disproven existence doesn't quite apply? [closed]

Question

This profile now has the "Uncertain Existence" research note box. And if it's appropriate that it has that box, shouldn't it actually go another step to the "Disproven Existence" research note box?

The profile has been taken out of the Magna Carta trail it was in, which disqualifies it from being managed by that project (to be a project-managed profile, the profile must have the project box, and profiles that are not in a trail approved by the Magna Carta Project are not eligible for the project box).

The sticking point is that there was a Thomas Wodhull as I understand it: reading/re-reading his profile, it seems to me that contemporary documents show that he existed, but nothing shows conclusively that he was the son of [John Wahull] and the father of [Nicholas Wodhull].

So, while this Thomas Wodhull, born about 1322 and died before April 1375, probably did exist, the evidence presented on his profile shows he cannot be presumed to be the connection for the Magna Carta trail between Nicholas & John (from several gateway ancestors to Surety Baron [William Malet]), although the Wodhull-44 profile served that purpose for quite a while because all the choices of father for Nicholas were descendants of Malet-18 (see [this G2G discussion]).

This profile needs a project to manage it, so that it has oversight & can remain a project-protected profile. The Disproven Existence Project could do that (as soon as it gets a project box), but ... should it? Is this profile "enough" disproven as having existed as son of John/father of Nicholas to be declared as having never existed? And if not, should the Disproven Existence Project still be manager, or should it not have even the Uncertain Existence research note box & be managed by another project (e.g., EuroAristo).

Comments

Liz, after a great deal of research into the primary records the conclusion is that the line is sound.  Please remove the project protection so that we can restore his parents.

Answer 1

So we have two issues.  The first is that in Thomas Wodhull we have a person whose reality is not in doubt, but rather his relationships.  So he's really not either disproven existence or even uncertain existance -- simply disproven relationships, which knocks him out of Magna Carta.   And PPP status does offer some protection against connecting bad relationships.  So your logic that another overlapping project might adopt him and PPP him -- Euroaristo if he is still thought, without his relationships, to be aristocratic, or otherwise perhaps England -- has great logic.   

The second issue is the relationship between projects and fake people.  That we even maintain fake people on WikiTree drives some WikiTreers batty, but the best logic for doing so is to protect the real people.  If there is a real George out there but people keep trying to attach a romantic but fake narrative to him, then it's good to maintain an isolated profile for a fake George with all the fakery we want to protect the profile of the real George from,  To the extent this is a valid argument, then ALL projects have a like interest in protecting their real profiles from fakery.  Your note reflects Magna Carta's interest in doing just that -- protecting the MC trails from anything fake.  Maintaining and isolating a fake profile is a method of protecting the real ones.  But the question I'd pose here is -- because MC only puts its mark on valid trails, has MC denied itself a form of protection against fake profiles that all of the other projects have?   (And the answer may well be "yes" and the solution may well be to collaborate, as in this note, which is what we say we're about anyway!)

Comments

PGM and Native Americans projects have addressed this issue and I really wish Magna Carta would do the same. They are best positioned to “protect” and keep tabs on those profiles that have been disproven to be connected to the Magna Carta lineage.

PGM took on a variation of this not because we wanted more profiles to manage but because the quality of those that DO fall under the project was being compromised, because even after protecting a PGM ancestor and disconnecting disproven parents, someone would come along, create a duplicate with the disproven parents attached.  We’d merge and then there they are again having to deal with the incorrect generation above (sometimes below) the PGM ancestor.  We’re still working on the design of the appropriate box but we realized we needed to protect the integrity of the solidly researched profile by also protecting the disputed profile. Variation of this in the NA project is where we encounter the attachment of a Native American creations to other NAs or to European-Americans when there is no evidence.

Something Jeannie Roberts recently wrote provides an important reminder to those of us who don’t like to see profiles of non existent people remain in wikitree: these profiles represent someone who did exist— a parent or a spouse or a real person. It’s just that the identity is that person is not known and in their place has been put a creation in order to support a family legend of royal or NA or fill-in-the-blank ancestry.

Answer 2

I'd like to second Jack's response that the England Project may be an appropriate option to manage Thomas Wodhull, if he doesn't fit comfortably with the criteria of any other project. He would certainly fit our criteria!

Comments

Wonderful! What template/project account can I add?

---

I'll sort it for you. Great outcome. The England Project are currently going through all the PPPs we can find in England that aren't being managed by a project. He was on the list for review... so one down!