Any objections to disconnecting Richard Bishop b 1609 (father) from John Bishop b 1590 (son)

Question

GeneX made the following comment on the profile of John Bishop-171

John Bishop/Bishop-171 (1590-1661) lived at the wrong place and died too early to have been the son of early Salem immigrant, Richard Bishop/Bishop-1500.

Various probate records are about Richard Bishop d. 1674 at Salem, Massachusetts, and his four known children. These records name John Bishop of "South Hampton, Long Island" as Richard's eldest son. [1] This John Bishop provided "Letter of Attorney" dated 22 May 1675 bearing his signature.[2]

Richard's son John Bishop survived to convey a "portion of ye estate of my late deceased father Richard Bishop of Salem." on 7 September 1686.[3]

His sources are on John's profile.

I'm following up in response to a query on the G2G.

Do I hear any objections to disconnecting Richard b 1609 (father) from John b 1590 (son)

Comments

Hi Anne and M. Gaulden, 

Hoping only to be helpful,

The comment quoted is out of date as to the identity of Bishop-1500. See the updated dialog under G2G, "Straightening out some Kings and Bishops, early New England immigrants." (I have now updated the comment on Bishop-1500 to reflect the different identities)

(1) Salem immigrant, Richard Bishop is Bishop-179. Bishop-1500 (also Richard Bishop) is a different person, but he continues to be confused, later in life, with the Salem immigrant. Likewise it seems, the wife of Bishop-1500 continues to be confused with the woman Anderson (Great Migration) called Dulsabel, who married first to Richard King and secondly to Richard Bishop. (The woman who married Richard King and Richard Bishop is now Unknown-248310.)

(2) There is a problematic entry in "Memories" on the profile of John Bishop/Bishop-171 erroneously stating, "JOHN BISHOP - from England - 13th generation (K1202) JOHN BISHOP was born in 1580 in England, the son of Richard and Dolabelle Bishop." 

---

So, what needs to be done moviing forward?

---

Hi Jillaine, Anne B and others,

I've severed the problematic associations, but have not yet figured out how to update the entry in "Memories." Suggestions?

---

Can memories be deleted or updated by the original creator? In which case I would explain to her and ask her to delete.

---

I have done that now, Anne B.

---

Ah yes, Lois Hirsch-- who hasn't been on wikitree for about a year-- loved to use the Memory box as a place to enter information that should go into the narrative.

What I have done in the past is-- where I'm profile manager (and sometimes that means adopting the profile) -- I copy and paste the relevant data from the Memory box into the narrative (and usually edit it) -- and then delete the Memory comment.

---

Thank you Jillaine. Will investigate that momentarily.

Answer 1

Hi Anne B and M. Gaulden,

I have severed the various improbable associations between John Bishop, Guilford founder, the two men Richard Bishop (Bishop-1500 and Bishop 179) and wives associated with the Richard Bishopp men, Alice Clarke and Dulsabel _____, respectively.  (A conflicting entries in "Memories" remains on the profile of John Bishop/Bishop-171.)

We have not heard several project managers/trusted list members, but I at least suspect this is not because folks dispute the changes. Rather, that the array of well-intended but problematic family file information posted to the interenet about all the characters is simply overwhelming. From one of the earlier G2G posts, for example

"More than 2000 family files online report John Bishop, Guilford founder, as the son of the man who died at Salem in 1674; any number report the Salem man’s birth in the mid 1500s."

If we were to include queries, blog articles and similary internet posts, the tally of problematic reporting increases greatly.

Comments

I'm standing at the ready to protect the project profiles--(a) John Bishop (Bishop-171); Richard Bishop (Bishop-179) and (c) Dulsabel _____ (Unknown-248310).

Shall I proceed?

Note: It's not clear to me that we would need to protect either Bishop-1500 or Clarke-3648. These personalities (Richard Bishop and wife Alice Clarke) are not part of a project; their profiles need a bit of work by those famiiar with that English lineage.

---

I did proceed to protect our two Salem immigrants, Richad Bishop/Bishop-179 and Dulsabel/Unknown-248310. They seem to be the folks who become the most distorted when associated as the parents of John Bishop/Bishop-171.