When there is no source for a wife or child, should we delete the connection?

Question

So, this profile is just one example and I am trying to understand "our community" philosophy and direction.  

There are numerous rumored relationships out there on many websites and in many genealogical writings.   In most cases, they indicate that while the relationship has no first level proof, it is a best guess.   My question is, so, do we follow the same approach, or when we find parents or a wife that we cannot prove through first level sources that the relationship existed, do we remove the relationship as was done in this profile?   Both the parents and the wife were removed.  I have always left the connection, unless it could be proven "incorrect", and just marked the profile that the relationship is "suspect".

Comments

I don't think we should even consider deletions. That could lead to WHOLESALE deletions of other people's hard work. I think we should take the tack mentioned of noting issue in the bio sections.

We should be emphasizing teaching and mentoring folks in the tree to encourage proper sourcing. Sometimes PM's do have sources and just need to get them put in profiles. (OKAY I'm guilty sometimes.) But one can get much more with sugar than with vinegar!!

Holly Joy Knight-3405

---

Holly is correct, we don't do deletions. It's possible that a profile should never have been added, but once it's added we do not want to delete it.

I know Robin is really asking about removing the relationship, so I'm editing her question from "When there is no source for a wife or child, should be delete them?" to "When there is no source for a wife or child, should we delete the connection?"

---

Well you want it fixed or you don't.  There's vast amounts of junk on other sites and a lot of it has been gedcommed in.  And the process of fixing it is too longwinded.

---

As Kitty pointed out, if we remove connections without documenting the removal and source in the text box on the profile, we just invite others with the same connection to add it back again, thinking they have something new.

Creating concensus on who our ancestors are is just as important as having the right connections.

(I get impatient sometimes we all do, but agrrement goes with being a Wiki, which has so many other great advantages it is worth a bit of patience.)

Answer 1

Hi Robin!  Because this is a Project Protected Profile, I would enter my concerns and any available references in a public bulletin board message on the Hatcher profile.  This will be emailed to the PMs and anyone that reads the profile will see your concerns.

If this occurs for a non-PPP profile, I would do the same, but I might add a note in the biography section as well.  

You don't want to remove or delete the work of others, and I believe that we need to know the sources whether they are strong or weak.  That way, we know what is new information and what has already been considered. So, I am in favor of all citations being included.

Comments

I put a note on the profile and actually updated the other profiles with the information.  I really am looking for "the answer" of do we remove and put a note, or do we leave and put a note.

The profile has all the sources I would put on the profile.   But, the sources say "there is no definitive proof of the relationship, and this is why people think it might be true", so, when I merged the profile, I left things as they were.   The parents and the wife were on the PPP profile already.

---

FYI, profile managers should also receive notification of g2g posts-- like this one.

AND the project protection was done by the same person who gave it the PGM template in December last year. (Nae?)

It should still have PPP status-- because it's now part of the Colonial South project-- or should be.

---

So, while I do not agree with removing the connection of all the profiles that are not supported by sources, I have deferred to the project.   What I will do is add a comment to all the profiles that were "disconnected" from this person with the information on why they were deleted, a link to this discussion, and the back-up on why the connections are disputed.   Once again, I think there is a big difference between proving that a connection exists vs. proving that a connection does not exist and would like to see a common approach for all of Wikitree.

Answer 2

I would note this in the Bio, together with your reasons.

Comments

I can't speak for the Colonial South Project (and this person would fit into this project), but the Puritan Great Migration project here at wikitree follows the practice that when there is insufficient proof of parentage, the person is detached from speculative parents, but they are linked to in the narrative, under == Disputed Origins ==.

I don't know if this practice has become universal throughout wikitree-- I don't think it's formally documented... yet.

p.s. Hatcher-46 had been previously marked as part of the PGM project-- don't know why; there's no evidence he went first to New England. So I've removed that template. If someone has evidence he settled initially in New England before Virginia, please provide the source for it, and I'll happily put the PGM template back on.

Related: Has the Colonial South project come up with a template yet? This profile should have it.

---

There were actually two PGM templates - I removed the other (multiple bios) and will add the Southern Colonies template.

Answer 3

I would not delete anything, unless you have a better source.  Yes, there is an endless amount of terrible information floating around the internet by misinformed, but well meaning people.  If you run across something that is straight up and down wrong, I would first reach out to the pofile manager, give it a few days, then leave a detailed note in the "public comment" section on the right side of the the profile and make the change.

Answer 4

This profile is part of a project. The first thing to do is contact the project.