Comments on Matthew Strickland

Question

I thought it best to bring this profile's conflation problem to G2G. Thanks in advance.

On 2 Aug 2020 Fann Fann wrote on Strickland-337:

"The Tailor" is mentioned as his occupation once in this well-researched document. The only details that I take exception to in the documents are those about a later descendant, Sampson Strickland, whose life appears to be conflated between two Sampson Stricklands. 

King, Forrest. Descendants of Mathew Strickland (1648-1696) through Four Generations. Undated. Accessed 2 Aug 2020. 

Please let me know if you need help in separating the two generations of Matthew that appear to be conflated here. Thanks.

Comments

Your help cleaning this up is appreciated.

---

Fann Fann, I'm confused about your comment, "The only details that I take exception to in the documents are those about a later descendant, Sampson Strickland, whose life appears to be conflated between two Sampson Stricklands." This when you seem to be commenting on a conflation of Matthews.

Are you referring to Forrest King's book having the conflation? If so, I agree, especially in regard to the wives of Sampson Strickland-550 and Sampson Strickland-5052.

---

Yes, two conflations...

On the present profile, contributors have conflated two generations of Matthew into one. King's work will be my guide to separate the two.

Yes, King made a conflation error in discussion of Sampson in a later generation. Some of King's sourcing on the two Sampsons may be separately discernable and applicable, however.

Other than that, I haven't detected any problems with King's work.