly written, and it needs additional sourcing. The claim about Shah Jahan should be struck. But I don't see a case for deletion. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I. --Ghirla^-трёп- 05:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If the claim of Shah Jahan should be struck then the article should be deleted because the claim of connectivity between Charlemagne and the Mughal rests on that claim. The entire article seems like OR to me. The one source provided is dubious (I don't see The Genealogist in any library). --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to let the previous content stand if somebody can provide a credible source or demonstrate notability in that way. Restoring crappy content without such a source is a Bad Thing:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source.

bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)