Talk:Eudokia Komnene, Lady of Montpellier

Parentage

Added clean-up tag. The page has incorrect parentage which I do not have knowledge to fix. It has confised the Evdokia who marries William of Montpellier with another Evdokia according to: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2002-07/1027945647. BSkliarWard (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though no parentage is certain. The possibilities are set out at the Medlands site. So, yes, the article does need revising to make clear how much doubt exists. Andrew Dalby 09:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A change today removed some text and made Evdokia the daughter of a nephew of Manuel I Komnenos. I think several parentages are possible; what we need is not to insist on one but to give references for the various options. Since there was no reference attached to this change, I've reverted for the present. Let's discuss. Andrew Dalby 11:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's now claiming her father is Alexios II Komnenos, which just isn't possible, since according to his page, his birth was in 1169, and his so-called daughter was born 1160. His page also claims he only lived to age 14 and had no issue. Which article is correct? Eudokia's page also claims her father Alexios was the lover of Maria of Antioch, yet his article says she was his mother. Why is this still an issue 5 years later? If Eudokia's parentage is uncertain, her page should just say so. --Robin (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like the person who added Alexios II Komnenos as her father was adding a lot of dubious info back in 2011 and was reported for edit wars: (User talk:Steliokardam) so I'm going to go ahead and remove all mention of her parentage, and then simply state her parentage is unclear. If anyone has legit info on who her parents might have been, please add them as a possibility, not a definite. Apologies if I'm doing anything wrong but I can't let this stand. --Robin (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And now the page says in the lede that her parentage is unknown, then in the first sentence of the body proceeds to say exactly what her parentage is (the version given is just one person's opinion, not scholarly consensus). Obviously, this is an internal inconsistency. Agricolae (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You have now made some improvements yourself. Thank you! Without immediately realising this, I altered the lead in two ways: one by changing "niece" to "relative". I think that's not controversial. The other was by removing the last clause which said that her parentage is uncertain. It's true, obviously, but it was immediately followed by your revised paragraph which says the same thing, so, in reading, it seemed unnecessary to say it twice. At a quick read, the word "relative" already expresses the uncertainty. But if you disagree with this change, feel free to restore the missing words! Andrew Dalby 09:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I commented here before I knew if I could dig out a citable source for (one of) the alternatives. There is a Szabolcs de Vajay paper that goes into the sources in some detail, but I don't know where I filed it, and I think the source I added is following his solution, so it may be superfluous. Your modifications are fine. Agricolae (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)