What's an exceptable level of information required to establish confidence.

Question

What's considered sufficient level of evidence to confirm a relationship or date of birth? A number of profiles I am related too have links to parents or have a dob associated with a ScotlandsPeople OPR record where the relationship is based simply on the fact that there is only one record, perhaps even with slight variation in both surname / first name that fits the time frame or location. These are typically pre-1700 profiles with little information contained in the actual records.

Often these records are associated with external trees in other online databases and are clearly incorrect. I am not PM on these profiles, so not sure I can remove parents from profiles without agreement from the current PM.

Thanks,

Ian

Comments

Ian, it is quite common for 'people' to pick a record as you say because it appears to be the only one, perhaps even with slight variation in both surname / first name that fits the time frame or location.

Scotland's people is very good at providing detailed information for the records they have, however as is very common many records either no longer exist, are illegible, or have been transcribed badly. No currently available other record does not mean that the 'chosen' record is in fact the correct one.

I run into this situation regularly not just on WT and not just with Scotland related profiles.

Sometimes it is possible to research the person from another angle by looking at other family members.

Records for a person's known children can often provide additional information about their parents or other family members. Sometimes a will, often baptism records that show the family in a previously unexpected area.

Using different databases can sometimes provide clues as many records can be interpreted/ transcribed in more than one way.

Often it is not possible to establish certainty because there just aren't the detailed sources needed to do so. And we have to accept that the records and the level of detail required for certainty are not available.

Often I add Research Notes that say something like, possible parents are A and B, or they could be A and C, or, or possible spouses are .... or this person is probably not related to the profile because...

Sources can be both reliable and accurate without being correct for the person profiled.

---

If you include a profile, you might get some specific answers

---

Hi Linda

I've updated the question with the actual profile. I'd originally wanted to keep it more general so I didn't upset the existing PM. I have been messaging the PM who has responded in relation to other linked Profiles which he is the PM of.

Thanks,

Ian

---

Hi Ross

Agreed, I've added  a lot of information to the Profile, adding  a 'Research Notes' section.

Thanks for your help.

Ian

Answer 1

Do not remove parents until you have contacted the current PM with your reasoning and source.  That is considered a 'major change' and should be discussed first.

Comments

I have engaged with the particular PM, however they seem to think the parents are valid even though there are no source at all either on the profile or in the primary record sources.

It may be due to a link to Robert the Bruce! Given that it's a pre 1700 I would have though it was essential to have sources. Without this rigour all we have is a spiderweb of incorrect connections.

Is there a process of independent 'experts' reviewing profiles?

Thanks.

---

While I have management of the parents, I did change one of the parents.  But added a warning about disputed parentage.  See this profile David Crocket Cassady - WikiTree Profile

Then in the research notes I put an explanation.  You can click the link in the disputed warning and it will take you to the research notes.

In this case I didn't need to contact the PM since it was me.  But maybe something like above could be a compromise if you both can't agree.  Put the discussion in the research notes and what is believed to be required to resolve the dispute.

Answer 2

Did you tag your post with Scotland?

You might want to reach out to the Scotland project. They have a discussion of Reliable sources for Pre1700 profiles and might be able to help you.

Comments

Thanks!

Answer 3

It depends on a number of factors, e.g.:

• How good a match is the name? How rare is the name? The better the match and the rarer the name, the more probable it is that it is the same person.
• How strong is the evidence that the person came from that specific location? If there is strong evidence that someone came from a particular small town/parish, that makes the match more probable than if all that is known is that the person probably came from a particular country or region.
• How good is the match for the dates?
• Is there evidence of multiple people with that name, from that location, around that time? If so, is there evidence to that makes one person much more probable than the others?

Depending on the evidence re these issues, a match with name, location and dates may be enough for a confident relationship, uncertain relationship, or just a speculative/unlikely relationship which should not be shown as a connection. Since pre-1700 (and particularly, pre-1600) the records are often very spotty, we cannot assume that just because there is a record with a consistent name and a consistent date relates to same person unless (1) there is strong evidence that the person came from the town/parish location in the record and (2) it is unlikely that there was another person from that town/parish that the record could relate to.

Comments

Hi Chase

The surname is common in Scotland, Farquhar / Farquher and the name is similar Jane / Jean. It may well be a transposition error in the index on ScotlandsPeople. I haven't yet bought the actual image although I will do. There is only one single possible match across the whole of the OPR for the possible dates, and the dates match my estimate. The question is this a correct match, or are the OPR records just very sparse.

The family were known to live within 20 miles of the location. I have since added a profile to the original question.

It's the link to the parents that I think is likely to be the main issue. I can't as of yet find any basis or records supporting the Jean's parents.

Thanks

Ian

Answer 4

The FS profile that was linked on that profile had a name that did not match any of the sources, nor birthdate, so I have changed the name and birthdate on the FS profile to match the sources.  It is now Jean Farquahar, born 1693, since christening is usually close to birth.  The first source was the Christening record in 1693 with Alexander as the father. So I have added that record to the Wikitree profile in a separate paragraph.  The rest of the profile can be revised based on that source, which is a reliable source.  That doesn’t prove the mother, but it proves a father is Alexander.

In Scotland, Jean and Jane are commonly used back and forth for the same person, so different records with either name can be valid.

Comments

There is a Jean Goodale having children with James Douglas in a different location about the same time, so it is possible information is being confused about those people.

"Scotland Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XTYQ-RZF : 12 February 2020), Jean Goodale in entry for Hewgh Douglas, 1714.

---

There were also 2 FS profiles that I have now merged together since the other one had both parents, spouse and children.