Anders Tokeson Hvide - Anders Tokeson Hvide 1190-1255 never existed and should be deleted

I would like to see some better references before we delete him, or even just disconnect him.

The burden of evidence should be carried by those who make claims, not by those who question them. If you believe someone existed, you should provide the evidence. This is a basic principle of all scientific historical practice. You can't claim something is true, and then expect the world to disprove your whishful thinking (allthough that is basically what I am doing - this should be unnecessary).

More proof is provided here: http://www.geni.com/discussions/141634?msg=973073

You are right, but only partly. The burden of proof is ultimately on the person making the claim, but in Geni's collaborative environment it is vandalism to just arbitrarily start deleting everything you personally don't like. A vague Internet reference that someone existed or didn't exist isn't enough to make a decision. You need to allow real time for comment and discussion, on both sides.

It is not about my personal likes and dislikes, but about what can be defended historically. I have shown in the other discussion how the historical consensus supports the claim that Marsk Stig's ancestors are not known. Combined with the web-page admitting to the invention of this individual I believe there are strong arguments for at lest deleting this connection.

The collaborative environment of geni has both advantages and disatvantages, just like wikipedia. Of course time should be allowed in cases with real disagreement. I can't see, however, how in this and many other cases a real defense of the connection can be defended. Vigilant corrections, and knowledgable moderators keep wikipedia collaborative and trustworthy. I believe a moderately more vigilant approach at geni would help avoid mistakes such as this, and be very beneficial. In the opposite case, curators would have to fight a neverending battle against long-since disproven hypotheses from a sea of questionable genealogical literature.

Peter, I think you are probably right about this. My concern is only that the webpage you cite can't really be fairly characterized as "admitting to the invention". It's not a statement by a person who invented him, so it's not really an "admission" ;)

Then too, it just takes the invention as a matter of fact without saying why it thinks that.

This family is prominent enough that it shouldn't be too hard to find a better reference.

Normally I should expect to see something along the lines of a statement that someone has looked at all references to the son and found nothing to link him to a specific father, then a statement about the invented person that there is no mention of him in contemporary sources, then a brief statement about how and why the invention originated (confusion, wishful thinking, or whatever).

This approach is so ordinary and routine in the case of other invented people that I'm surprised it would be so difficult to find here.

I believe, Justin, that it is quite unnecessary to go through all the contemporary sources in this case, but rather have a look at the secondary literature, where the real experts summarise the current research status. I am sure you are aware that it is close to impossible to disprove the existance of someone, and much easier to prove it. Therefore, if proof exists, let it be presented.

What I belive we have to do, however, is not disprove the existance of Anders Tokeson and Toke Stigsen, but to admit that we just don't know whether they existed or not. Of course they may have existed but we don't have the evidence. If someone believes that they do know the names of his parents, the burden of proof should be carried by them.

It should be quite enough that a reliable secondary source, such as Dansk Biografisk Leksikon clearly states that we do not know Marsk Stig Andersens ancestry, and that he did not belong to the Hvide-family. I certainly believe Anders Tokesen and Toke Stigsen should be deleted, but if you disagree, Marsk Stig Andersen should certainly be removed form this family line.

Now, it is quite possible that we have read the web-page I have referenced to differently. That the name of the author is not known should not be relevant. There are several statements here that are problematic:

1. Det siges at Stig Andersens far ikke er kendt, men hans fornavn må have været Anders. (It is said that the father of Stig Andersen is not known, but his name must have been Anders).
2. Den forfaderlinie jeg har noteret kan kun blive en tvivlsom teori for historikere (The ancestors I have noted down can only be a dubious theory for historians)
3. Noget bevis er der ikke (It is not a piece of evidence)
4. hér er en af mine gætterier (Here is one of my speculations)
5. Stig Hvidelæder Tokesen er ikke kendt for at have en søn, der hedder Toke (Stig Hvidelæder Tokesen is not known for having a son called Toke)
6. Sønnen Toke Stigsen er en opfundet del af min teori. (His son Toke Stigsen is an invented part of my theory).

Correct me if I am wrong here, but someone did indeed write this, that Toke Stigsen was "invented" (opfundet) by the author. That this is a "dubious" (tvivlsom) theory. Along with the secondary literature, this should be more than enough, to at least remove Marsk Stig Andersen's parents.

All you need is a reasonably reputable secondary source. If Dansk Biografisk Leksikon says it, that's good enough (unless someone disputes it, and provides a good counter argument).

Despite your argument, I think you can understand the basic principle -- if no one has ever compiled the primary sources, it's not possible to make a definitive statement about what is known and not known.

And despite the list of statements you can pull out of your cited webpage, it's still just a vanity page on the Internet site of an amateur genealogist. Without citations, nothing it says is particularly meaningful.