Samuel, Tsar of Bulgaria - Samuel, Tsar of Bulgaria

And if their relationship is erroneously removed, then your tree will also be false. That's why we need to be careful. I respect you, and the hard work that you do for this site. However, it's important that we work together to solve these issues. I have taken on a lot of work this week for a client of mine. And I wish I could dedicate the time needed to look at this information as quickly as you two have. However, I need more time. Other people in this discussion have likely dropped their interest in this thread because the problem had already been resolved. So, I will work hard on this and continue to provide the information here. My fear is that now that you guys have disconnected the relationships, there will be no motivation from the curators to read or listen to further evidence on the matter. Thus my research into the information will be ignored. Hopefully, that isn't the case.

Of course it won’t be ignored. I am pretty sure though that Ashot ll & Maria of Kachen are a dead end. The Symon reference is intriguing; I wonder if it’s a mixup though with later people? Still, we have a polarized position on that (one interpreter scoffs, medievalists at the mail group soc.gen.med cites). So there’s smoke there worth looking into.

Sharon Doubell I think the relationship should remain intact while we are all researching the matter. And the curator note can state that there are some disagreement about the authenticity of her parents. This note can then be removed if sources are found in favor of their relationship, or the connection can be removed if someone finds evidence that their parents were someone else.

I disagree however on the disconnect. The Wikipedia parents are linked within profile. That is the standard procedure we all follow in all of history for Geni.

Let me restate this:

Erica, none of us want false claims in our ancestry. We all know that Geni profiles are not indelibly carved in stone. ;)

Erica Howton Thank you for understanding my position. And I'm happy to hear that you guys will continue to look at evidence in the coming days.

Also. There are not alternative parents known. So it’s not a matter of - oh wait, mistake, change. It’s a matter of “this is all we know.”

Well I’m done for now. I’ve spent two days on it and uploaded everything I can find. The Mayflowers are revolting from lack of attention. :)

If Christian Settipani - a specialist in the field - knows of no proof of her parents, then we can be pretty sure it isn't around to be found on the internet. If more documentation comes to light the historians will know before we do, but it will filter down.

Curators put in a huge amount of effort - like Tamas and Erica have just done - into maintaining the histrical tree - We have huge skin in the game of making our tree as historically valid as possible. If new primary proof is found by the historians, we definitely want to know.

Since I bothered to look it up, there’s only the one daughter of Symeon of Bulgaria noted by Cawley:

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BULGARIA.htm

Summarized the Wikipedia citation errors and submitted to their “talk” page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicholas_(komes)_

I see that Tamas disconnected Ripsimia from her parents, well, we knew that sources was missing already from the beginning, and that the connection was made under other criterias, name, social status, etc. but her name was never disputed, it was actually cut in stone:

"In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, I, Samuel, servant of God, made a memory of my father, of my mother and of my brother on these crosses. Here are the names of the deceased: Nikolas, servant of God,Ripsimia and David. Written in the year 6501 since Creation, VI indiction."

The year 6501 since the creation of the world corresponds to 992-993 CE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuil%27s_Inscription#/media/File:Sa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuil%27s_Inscription

Ripsimia with a distinct Armenian name, let me think that Samuels father Nikolas just as likely was of Armenian nobility origin, not as some other thinks, a distant royal family of Tsar Peter I, because that really do not match the picture of Samuel, being a General under Roman I of Bulgaria, who battled against almost evryone else, except the Armenian's what I can see, also, the timeframe speaks against it.

So what more can we find out without specific sources about Samuels origin, well, we noticed that he can't have been too closely related by blood to Basilus II Lecapenus Byzantine Emperor or short "Basil II Porphyrogenitus", as he offered his sister Anna to be Samuels brother Aron's wife.

One things seems clear, he was a bit lucky in becoming the new ruler, but as we've noticed so many times before, if not in most all of them, he must have had a royal connection in his immediate background, as it was more or less that's what authorized any real claim on a throne and never ever, a man's qualities.

I think it was a bad one-handed decision to cut the line, but it also reflects what the majority of all people lacks, an own thinking ability. It would have been enough with a footnote saying it's a "plausible connection, not verified in contemporary sources".

As usual your logic is flawless and your argument perfectly coherent, Ulf. And I agree with you 100%. You are very knowledgeable about the subject, and I respect your opinions. You add a great deal of value to these discussions and for that I am very grateful.

Earlier it was suggested Samuel of Bulgaria and wife Ripsime (of Armenia) were Bulgarians, but I knew better. They were Armenians.

Ριψίμη

https://www.google.com/search?q=%D5%8C%D5%AB%CF%88%CE%AF%CE%BC%CE%B...

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9069406

before you said that Settipani was the gold standard, now you completely disregard what he wrote to Tamás

I said that if he had any sources to prove it, those *sources would be gold. I did not disregard it. If a scholar like Settipani doesn't know anything about her parentage, it means he doesn't know anything about it, period. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions, because my intuition is usually right.

No disrespect intended, but Tamas's report of the email is only hearsay unless he has posted it already (and if he has, I'd appreciate a link to it). I have yet to write Mr. Settipani myself. I got pretty fed up when my email app didn't work properly last time, and I'd like to be relaxed when I try again.

While I'm here though, my last post was for comparing the major difference between the English language and Armenian language Wikipedia articles, both on the subject of Ashot II. I think its very interesting that the Armenian language version lists Ripsime as the only child of Ashot II.

I'm not claiming they have any sources for it. But obviously someone feels very confident about making that statement in the Armenian language. :)

It’s pretty obvious Rhipsime was Armenian, and that’s what the sources say; much less clear about her husband though, and Samuel styled himself Tsar of Bulgaria.

Apparently there’s been some further correspondence with Mr. Settipani, including a list of sources from him. So hang in until we have permission to share the private mails.

Re: It would have been enough with a footnote saying it's a "plausible connection, not verified in contemporary sources".

It’s not the way we do it on Geni, however. For that matter I don’t see it in other collaborative trees either (Wikitree, FamilySearch).

It’s an issue I face daily in Geni; the tree is binary & does not support ambiguity or uncertainty well, at this technological point anyway. So we’ve evolved a “standard methodology” for presenting the evidence. In the thousands of profiles I curate over 10 years, I’ve gotten nothing but positive feedback on this way of showing the profile.

I make a section called “Disputed Origins” , and link any unproven parents in that section. Additionally I link to discussions of the parents, present the arguments, and / or cite “authorities.”

Even more, I’ll start a discussion from profile explaining the disconnect.

Even more, I’ll add a curator note that parents are unknown, or disputed, or unproven (etc).

And members are always invited to add references, source documents and discussions.

I should note that evidence is rarely forthcoming in my experience. In my (usual) areas of the tree, parents originate from unsourced family trees, and don’t hold up to scrutiny. Additionally these days Y DNA is demonstrating that some previously accepted lines are mistaken. So in fact it turns out I cut more than connect, and mostly as descendants notice the problems.

Perhaps one day technology will better allow for less-proven lines, and I (personally) can see an argument for it. After all, we’re all related, and mathematics favor common ancestry. But the geni tree is not configured for it, and there’s an enormous danger of complacency (“it’s all settled”). By the method used on Geni we (visually) stimulate continual research and documentation, and we come closer daily to being GPS compliant.

Geni is not now meeting GPS. It is my hope we get closer every day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_Proof_Standard

"I cut more than connect, and mostly as descendants notice the problems."

I can appreciate that, Erica. You're probably aware that I've done some cutting on my own tree, even on areas that are relatively popular (sorry, I sometimes can't resist making puns). I pushed for cutting the Basque ancestry for John Sevier, simply because it was incorrectly represented on his tree, and no other reason. The man really was a Basque Huguenot of well-known noble ancestry, imho. But there were duplicates of his ancestors, and having the fake one connected to him was so wrong I couldn't stand it. I've also corrected a few names, even identities, here and there on various parts of my tree that are very familiar to me (:D).

But I always open discussion and give fair warning ahead of time, on 'famous' ancestors (Sevier, Gano, Scudder, etc.). And only after I am reasonably certain there will be no problems with other close members of the family do I proceed with the changes. I am never in a rush, or secretive, about what I do with them, if I think it might affect someone enough to cause contention or friction among us. It's not THAT important to me, because Geni is not the only way to create and preserve my family tree.

And I generally would only consider cutting or making major corrections on my own direct ancestry (grandparents, usually, unless I have excellent data for all of their children, most of which comes from either census reports or family bibles, etc.). I would cut more, but do not want to step on the toes of the well-meaning people who created some of the unsourced profiles of my slightly more distant relatives (cousins, aunts and uncles, etc.), even when I suspect they might be wrong. Because they might be connections to living people, I want to respect their beliefs about their family tree. Although presumably I share it with them, indirect lines don't affect me that much, and I have to admit that others more closely related probably know much more than I about it.

I don't understand why anyone would add random unsourced or unexplained profiles to trees where they have no blood connection at all. Or why anyone would make cuts on trees where they're not personally related (or perhaps do not wish to be). I could understand it if they have a good source or logical reason and are willing to politely share it with the World.

Anyway, yesterday I finally got around to exporting my work from here, so that I can work on it on my own and not feel in danger of upsetting anyone or insulting their work, causing confusion, etc. And the FIRST thing I did after transferring my tree was to cut out the wife and ancestors of Francis Gano (whose name I'd corrected not too long ago, with curator assistance and basically 'permission' from other family members, or at least fair warning of my intentions). I cut those profiles because I've done the research and now I know beyond shadow of doubt that they are wrong here. I just don't want to make waves or hurt any feelings, and that is always a concern for me. But it bothers me anyway, and I felt compelled to correct it on my own private tree.

In the future, I plan on doing all of my preliminary, 'experimental' work on my private tree, until I have sufficient evidence (and courage) to attempt making the corrections here. I feel it is best that way because of the sheer volume of work that needs to be done on it. I've mostly neglected recording my family history up until fairly recently, while others (some claiming to be "genealogists") have had a field day with it :D

However back to the main point, I wouldn't think of cutting any tree that has no blood relationship to me personally. And while I'm not authorized to change much in the historical or ancient lines that allegedly are my ancestors, I often find problems with it as well (duplicates, unsourced extra children and wives without so much as any explanation for them). Personally I would focus more on those obvious problems, and leave the controversial ones (such as Ripsime, Junca, and the various ancient European noble families) alone. Whenever there is THAT much protest coming from intelligent and honest subscribers over the cutting of a line, I think it ought to be left alone. I personally would leave them alone out of respect for them -- unless I had sufficient evidence to disprove the connection, or to correct it.

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. And I have a tremendous respect for ancient profiles that are strongly supported by *tradition or in *literature, if nothing else. I wouldn't touch what has been established for centuries or millennia, unless I actually found sound evidence to disprove or correct it. I wouldn't even think of cutting profiles of royals who lived in pre-historical times and times of extreme social upheavals (wars, plagues, famines, dearths of technology needed for record-keeping), such as the early Middle Ages -- based on lack of "Primary Source Documentation".

That's a quick and all too easy way to obliterate the little bit that we know about our human past. If those historical figures cannot be represented here, then people like me will go somewhere else where they are represented and honored properly. The sad irony is that I actually learned about many of them right here, in this wonderful community of descendants.

But I understand if that is the standard policy you are compelled to abide by. I'm not going to fight it, I will just try to work around it for my own sake and peace of mind.

RE: "Absence of evidence is not proof of absence." Of course not - It's not proof of anything at all. That's the point.

Debra Denman
"That's a quick and all too easy way to obliterate the little bit that we know about our human past. If those historical figures cannot be represented here, then people like me will go somewhere else where they are represented and honored properly. The sad irony is that I actually learned about many of them right here, in this wonderful community of descendants.
But I understand if that is the standard policy you are compelled to abide by. I'm not going to fight it, I will just try to work around it for my own sake and peace of mind."

Well said, Debra. My opinion exactly.

It’s funny, but I feel connected to human history and pay little attention to what my path is, particularly as experience has shown me it may change. So I work on what interests me, or what members are concerned with, and am delighted to “meet the ancestors.”

It’s wonderful to see more and more dedication on geni to a more rigorous approach. Yes, working through in discussion / private trees first is a good approach: more transparency, collaboration and member engagement. We all can do a better job communicating also. But let’s not be afraid to tackle the harder problems, and excise sentimentality from “our” trees.

While this experience has challenged and frustrated me, it has also pushed me into further research. Through this excercise, I have discovered so much more information about my ancestors than I would have otherwise. I am grateful for the opportunity to have been a part of this discussion, and after beginning to search through some of these historic geneology records, I have learned how difficult a job the curators have. I know that you guys volunteer your time to this project, which makes your work even more commendable. Even though I do want the connections to be reconnected, I have truly grown in my perspective and approach in the last week because of this. I want to thank you, regardless of whether the outcome has resulted in my favor or not. I hope you all have a great weekend, and wish you all luck in your research.

Erica Howton Hi Erica, you wrote;It’s pretty obvious Rhipsime was Armenian, and that’s what the sources say; much less clear about her husband though" but is that really true, do we not know anything about it?

According to Stepanos Asoghik who was an Armenian historian of the 11th century, the family originated in the Armenian region of Derdjan, were Samuels father Nikolas came from seems quite clear on that point, he also says that he was married to Ripsime, according to some of you, he is not contemporary and therefore, can not be trusted.

The funny thing here is that the plate, laid down by Samuel in honor for his parents and brother, with their names, was first found by F. I. Uspensky in 1890.

So this Armenian historian who lived in the 11th century, was indeed right about the wifes name, so why not in the other details about the origin of the family? I think that Count Nicolas Kometopouloi / Cometopuli birthplace in his profile should be changed depicting that.

I have been following this discussion as Samuel, Rhipsime, Ashot II et al... who show up or showed up in my tree at one time as direct ancestors. Again, I am thankful to have found such a passionate, committed group of human beings to share trees and space. I wish I had more to contribute, but sometimes I just need to sit on the sidelines and watch and learn. Thank you all. Susanne

That's such a nice thing to say Susanne Floyd Welcome to the discussion!

Private User I made the change

I was reading about Stepanos Asoghik (AKA Atopik, Stephen de Targon ...). I believe he was a monk, and had a particular focus in his writing. It’s wonderful his writing has survived.

Thank you, Elisha Kayne! I learn so much on these threads. History has always been fascinating to me; however, I am always in awe on some of these old lines. I never knew about Medlands until Geni and now it is something I am sharing with my students for a source when they talk about the Medieval world and art. There is something everywhere you turn on the discussions.

Private User RE: "Tamas's report of the email is only hearsay unless he has posted it already (and if he has, I'd appreciate a link to it)." Here, I posted it under Ripsimia's profile: https://media.geni.com/p13/a7/c4/e0/ad/53444852c3358ffa/settipani_o...