Should the parents of William Shattuck be removed

+7 votes
122 views
His profile says that nothing is known of him before he arrived in Massachusetts, but parents have been added for him, with the only source "Family Search on Family Tree". Should those parents be removed?
WikiTree profile: William Shattuck
in Genealogy Help by Kay Wilson G2G6 Pilot (187k points)
retagged by Cheryl Skordahl

2 Answers

+6 votes
If there are no sources on parent's profiles or William's profiles and no sources can be found, Research Notes section can be created with the wikitree ID and name of both parents on his profile and add his name to the 'linked' parent's profile before disconnecting them.  or Label as Possible Parents.  

There is a Find a Grave has the mother linked, but no mention of the father.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/20418389/william-shattuck.
by Linda Peterson G2G6 Pilot (534k points)
+6 votes

Furthermore, the profile Samuel Shattuck-1624 which has been attached as father is a recently created profile with nothing but a family search source and then somehow attached as husband to a PPP profile of Demaris Gardner. This man is Unknown Shattuck already represented in WikiTree. These parents do need to be disconnected and Shattuck-1624 needs to be merged away (unless primary source documentation can be provided.

by T Stanton G2G6 Pilot (205k points)
This is an example of why Family Search profiles should not be allowed as sources.
[Whoops, I read you as saying there was no reason we shouldn't use FamilySearch profiles.  Guess I'm in violent agreement.] No, [that is, YES] we should not be using FamilySearch profiles as PGM sources.  We specify that we use high-quality sources, or the best available *contemporary* sources -- that is, sources created when the person was alive -- and FamilySearch profiles are neither contemporary sources nor high-quality sources by any definition of the term.

 Many are every bit as bad as Ancestry trees can be.   Absolutely anyone can create one, without any kind of source or evidence.  

Now many of the *sources* available on FamilySearch are top-notch, and there are a lot of digitizations of contemporary sources to be found there,  but that's another matter entirely.
A family tree isn't an acceptable reference for pre-1700 profiles.  It's not desired for post-1700 ones, either, but unfortunately (IMHO) is accepted.  These new profiles shouldn't have been created.  I've proposed a merge for the newly created Samuel Shattock with the actual Unknown (since no sources have identified his given name).

Related questions

+3 votes
0 answers
114 views asked Nov 30, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Arthur Shattuck
+5 votes
2 answers
+1 vote
2 answers
83 views asked Mar 6, 2020 in The Tree House by Jack Parker G2G3 (3.0k points)
+5 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
3 answers
+3 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
1 answer
97 views asked Nov 12, 2019 in Genealogy Help by T Stanton G2G6 Pilot (205k points)
+6 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
0 answers
135 views asked Apr 1, 2014 in Genealogy Help by Doris DeFazio G2G Rookie (250 points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...