Talk:Kinship and descent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something that could add to this page is having a link or site to a program or web address so that poeple could search their ancestors and find their family tree. I would really like this and I think that if people new that they could find their family tree it might attract more people to come to www.wikipedia.com.

Something interesting that could be added in the future, is Genetic; based on Mitochondria and Y chromosomes. Scientists are now researching lineages around the world, so that people can see who their anceint ancestors were. Males Continue on the Y Chromosome Lineage, and Females pass on Mitochondrion Lineages, which are unbroken chains, unless their is a new mutation, resulting in a new lineage. Males can directly trace and ancient mother and father, while females can trace a ancient mother with thier personal DNA (females could use thier brother's or father's DNA).

lavalava

1 Merge
2 www.kinshipstudies.org
3 Caste
4 Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
5 Vote against merger!
6 huh?

[edit] Merge

There's a number of pages that could probably be better served by merging them and I think this page would be the appropriate destination. They're all fairly short, some are just definitions. Matrilineality is the only one of any length, but I also think a good portion of it should be moved to more relevant pages. Ewlyahoocom 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about most of them, but I don't think phratry should be. There's far too in the way of ancient Greece specific political ramifications that need to be discussed on that page, and I'm going to go expand it right now. Robth^Talk 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think such a merge would produce a jelly-like mass of quivering nonsense; entirely fragmented and unreadable. Each article that you are suggesting should be merged into this one should be expanded until they serve as stand-alone pieces. --Oldak Quill 11:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

(Re - matrilineal and patrilineal) I think that the articles should remain seperate. They are distinct and opposite to me. Such would be akin to having an article on black and white or something like that. Charles 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

it should be mentioned with a few short and consice sentances with a "for more info on patrilinialit (p) see: "x" article. if not the other article just gets way to convoluted and someone lokking up "p" on its own might have a hard time. i think fluidity is importantismo. 67.150.63.109 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty well decided that the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to glom every bit of information on a subject into one article—else, why not just have one article titled "Knowledge"? While some things should certainly be merged, I don't think there's a particularly good case for any of the suggestions on this article. And as all those templates are an eyesore, I'll remove them for the time being. Czoller 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.kinshipstudies.org

Hello folks,

Please consider linking my website www.kinshipstudies.org to the Wikipedia articles on kinship. It contains a comprehensive bibliography of kinship studies in various fields. Thanks for all your work. 171.64.39.35 03:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caste

Caste is complex enough to merit a separate article, but should it be mentioned in this article as well? Castes (jati) in India seem to be, in most cases, groups of lineages that trace to a common ancestor (frequently mythological). The two systems (lineage and caste) are intertwined as the lineages and sub-lineages under castes are often arranged in a sort of hierarchy (which can, however, change). I'm not sure if this means that caste is a type of kinship term. Maybe caste is more of a social organization term, and in India it just happens to correspond with lineages or clans. I am a scholar of Indian history, so I don't know much about the anthropology view on these subjects. --152.3.85.160 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote against merger!

I believe that this topic is unique enough to maintain as a separate article. Linking to the other related articles is sufficient.

--68.221.51.114 19:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree; while some articles will never become huge (phratry comes to mind) it is still useful to have them stand alone to allow the reader to look at these very separate concepts separately - with this page to link them together and provide context/intro/direction. Keeping it separate thus prevents confusing the reader, and also prevents what could otherwise become one ginormous unwieldy Kinship article (which could in theory take into itself half the articles dealing with anthropology) eek...Bridesmill 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since these mergers have been proposed for sometime, and there seems to be relative agreement against them, I'm going to remove all the proposals. Peyna 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)