Why is the US Presidents Project manager of this profile?

Question

I am dismayed that the US Presidents Project is now a manager of Henry (Clinton) Fynes, and have put badges on it. There is zero credible evidence that he is an ancestor of George Clinton (Clinton-693) (A statement which is now on Henry’s profile.)

 There have been G2G discussions already on this and George’s father, Charles Clinton’s, dubious links were removed due to a lack of evidence. (Which is as it should be.) I’m surprised that a project favours a family story that has yet to provide any evidence.

The names of Charles Clinton’s father & grandfather come from the family story & have yet to be confirmed by sources.

As already mentioned elsewhere, there was a prominent family of Clintons in Ulster from the 1100s. This family bore very similar arms to the family of the Earls of Lincoln (they were of the same roots, but obviously many hundred of years apart.) No one seems to be looking here for the ancestors of George Clinton. (Geographically closer, and only used the name Clinton.)

From the few records available online there does appear to be a James Clinton in Ulster at around the right time period (though not a soldier, or a politician. And possibly married to a member of the White family; another prominent Irish family.)  As for the grandfather - William, he’s already had a few different fathers & was originally said to be an officer in Charles I’s army - then was at the battle of Worcester; in Spain & France with Charles II; & in Scotland marrying an Earl’s daughter. He’s currently younger than he was when the story was first told (too young to be an officer for Charles I, or anyone of consequence at the battle of Worcester.) None of the Clintons (Charles & his sons & grandsons) ever claimed that their ancestors used the name Fiennes; that claim appeared in the 1920s. And only a very distant relationship to Governor George Fiennes Clinton was mentioned. They were also proudly Irish. Surely it’s apparent some subjective research is needed on this ancestry?

The sources now added to this profile to ‘support’ it include:

Gary Boyd Roberts (who literally just repeats the findings (mistakes!) of the New York Genealogical Register - which are now 100 years old, and wrong.); Geni; and Burkes. ☹️ (This is a pre-1700 profile.)

Henry Fynes could have a very interesting profile and there are reliable sources that could be attached (He wrote a memoir for one thing.), but they don’t have any relevance to US presidents.  

I can’t see what value this profile gains from being managed by this particular project, apart from a perpetuation of mythology, which helps no one.

Answer 1

I can't answer your question about the management of the profile, or the research; but even though he is marked with the ancestor template he is not actually connected in a direct line to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Clinton-693.  Going back on the Clinton line from George, the line ends with https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Clinton-856 who has no parents and a note casting doubt on his lineage.

Comments

That is exactly my point. Both the disconnection & the notes were made before the project became manager &the link to George Clinton’s profile was added.  

With that template & the project management, Henry is connected to George Clinton in the minds of anyone who views this profile; it’s only a matter of time before he is literally reconnected on WikiTree (& as far as I’m aware, there is no new evidence to warrant this.)

Answer 2

I suppose the best way to answer that would be to click on the link and send a private email asking why they add themselves as a manager.

However, the group being a manager of the profile would be no different than anyone else who might choose to become a co-manager. Maybe they want to do more research on the profile and have added themselves so that they can track changes. I fail to see the harm, or concern.

Answer 3

US Presidents project has been removed, along with Project Sticker and protection.