Marjorie (Carrick) Countess of Carrick (abt. 1252 - 1292)

Thanks for your comments. I've added a statement about her parents to the biography. Balfour Paul doesn't sound very convinced that her mother was Margaret Stewart, and points to the History of the Stewarts, but in there Duncan Stewart does not offer us any proof either. Are you aware of a primary document, charter, etc. that identifies Margaret's mother as certain? We'd certainly like to provide a solid source.

Wow! I really didn't expect such a fast response. I really appreciate it, and I thank you very much for the update on the biography in the profile. As you can probably tell, I was using Wikipedia as the source where it specifically states "Marjorie was the daughter and heiress of Niall Mac Dhonnchad, 2nd Earl of Carrick and his wife; Margaret Stewart. Her mother's father was Walter Stewart, 3rd High Steward of Scotland."

Apparently, the editors at Wikipedia believe the source you referenced as The Scots Peerage, edited by Sir James Balfour Paul: The Ancient Earls of Carrick p. 426 is sufficient enough to support their subjective decision to make a judgment call or conclusion to include the mother of Marjorie, Countess of Carrick as Margaret Stewart. However, the source clearly confirms your statement, and specifically stated "Neil, Earl of Carick, died in the year 1256. He is said to have married Margaret, daughter of Walter, High Steward of Scotland". As you can see, for convenience, I have uploaded the page to the aforementioned source you identified.

Whenever there is a source that uses phrases such as "is said to have", it can cast some doubt on any conclusions made based on the source. Can you give me some other examples of phrases to be aware of before making any determinations regarding any conclusions such as the certainty of parentage? Of course, words such as probably, maybe, etc., are obviously some of the ones that should be considered very influential in making any determinations. When it comes to avoiding any potential conflict relating to genealogy, I am just concerned about any phrases that may be considered subjective verses objective.

In a situation like this, it appears Wikitree's standard is higher than Wikipedia's when it comes to making an objective conclusion verses a subjective one that is based on a source that may cast some doubt regarding any conclusions made from it. However, Wikipedia doesn't use a system where relationships can be marked as "uncertain". While I agree with your decision, I can see where a situation such as this could create potential conflict between the persons involved, and I personally believe it would be very helpful to identify some of these phrases as examples in order to avoid any disagreement or potential conflict.

Thanks again.

Regina

On pre-1500 profiles, we're a lot more stringent in our requirements for "proof." I won't speak about Wikipedia, as each profile there is based on who has worked on it, just as is true with WikiTree. The Scotland Project tries to be fairly rigorous in our work on the early profiles, since there are some solid sources to work with to remove the guess work often found elsewhere. Please feel free to read up a bit more:

• Copyright and Images Guideline (we generally don't post images of book pages, but instead link to the pages if they're available online. We err on the side of caution in all images attached to Scottish profiles.)
• Reliable (and Unreliable) Sources (for all pre-1700 profiles)
• Scotland - Medieval Profiles Team
• Scotland Project Scotland Project, where there is information about joining the project if you're interested.