Talk:Gaius Septimius Severus Aper

Family ancestry and descent of Gaius Septimius Severus Aper
Christian Settipani, as his page states, is a credible source for the information.

''He became associated with CNRS, the National Centre for Scientific Research in Paris. He has also been thoroughly accepted in the contemporary academic history community in the UK, being co-founder and general editor with Katharine S. B. Keats-Rohan (FRHistS) of the publication series of the Unit for Prosopographical Research at Oxford University. Keats-Rohan is widely regarded as something approaching the godmother of modern prosopographical and network analysis research, which has become highly computer-dependent. Hence, Settipani's involvement.''

Unfortunately, the lack of knowledge of new discoveries or theories and the insistance in the old sources like the hoax Historia Augusta or the outdated Prosopographia, as well as the ignorance of Settipani's existance and work, as well as the permanent prejudice against genealogy, and above that against the descent from Antiquity keeps some people deleting that information.

Instituto dos Arquivos Nacionais (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No serious scientist refers to Settipani, because all theories that are not historical documents. The newest "Prosopographia Imperii Romnani" has no son of Geta, because none has survived. Therefore, theories that everything which is not in the Wikipedia should be. And it has nothing to do with ignorance, but with seriousness. Sorry my English is not so good --Μίκυθος (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "No serious scientists" who? And I mentioned one and she doesn't count? If their work isn't known by so called "scientists" is because there is still a cleavage between genealogy and History. These are not just theories, are probabilities and sometimes even certainties. Settipani's scientific work, which is hard to find nevertheless, has many pages that fundament his assertions, and for that reason, and simply because YOU modest editor don't know about them, you shouldn't dismiss them. Dgarq (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion
I found this page from the WP:30 template that was placed on the article page.

I am trying to understand what the conflict is, from what I am seeing, the dispute is if Gaius is the son of Geta. User:Dgarq seems to be providing a link to A RootsWeb/Ancenstry.com website to back this claim up, and states that this is research done by historian Christian Settipani. User:Μίκυθος disputes that Settipani provides facts, saying instead that he provides theories that are not accepted by "serious scientist(s)". Is this a correct summary of the conflict?

My question would be, Dgarq, where on the link provided does it say that this is research done by Settipani? Do you have other sources that would qualify your claim? I am not convinced that the Ancestry.com website qualifies as a Reliable Source? If you want to include this information, then you need to find sources to back up the claim. PGWG (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the issue. Apparently, the other user simply dismisses Christian Settipani, despite his authority. Despite his books being extremely rare and hard to find it is nevertheless a fact that the mentioned content is from his books. That should be enough. Dgarq (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the ancestry.com website is not a reliable source, so you cannot use that to back up your claim. Secondly, it is not enough that you claim that it is a fact that it is from his book, where does it say so on that page?  I removed the WP:3 template because I have given the requested third opinion.  The Third Opinion website instructs people that, after giving a third opinion, to "Check the article for a  tag. Be sure to remove this tag from the article and/or talk page."
 * Can you provide a proper reference from one of his published books for this information? PGWG (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The website is just a copy of the information for a purpose of information. The forementioned book itself is the actual source. The page doesn't have to mention it. If I'd mentioned the book alone this issue wouldn't even be raised. I guess more information is just more complicated... Dgarq (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What book? Who was the publisher?  What was the year of publication?  What page number is it on?  see WP:CITE for the information required to cite the book.  It is not sufficient to say, "it is in his book", this needs to be properly cited as the material has been challenged. PGWG (talk)