Please PPP Mildred Weston [closed]

Question

Please PPP Mildred Weston [closed]

I've just spent half the day working away at this on Mildred Weston's page and I'm not even halfway through sorting through logic and documented sources on both sides of the argument. My head hurts. :D I can point you towards the original research done and documented in the Google threads (which Joe Cochoit [Cochoit-2] the head of the Henry III Gateway Ancestors project pointed me towards):

Weston / Walton descent from the Earls of Westmorland

Family of John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire (died c.1550)

The Parents of Mildred Weston

Or you can follow along as I summarize it on Mildred Weston's page if you'd prefer:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Weston-42

I'd prefer to keep the work I'm doing in one place until I, at least, have managed to wrap my head around it.

commented Oct 12, 2017 by Jo Hollingsworth G2G6 Mach 1 (16.8k points)
edited Oct 12, 2017 by Jo Hollingsworth

Hi Jo,

Sure, it wouldn't be worth doing until you're through with your current changes. I'm impressed with what you've written so far on Mildred White's (Weston-42) profile, so I look forward to seeing the end result.

The credibility of the 1632 pedigree is, of course, discussed on a number of other related profiles (Weston-41, Weston-129, Weston-137, Neville-1904 etc.). I believe it would be helpful to have link these together somewhere. I don't know if it's worth having a page to tie it all together under "Uncertain Existence", "Frauds and Fabrications" or similar, (I guess that the choice of possible categorisations is the nub of the problem), but I'd certainly like to have it referenced from the One Name Study. For the time being, I'll note on the study page that work is going on and will thereafter try to keep abreast of developments. If you do feel like contributing there, though, have no doubt that your scholarship would be appreciated.

Regards,

Chris.

commented Oct 13, 2017 by Chris Weston G2G6 Mach 2 (20.8k points)

Should we make a page for the credibility of the 1632 pedigree and centralize the information instead of having it scattered across multiple profiles? Then we could combine all of the known research in one place and just link to it all from all of the related profiles. This would allow for consistency at the very least.

I'd suggest calling it something like "The 1632 Pedigree Controversy" or "The Credibility of the 1632 Pedigree" which would be a bit more neutral, and allow for discussion of both sides of the argument.

(I should point out at this point - as I have in other places - that I already have a line of descent through the confirmed Henry III gateway ancestor Frances Deighton [Deighton-3], so I don't really have any skin in the game. I'm mainly trying to do profile improvement here as I attempt to do with any profile in my line.)

commented Oct 13, 2017 by Jo Hollingsworth G2G6 Mach 1 (16.8k points)
edited Oct 13, 2017 by Jo Hollingsworth

Hi Jo,

We need to graft it into the existing categorization structure somewhere, since arbitrary categorization, using personal categories, is discouraged for pre-1700 profiles. The categories that we thought were too negative ("Uncertain Existence" and "Frauds and Fabrications") both fall under the equally negative "Fictitious and Legendary Genealogy", which is in turn a subcategory of "Family", so I suggest that we start from that (suitably neutral sounding) one. Under Family, there is a category called "Family Mysteries", which we could make use of, if you don't think it sounds too playful. Alternatively we could create a new sub-category of Family called "Family Controversies". We could then add either "Weston Family Mysteries" or "Weston Family Controversies" as the next level (depending on which option we chose), and finally put "The 1632 Pedigree Controversy" under that.

Let me know if you agree with the above and whether you prefer to reuse the existing "Family Mysteries" grouping or to create a new "Family Controversies" one. I'm then happy to create the new entries and a profile page to hold the centralised treatment of the pedigree issue.

Regards,

Chris.

commented Oct 14, 2017 by Chris Weston G2G6 Mach 2 (20.8k points)

Frauds and Fabrications

“This category and its subcategories are intended to make people aware of genealogical authors and genealogies that have been determined to be frauds or fabrications...”

That’s not really the case here, as whether it’s a fraud is really the debate, so I think we can eliminate that one.

Uncertain Existence

This may apply to some of the related profiles, but I’m pretty sure some of the related profiles are for people who can be proven to have existed. The question is whether they’re related, not whether they’re real.

Family Mysteries

“Unknown or open questions related to specific families or surnames.”

That actually sounds like it fits, but when you look at what’s currently under it, it’s not being used in the way we’re thinking.

So I’m thinking yes, a new subcategory. Maybe “Controversial Pedigrees” under Family?

I feel like if we created a page for “Weston 1632 Pedigree Controversy” and filed it both under the Weston One Name Study and under a new “Controversial Pedigrees” category, that might be the best structure.

I actually did my thesis in online information organization dogs years ago and worked in related fields for years, so I may or may not be overthinking this. :D But that would be my recommendation.

commented Oct 15, 2017 by Jo Hollingsworth G2G6 Mach 1 (16.8k points)

Hi Jo,

Good! I've created the suggested links below the Family category and created the free space profile, cutting and pasting some initial information from the Name Study page, to check that it works as expected. I'm hoping though that you'll delete most of what I've put there and replace with text based on your analysis, so don't be shy of chucking out what you find there!

The new page is:-

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Weston_1632_Pedigree_Controversy

I'm also hoping that you can just go in and use it without special privileges, so can you see if that works okay for you? But I think I should certainly add you as a profile manager, if you're happy with that, once you've checked it out. I'd appreciate a quick review of my text at

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Controversial_Pedigrees

as well, if that's okay.

Regards,

Chris.

commented Oct 15, 2017 by Chris Weston G2G6 Mach 2 (20.8k points)

I’ve put together a standard blurb introducing the controversy and directing readers to the centralized page, and I’ve used it to replace the arguments in each individual profile. The various arguments have been extracted to the new 1632 Controversy page and edited together, though I’m sure it could use several more editing passes.

I’ve exchanged individual arguments for links to the new page on the following profiles:

John Weston: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Weston-41

Cecilia Neville: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Neville-1904

Sir Richard Weston: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Weston-137

Richard Weston, First Earl of Portland: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Weston-129

Mildred (Weston) White: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Weston-42

I’d encourage everyone to grab this blurb and use it to replace individual arguments/explations about this pedigree wherever you find them.