Thursday October Christian project protection

Question

This profile was locked back in 2015 but there doesn't appear to be any project associated. There is an incorrect spouse linked (Tevasua-1).

Answer 1

It looks like the profile was created for the Notables project, so that project is the logical one to manage the profile and PPP.

The PPP status appears to be necessary in view of the confusion that apparently exists over the genealogy.

Thursday is connected to two different women as his wife. The two women have very similar names and the same birth and death data. The profiles emphatically warn us: Do not merge this profile with ____. The names are similar but they are different people. Unfortunately, however, the text sections of both profiles have the same 3 husbands, and there is not enough information or sourcing on either profile to tell me which woman belongs to which husband(s), nor which one died on 15 July 1850, etc.

To resolve this situation, the profiles for the two women need to be edited, with sources, to clearly distinguish between the two women. To do this effectively, both profiles should explain the differences between the subject of the profile and the other women -- for example, instead of just saying that Tevarua and Teraura were different women, say something like "T1 married Man1 and Man2; she is not be confused with T2, who married Man3." Be sure to identify the sources and provide other distinguishing information that is found in the sources. Disconnecting the Thursday Christian profile from Tevasua-1 will not do much good when the profiles for both women have the same list of husbands (not to mention several of the same children).

Comments

Given the relatively small population, it would be no surprise that 2 or more women were involved with the same 2 or more men over time.   And they would not necessarily have married as we consider legal marriage.  (Pitcairners were laws unto themselves, pretty much.)

---

If this profile is project-protected by the Notables project, shouldn't the Notables project be a manager of the profile?

The info for the wives needs to be corrected and sourced due to at least one apparently incorrect prior merge, however, Tevarua does not have any Christian children nor do I see any duplicate shared children.

---

I see no point in speculating about the relationships of these women with multiple men. I hope that whoever adamantly asserted that they are different people will be willing to go to the trouble of disentangling the profiles so that they no longer look like the same woman.

The Thursday October Christian was PPPed back in the days before project accounts were required for PPP. After the policies changed, Project Leaders were asked to apply the new policies to the thousands of profiles that had PPP without a project account. More than a few profiles that do not clearly fall within the primary scope of any active projects, like that of Thursday October Christian, have been overlooked. It is apparent that the profile needs PPP, but a project will need to volunteer to pick it up. Since his father Fletcher Christian is in the Notables Project, that would be a logical project home. I hope that this thread leads to a determination of the appropriate project home.

---

Maybe the England Project could take a look.  Pitcairn is a British Overseas Territory.

---

I'm OK if you want to either remove the PPP or add Notables, if that's what is needed. If England is more appropriate, I'm good with that too.

Since this one sounds like it can benefit from PPP, then we'll probably want to decide if it's Notables or England or some other one.

---

"I see no point in speculating about the relationships of these women with multiple men. I hope that whoever adamantly asserted that they are different people will be willing to go to the trouble of disentangling the profiles so that they no longer look like the same woman."

Ellen, perhaps I am misreading your tone, but I don't understand what you're getting at with the first sentence. Speculation is one thing, but it is important for WikiTree to source and document these relationships.

Chris Double is a direct descendant of both Thursday Jr. and Sr. and had been trying to disentangle them, but was thwarted by the project protection.

It appears that the project protection was added after the profile's creation by a non-manager, so I'm not sure the current manager could remove it. Maybe Notables could be added as a co-manager; I don't think the England project is appropriate since it is specific to that country and by the time Pitcairn became British the Acts of Union 1800 applied, so if anything it would be under the larger United Kingdom project, as there aren't any subprojects for Pitcairn or British Overseas Territories generally.

I will message Marc Whitaker and see if he has input.

---

if anything it would be under the larger United Kingdom project . . .

commented by Nathan Kennedy

.

Project UK broke apart into its constituent countries, which is why I suggested the EP, seeing the "seat of power" is still in England.
 

---

Nathan, my comment about not wanting to speculate on relationships was intended to respond to the suggestions by Melanie that 2 different women may have been involved with the same men. As you say, we should rely on sources, not idle speculation.

Any member can edit the text of these profiles to correct errors, add sources, and explicate differences between seemingly similar people. And the Profile Managers or any Project Leader or Coordinator could change the connections to spouses and children -- but we should not do that until it is clear from the evidence given in the profiles that the changes we are making are correct.

---

Any member can edit the text of these profiles to correct errors, add sources, and explicate differences between seemingly similar people. And the Profile Managers or any Project Leader or Coordinator could change the connections to spouses and children -- but we should not do that until it is clear from the evidence given in the profiles that the changes we are making are correct.

commented by Ellen Smith

.

Which was why my word of caution.  Too often there are some who "rush in" and disconnect what may be actual relationships, without first doing the proper research to validate or negate the same.  (I've done it myself on FamilySearch, because the names that were transcribed were incorrect.  I then had to fix the "mess of my own creation".  It's why I am extra cautious on WT.)

For those such as the Pitcairners (Pitcairnites?) it would be too easy to say "uh, nope" to two different women being "married" to the same three or so men, and just remove the relationships.  (Although, if they were just involved, not married (and I would count a Common Law marriage as one understood by their customs), then the links should be in the biography.)

I'll bow out of this discussion, now, as I doubt I could properly contribute to the research required.

---

I'm happy to add extra information and sourcing to the biographies of the profiles if this results in the spouse, etc being corrected. Note that in the comments of Thursday's profile (Christian-1377) I point out the error and link to Paul Lareau's research of Pitcairn genealogy as a source. What more needs to be added?

I confess I've almost given up trying to correct things around the Bounty mutineers due to inability to reach profile owners and protections resulting in incorrect genealogy being shown. Big thanks to Nathan Kennedy for picking it up and driving things forward.