Talk:Bodegisel II

Not a hoax. Notable?
The article is certainly not a hoax ... However, genealogical publications are oft loaded with really bad scholarship, misattributions and, on occasion, hoaxes. This is especially the case with genealogies that trace U.S. colonialists to saints and/or royalty (lots of wishful thinking, it would seem). I can't find any reliable sources showing this guy really existed. That web references to him seem to appear in lots of genealogical listings, but no references to St. Arnulf of Metz is, to me, a serious red flag. (Though published info on saints lives is also often less than reliable, it usually includes every non-negative potential "fact" about the person.) - Mdbrownmsw 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The place to look for confirmation of Arnulf's father would be in an early Vita Arnulfi. This article and a few similar ones were begun by User:Djhypergirl, who did nothing else at Wikipedia before or since. No very reassuring, to put it tactfully. Gregory of Tours mentions (Hist. Franc. viii.22), as an anomaly, that a dux Bodegisel was able to pass on his estate undiminished to his heirs upon his death in 585; Archibald R. Lewis (Lewis, "The Dukes in the Regnum Francorum, A.D. 550-751" Speculum 51.3 [July 1976:381-410], p. 386, note 21) considered that he was the same Bodegisel mentioned in Fortunatus, Carmina v.5. Not this Bodegisel, reported with so much circumstantial detail in the Wikipedia article, or asserted in on-line amateur "genealogy" websites, as noted above. A cobweb. Especially the "II", reeking of spuriousness. I am removing this from my Watchlist: not encyclopedia-worthy, in spite of some Wikipedian's vacuous "Week [sic] keep" at nomination for deletion. Over and out. --Wetman (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)