need help with an image attached to Alice de Meynell's profile [closed]

Question

https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/De_Audley-84 - attached to the profile for Alice de Audley (now Audley-11) - has no source information or other details.

Alice was born about 1315 and was living in 1358.

1st question: Does the portrait look like someone circa 1340 based on the clothes?
edit: Answered (No) both here and on the profile.

2nd question: Anyone know of any support that the portrait is of Alice? and
edit: n/a because of answer to previous question.

3rd question: Any idea of the source of the image?
edit: See Nic & Kerry's comments. Link provided/public domain image.

Thanks in advance for any help!

edit: Thank you for the answers. Monica, I hope these edits address your concern.

Comments

I think it would be helpful if, as in this case, once a recommended action is taken, be it a merge or an improvement to a profile such as this, that all comments on the profile recommending the merge or change be removed.

I find it confusing when I go to a profile and see these comments or recommendations and then, when I search the profile, can see no reason for them because the action has already taken place. When I check the changes log, I find sometimes these actions took place years ago.

I may be wrong, but I think now even the project manager can not remove these addenda, only the person who originally posts them. This kind of clean up would also improved the look of the profiles.

---

Thanks for the reminder Monica. I find the same thing. I try to update my comment to merge a profile with the note that the merge was completed. I just took a look at the comments on Alice's page...  I had already updated my comment about the image, saying it had been moved & a link to it - https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/De_Audley-84

Was there a different profile that you were looking at that sparked your comment? If so, let me know the WikiTree-ID & I'll take a look.

Cheers, Liz

---

Thanks, Liz, yes, there was a profile I was looking at recently with a string of merge requests, that had, eventually, got the merge, but the long string of appeals still stands. Unfortunately I can't even remember what family I was paging through at the time. There are a lot of similar cases out there.  I have often spent several minutes (in order to decide if I agreed with the commenter) trying to find the problem they cited, only to discover, in frustration, that it no longer existed.

I don't know if there is a way to track this sort of thing down. Am I right that only the person who posts can remove the comment? If that were changed, at least the profile manager could tidy the profiles up assuming they review their profiles from time to time. I suspect a lot of managers didn't do this (the cutting) previously because they felt uncomfortable removing a contribution by someone else, even when it no longer added any potentially relevant information. I used to worry about that. But now I don't see any harm in doing a little gardening. Maybe I'm a bit more ruthless than most because I was an editor and got used to unapologetically rephrasing or rearranging things I didn't write.

btb, I notice that there are still 3 comments on Alice's profile about an image that is no longer there and that nobody feels is relevant. Do we really need any of it?

---

Your experience is the same as mine in regards to merge proposals, and it's why I always try to update my merge proposal comment after the merge is completed. I also try to put links to the profiles I'm talking about, but that doesn't also help when profiles are merged. (I was working on a profile recently & it took me entirely too long that I was trying to research an issue brought up in a comment that was about an entirely different person - the never-left-England John who had been incorrectly merged with the died-in-Virginia John. Very frustrating.)

Anyway. For now, for Alice, I'm waiting to hear from the person who uploaded the image. Since we have no idea where it came from or who it is (except not Alice, by what she's wearing), I think that it will probably be removed from WikiTree, in which case I'll see if I can delete the comments. Might be that I'll only be able to archive them. Haven't quite figured out who can do what since the new comment system was implemented.

Personally, I like to see the comments, regardless of their status. At the least, they speak to the collaborative efforts on the profile and they record any deliberation about something. I must admit that I get a bit annoyed when someone deletes a comment I posted. There's generally no way for me to know what that comment had been about (and yes, I've had important/difficult to replace comments deleted by PMs who did not want to hear anything that might show a flaw in their preferred lineage - just takes one time for that to happen to realize why deleting comments shouldn't be made easy).

Cheers, Liz

P.S. I've been known to do "slash and burn" edits, but generally only upon request (when I was working as an editor). I was also a writer who was edited, so I know how it feels. At one publication, the editor used a green pen & we used to say we'd been slimed... it was about the same time that Bloom County, IIRC, has an "I've been slimed" storyline. I asked her when I left the pub why she used green. She said she felt it wasn't as harsh as red. I used a regular pencil when I was editing... my auditors used to complain of lead poisoning :D

---

Oh! And I just noticed that Nic's reply says who it might be - somehow that didn't register before (it wasn't Alice... Am I focused or what? LOL).

---

I'm all for comments that offer information not in the profile, although maybe they might be best moved to a "research notes" or "for further research" on the profile itself. It's the ones where people say, that's my ancestor, or point out something that's already in the profile, or notes about merges from years ago I would love to see cleaned up. Though I've only just noticed you can "hide" the comments, still I always read them all first, and that is so often a waste of time. Maybe I'm a bit ocd, but I hate clutter, especially when it's more or less useless grafitti and stuck on there forever.

I wonder, given that there's a link to move the comment into the forum, if we could have a separate area in the forum where outdated or irrelevant comments could be moved, weighed, and either deleted, if clearly adding nothing of value to the profile, or debated and/or moved into a research notes section on the profile, if they might deserve further study.

---

Seems like moving to G2G/discussing would be more trouble than it's worth.

I think moving to archive should suffice for those no longer needed. I just did that with Alice's comments... at least the ones I could (and asked Michael to archive his, which he did).

In doing so, I found the answer to the question. You must be profile manager or the poster to archive a comment.

---

I'm not familiar with archiving, how does that work?

---

it's one of the options, along with "move to G2G", that became available with the new comment system. Take a look at the comments on https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Audley-11 - I see "archive" as an option on my post, but not on EuGene's. If you're a PM or the person who posted the comment, you should see it as an option. There's a "view archived comments" button at the bottom right of the last comment showing that lets you see the archived comments.

---

Thanks, Liz, much appreciated.

Answer 1

The costume is wrong for the period. It is of someone probably over two centuries later. The picture should be removed, irrespective of any sourcing/copyright issues.

Comments

Michael is right, this portrait is from the late sixteenth century, according to Wikimedia Commons. The subject is an unknown noblewoman, possibly Elisabeth of Austria, Queen of France.

---

Thanks y'all. The image has been removed from her profile. It's still viewable at https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/De_Audley-84

Answer 2

I have not closed question yet - the original issue has been resolved - the image has been removed from the profile of Alice (Audley-11) Basset - but the question of copyright & whether or not it should be removed from WikiTree remains.

https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/De_Audley-84

Comments

Nic's comment leads to the answer about copyright.  Look at the Wikimedia Commons link; in the Licensing section it says the image is in the public domain in the U.S.

---

yay! Thanks for looking that up Kerry.