I'm trying to add a daughter to a protected profile and provided evidence to that fact, how long should I wait?

Question

On 16 Mar 2023 Kleinjan Kotzé wrote on Mostert-393:

Hi, please attach [[Smit-4233|Huibrecht Elizabeth Johanna Margaretha Smit (1797-abt.1850)]] as the daughter of [[Mostert-393|Helena Johanna (Mostert) Smit (1758-aft.1803)]], if you look at the baptism record of Helena Johanna Smit entry no.69 under witnesses you'll find that she is a namesake of her grandmother [[Mostert-393|Helena Johanna (Mostert) Smit (1758-aft.1803)]] and her husband [[Smith-263525|Nicolaas (Smith) Smit (bef.1751-1824)]] also attended the baptism: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSVD-5SZM-C?cc=1478678 Also see additional sources: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/pedigree/landscape/L5G9-BGB "South Africa, Dutch Reformed Church Registers (Cape Town Archives), 1660-1970 ", database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6CY5-GCGN : 13 January 2021), Huibrecht Smit in entry for Helena Johanna Smit, 1816.

Comments

All I see on Smit-4233 is Huibrecht was born in 1797. She passed away about 1850.  Unsourced family tree 

Then a link to another online tree and a source to the marriage which does not prove parentage. 

Maybe you would like to consider providing the baptism or other primary sources to prove parentage.

Answer 1

Kleinjan, if you edit your question and add:

dutch_cape_colony

in the tag space, you should get faster attention from the project which protected the profile.

Comments

Thank you Gaile it's much appreciated ☺️

---

Gaile, Isn't that what a comment on the profile is supposed to accomplish? I have made such requests that are now well over a year old.

Their goal is to PPP every pre-1800 profile. That is the entire contents of de Villiers / Pama! This is a ridiculous situation that actually discourages people from contributing.

Think about it. Is it not tragic that your answer is chosen as the best? Kafka would be proud.

Keith Meintjes

Answer 2

Kleinjan, she is already added to the protected profile, which is [[Smith-263525|Nicolaas (Smith) Smit (bef.1751-1824)]].

You will be able to add her mother yourself. 

• Just go to edit, add mother and enter the id of the mother
• but scroll down and uncheck that Nicolaas Smit is the father (he is already connected as the father anyway), otherwise you will get the error message because his profile is protected 
• Then press Go

Be sure to complete the profile withe her places of birth and death and sources for this information 

Comments

Thank you Leon

Answer 3

Added her to her mother after finding the baptismal record which was added to child's profile

Kleinjan here is the link to find records for SA profiles

https://southafrica.mypeoplepuzzle.net/GEN_Links.html

Comments

Awesome thank you Ronel, I really appreciate it. Everyone has been of so much help

Answer 4

What we really should be asking is: Why are so many South African profiles restricted by PPP? You should be insulted that you are not trusted to add your own contributions.

IF they do condescend to include your contribution, what value have they added? Did they check your work?

I am quite infuriated by this. WikiTree is supposed to be a collaborative community. I have asked over and over again WHY?, and have been told "There is a reason". But, take a look at the guidelines for PPP, and you will see that this tool (PPP) is being grossly abused and misapplied.

Keith Meintjes

Comments

Hi Keith, I know this is frustating to most of us, but if you read the PPP requirements in this WikiTree help file you might get some insight as to why it was done. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Project_Protecting_and_Merging

I know this is off topic for the current thread, so maybe you should start a new one if you would like to discuss it further and get input from the wider community.

---

Louis,

I don't buy it. There is a blanket policy to PPP profiles before 1800. Let's look at the one under discussion here:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Smith-263525

Please explain why this profile is PPP?

---

Completely agree with you, in some instances the people have no issue in adding their ancestors from the exact same unsourced familytree yet require you to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I've even had people question adding someone that I asked to be added only to see that the person was was added upon creation of the profile only to be removed later since no source documents were provided yet the son was mentioned in the Biography. I then had Wikitreeres arguing paternity when the father was still alive at conception but died soon after and that was enough for them to argue against the fact that he was the father even though I found multiple source documents listing him as the father. Point is these people on the Projects wield WAY too much power over profiles and can hold them hostage based on their prejudice.

---

There is a blanket policy to PPP profiles before 1800.

This is a bit concerning, and would definitely be a misunderstanding of the PPP policy. Is this documented somewhere? If we can get down to the root of problem, maybe we can come up with a solution.

---

I have looked at the main Project page for the South Africa Project,. This does not set out any blanket policy of applying PPP to pre-1800 profiles. The Project's policy on long-term Project Protection is set out at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:South_Africa#To-Do_or_Task_List and is consistent with general WT guidance. Basically it says that to be given permanent PPP, a profile should be over 200 years old, AND either controversial, or has a significant risk of being duplicated.

In the past, PPP was applied much more widely across the whole of WikiTree, but the guidance on PPP changed some years back. There are still some profiles given PPP in the past which would not qualify for PPP now but still have PPP: often, there is no Project managing the profile. But I doubt this affects the South Africa Project.

---

Good evening Steven

This is what I know

Explanation

When the policy of PPP all pre 1800 profiles in the COGH (back in the days) was made, it was done to protect the LNAB  and to ensure that the thousands of duplicates that was made are minimized.

All profiles with a validated baptismal record were PPP after adding them to the parents    

This policy worked great when the “workforce” consisted of many active members, leaders and coordinators.

Unfortunately life happened and the “workforce” is now diminished

Some members removed themselves from the profiles (since the limitations of 5000 on the watch list became public knowledge) others do not respond to request promptly, some are no longer active ….. Leaving the leaders and coordinators to take care of requests on these profiles … An almost impossible task for only a few people   

The result leads us to this problem discussed here

Let’s take the profile in question [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Mostert-393 Johanna Helena Smit]

Two members are managers besides the COGH   and could have responded given enough time…

To get back to the topic

The current system causes frustration and does not work anymore, but the problem with duplicates and LNAB changes still exist  

Solution pending 

---

Ronel, I would like to add that we should look at the history of PPP as well. The original function was just for the preservation of the LNAB, which was perfect. It was the later changes like the restriction on adding family members that really screwed things up. It was objected to at the time but implemented anyway. The proposal then was that the restriction on adding family members be made optional on each profile so that known families can be preserved and that members could add family on incomplete families. This however did not find support.

---

Thank you Louis

I forgot about that changes   

I Sincerely  hope we can find a solution as I understand the frustration of the members   

 

---

I think I have said enough.

---

There is a bit of an open secret: the so-called 'LNAB' is not a holy fixture, sanctioned by the high officialdom.  It is just the surname as spelled and written down by some administrative person at the baptism (not birth).  At the Cape of Good Hope, one frequently finds that surnames are spelled differently, or modified quite severely, in the various 'official' documents.  The so-called 'Last Name At Birth' is often a rather random thing, without any special official sanction from the Heren XVII in Amsterdam.  They didn't really care about official surnames. Many people just got a patronymic, which was not always kept in later generations.

This is also what makes it difficult to even find these original records, even after having them transcribed, as nobody knows how those have been (mis)spelled.  In addition, the original records didn't record 100% of the people, and some of the records have been lost.  This makes it impossible to demand that every person have a baptism record.

---

"This makes it impossible to demand that every person have a baptism record."

Could you please clarify where this is demanded. As far as I know the practice is to use the spelling of the LNAB on the document closest to the time of birth, and that may not be the baptism record, it could be the immigration, or marriage record, or other records, or even the death record, depending on what is available. Baptism is only preferred in the sense that it is a name giving ceremony, but not everyone belonged to the Christian faith. In reallity it depends on what records you have to work with.