Should we change wikitree-wide policy on disputed parents?

Question

I realize that the PGM project has a stricter policy than the general wikitree policy on the subject of disputed parents. For PGM profiles, if there is insufficient data to confirm parentage, the speculative parents are detached with an explanation (and links) in the bio under “Disputed Origins.” (We do the same for disputed spouses.) 

The current overarching wikitree policy is much more liberal. See http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Disputed_parentage which includes the text (my emphasis added):

One likely set of parents

If there is only one theory about who a person's parents were, and it is generally accepted to be true, even if it isn't completely proven, they should be set as the parents of that person. Then, in the biography section, you should explain that it isn't certain and cite the available evidence.

The problem with this current policy is at least three-fold:

1. It is vague and easily interpreted differently by different people. What qualifies for “generally accepted to be true”? Who decides that? Is it based on the number of instances the claim appears in online trees? Or repeated instances in even published accounts that don’t cite their sources? 
2. It promotes bad genealogical practice, and if followed verbatim, would allow for far more parental connections than I think most of us would be comfortable with. For example (and especially if we cannot come to a shared understanding of “generally accepted to be true”), we’d be having far more arguments about gateway (to royalty/magna carta) ancestors. 
3. It reduces the quality and reliability of the Relationship Finder. 

My own opinion is that the default for disputed parentage should be that parental links, especially in pre-1700 profiles, require a higher bar, and that speculative parents be detached but linked to from the bio, as above.

What do you think?

 

— Jillaine

Comments

Hi Jillaine,

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Disputed_parentage is outdated. We should set that aside for now.

We should have this conversation in the context of the new Uncertain relationship status for parents.

We should be talking about exactly what goes on this page: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Uncertain

What makes parents uncertain, and what makes them less than uncertain, i.e. speculative?

Chris

---

One thing we could do on the uncertain page is point out what uncertain proofs have already been deemed unreliable pre-1700 (as the pre-1700 quiz makes clear, etc.). This would take some 'uncertain' connections to essentially guesses/speculation, the further back you go.

The other thing that Jillaine's disputed parents post really highlights, in my opinion, would be the use of circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion. In between no proof/guess and direct evidence is where circumstantial evidence is gathered and evaluated. It would have the most potential for two reasonable people to draw different conclusions.

If we were to highlight that circumstantial evidence can lead to different conclusions, and disputes, we could show or link to some examples. Examples could be weak circumstantial evidence that reasonable folks would reject, circumstantial evidence that reasonable folks may disagree on, and circumstantial evidence that folks would generally accept as reasonable. Perhaps examples from g2g and/or mediation could even be used. There are certainly direct proof summaries availble that we could also point towards.  

How we handle circumstantial evidence, where one person would say 'too speculative' and another would say 'pretty certain' is what I think we should be trying to answer.

Does that sound reasonable?

---

PME, That's EXACTLY what recently happened that led me to go looking for the policy. In any case, I definitely have an example of the last case: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/18243/what-is-the-proof-that-ambrose-was-son-of-nathaniel-fish- It's definitely a case of two reasonable-- even experienced-- genealogists coming to two very different conclusions looking at circumstantial evidence. I was seeking a policy that would tell us what to do in such a case.

---

I'm starting to think that this is the key question: If reasonable genealogists disagree on circumstantial evidence, do you disconnect the parents or mark them as uncertain?

I can take a stab at asking and answering it.

---

I think that is right, Chris.

A couple quick thoughts that may give you something to think about....

The BCG 5 step process that Cynthia mentioned is a good place to start on what is "reasonable" (exhaustive search, accurate, good analysis, resolution of conflicitng evidence, and a reasoned conclusion). 

In cases where there is a dispute in genealogy, the person supporting the connection needs to be able to show a reasonable conclusion. If they can't, it doesn't fall on the other party in the dispute to prove a connection is bogus. The conclusion behind the connection has not met the standards.

Here is a Close Call Example:

I had a great discussion recently with Douglas Richardson about some first cousins who reportedly married. A lot of genealogists show this couple but Richardson has chosen not to do so, yet. While the circumstantial evidence was pretty overwhelming, he puts a really high bar on first cousins marrying due to his own experience with them later getting disproved. He went so far as to try to quantify it in our discussion, saying "if I'm not 95% confident or more, I wouldn't include the connection." In this case, he said he was probably only at 90%.

In this case, their analysis was largely the same but they lead to slightly different levels of confidence, which resulted in different conclusions. John Schmeeckle and I have had some discussions where one of us is a little more confident and inclined to leave a connection, and we have done so.

A Tough Call Example:

John and Jillaine's example is a good one because they're both thorough and reasonable, yet reached a different conclusion. John feels his conclusion meets the standards. And this isn't a case where Jillaine just can't quite get there. Her analyis of the information disagrees with a central point of John's argument, putting her conclusion far away from his. This would be a tough one to call.   

An Easier Call Example:

Addressing scenarions around conflicting evidence or lack of evidence will probably be more frequent. If conflicting evidence is ignored, it undermines the conclusion substantially. It is also hard to support a conclusion for a connection when no evidence can be presented. In both of these cases, the folks supporting the connection have not met the standards. If they can't show a reasonable conclusion for that connection, this connection should probably be removed until a more reasonable case can be made.  

It also helps to have someone play devil's advocate around your analysis and conclusion. g2g is a great forum for that sort of exchange.

---

Whatever we do, we must allow exceptions.  I have two interesting problems in Cymru that involve this policy. This is a specific problem with patronymic names. In both cases, I think it is necessary to keep a parental relationship becasue it preserves known relationships farther up the line.

1. This involves just one generation: X is definitely the son of either Trahaern or Thomas, who are brothers.  In this case, I intend to choose the MOST likely and definitely put a note in the Bio and mark the father relationship as Uncertain.  If I don't leave one father attached, the relationship to grandparents will not be preserved.

2. This involves two unknown generations: Unnamed Y is the son of Unknown First Name ap G, who is definitely the son of ap G.  Because of the patronymics, the LNAB for Y is not known.  Most of the time, books have used   "Unknown" as the first name for No First Name, but, with patronymics, you can't really have an Unknown ap Unknown, so the books use first name: Unnamed  and LNAB: grandson of G.  It is really the only way to preserve the relationship and be consistent with the sources.

---

Vic -

These are interesting situations. In proving just a line, these types of "he was either a child of son a or b" situations do come up. In your case 1, does the child also gain a tree via the mother (the wife of the brother you thought was most likely the husband)? I could see this complicating the issue. While you may know the male line is solid, if the mother's entire tree was attached to that child it would only be a guess. In that case would you detach the mother with appropriate commentary?

---

OK, I've now created a new question and attempted an answer:

If reasonable genealogists disagree on circumstantial evidence, do you disconnect the parents or mark them as Uncertain?

 

I'm not sure if we should close this question or not. Sometimes that's best, to keep a conversation centered.

Answer 1

Agreed. Thanks for identifying this. 

Generally, our policies should reflect established genealogy standards. This particular policy currently promotes poor genealogy. 

The challenge that I would see is the word "speculative."

Where there is no proof at all, the speculative parents should be removed. Genealogy without proof is mythology, after all. 

With circumstantial proof, different folks can draw different conclusions. If the analysis draws reasoned conclusions that disagree we will want a process in place for resolving those situations. 

I'd add this is a particularly large problem for colonial immigrants. We have thousands of colonial immigrants who have royal/Magna Carta family trees/lines without proof. We're grateful for the policy within the PGM project as it has helped remove so many bogus trees. Extending it elsewhere seems like the right thing to do. 

Comments

Peter, I think this is the same question that you were working on last week when you were drafting changes to http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Uncertain

What kind of sources make parents uncertain and what sources are less than uncertain? It should be explained on that page.

The disputed parentage page was written long before we had the Uncertain relationship status for parents.

---

Chris,

its not so much types of sources that makes something more or less certain. It's analysis of whatever sources are available. For example, in the absence of a single original source that directly proves that Ambrose was son of Nathaniel-- a land deed where Ambrose sells land given to him by "my father Nathaniel"-- it may be (often IS) the combination of several what you're calling "uncertain" sources. I think you're heading down an unhelpful path with "certain" and "uncertain" sources.

Answer 2

Hi Jillaine,

My own opinion is that the default should be that parental links and speculative parents be attached until there is a document supported dispute, with no change to the current words. ("If there is only one theory about who a person's parents were, and it is generally accepted to be true, even if it isn't completely proven, they should be set as the parents of that person. Then, in the biography section, you should explain that it isn't certain and cite the available evidence.")  I would include that the parents should be marked as "uncertain" if that is the case.

I prefer that we treat all profiles with the same level of evidence, though I accept that those profiles that seek to be in a particular project may have additional requirements imposed. I think that the Honor Code covers this liberal interpretation nicely in sections 2 and 3:

2. We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes.

3. We know mistakes are inevitable. We don't want to be afraid to make them. We assume that mistakes are unintentional when others make them and ask for the same understanding.

And #10 fits too:  We are united in a mission to increase the world's common store of knowledge. We always respect copyrights and privacy, but we keep information as free and open as possible.

If we disconnect parents for lack of "sufficient data", the WikiTree will have a huge mess of unconnected branches that may be just fine.  Also, I foresee that many, people will re-add the parents with the intention of being helpful.  I prefer to leave the level at the current WikiTree disputed parents level as written.

If someone has documentation that disputes the parental connection, they should collaborate with the profile manager to make the needed corrections.  Profiles should be documented to the best of our ability whether they are pre-1700 or not.  We should always be trying to improve the profiles with better sources, but a lack of sufficient data (I am not even sure what that is.  Who decides?  Who will be the profile police?) should not be controling.  Collaboration and better documentation should be controling for all profiles. 

Comments

Just making sure I understand your first sentance. Are you suggesting speculative parents remain until there is a dispute that can be documented?

In the case of speculative parents with no proof, would you suggest keeping them until a dispute can be documented?

Thanks

---

Yes, I think that is the WikiTree way.  As I said, projects can and often do have additional requirements, but I think that the current guide is sufficient for WikiTree profiles in general. If:  it is generally accepted to be true, even if it isn't completely proven, they should be set as the parents of that person.

So yes, until there is a dispute with documentation, I think the links should remain with the uncertain notation.   

---

Thank you, Kitty, for expressing my sentiments even better than I could do. As I said to Leaders, if this were pre-1500, then I might disagree as most of those will be Gentry and Aristocracy and perhaps might warrant a higher standard but if it is to be a WikiTree wide policy, let's err on the side of leniency, using the biography section to express our reservations (if any). Aloha to you.

---

So keep speculative parents with no proof until there is a proof to disprove them?

---

Well, PM, I think the guide says it clearly.  If it is generally accepted to be true, then yes, unproven parents should remain attached with the "uncertain" notation until someone with a stronger position challenges it.  Collaboration is the WikiTree way; not exclusion until "proven".  

This is not the same as making up a connection to speculate one's way into a Magna Carta family, and certain projects may have additional requirements for the profiles they contain.

This concern general family connections identified on FamilySearch, Ancestry or in a tertiary reference, but have not been established with a primary document such as a birth certificate. This is what I interpret "generally accepted to be true" to mean. 

---

Kitty, please help me understand. What is it about including unproven relations in specific fields on a profile that is the "wikitree way"? I've got to be missing something.

---

Kitty, you raise an interesting question -- "who will be the profile police?"  And surely the answer, on a collaborative project like WikiTree, is, "every one of us."  

And as for data, the field of genealogy is not without standards.  While I am not a certified genealogist, we have members of WikiTree who are, and who can point the rest of us to well written articles pointing out the differences between primary data, secondary data, circumstantial data, etc.  

A profile with no sources for its data is a problem waiting to be fixed.  Surely WikiTree "profile police" need to be "Officer Friendly" rather than Rambo, but sooner or later an unsourced profile has to be cleaned up.  

And this applies to all of us.  I put up profiles of my grandparents' brothers and sisters and I can tell you, I KNOW the names, dates, and relationships are correct.  But another member of WikiTree came through recently and posted "unsourced" on all those profiles.  And he was right in doing so.  Just because I know, others don't, without the evidence which really is out there in census records, birth certificates, and so forth.

---

Although I sympathize with human error and surely own many profiles that are NOT well-sourced, I would prefer that we have a large number of disconnected profiles that “may be just fine”, rather than a large number of incorrect lineages. 

Any piece of information is either factually correct, or it is incorrect. Professional standards require that each piece of information that is not public knowledge be cited in some way.  Our job as genealogists is to present correct information, especially in a collaborative environment like WikiTree, where the quality of our work may influence thousands of researchers at some point in time.  Genealogical research does not work like a court of law, where one is considered innocent until proven guilty of a crime.  In genealogy, a fact is “guilty” (i.e. incorrect) until it is proven correct beyond a reasonable doubt.  

 Although we are all volunteers, shouldn’t it be our goal as an organization to produce quality, professional results?  Otherwise, what’s the point of WikiTree?

Note:  I definitely agree that there may become an issue of well-meaning wiki’ers re-connecting profiles that have been disconnected due to lack of evidence, so I think we should have some standard language to stick inside the disconnected profiles warning people against this.

---

We do already have a good way of flagging disconnected profiles the category "disputed existence."  As an example, see Katherine Brent, Brent-79.  Once there seemed to be incontrovertible proof that such a person never existed, all links to the parents, husband and children she never had, were removed.

---

Hi Jillaine,  I had this great response all typed out and went to look for the reference page below.  When I came back, my previous thought was all gone.  Hate it when that happens.

In short, I think that the WikiTree way is inclusive and I don't think restrictions help in that goal. "We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes. . . to increase the world's common store of knowledge."  Nothing about proofs, nothing about genealogists and nothing about limiting the parent-child relationships.

I think that everything I have said is encompassed in the Honor Code and the new "Uncertain" parent-child relationship notation.  

---

Jack,

In this case, we're not talking about a disputed existence.  There is documentation of the existence of the parents, and of the "child" -- just not that the "child" is the child of THOSE parents.

Kitty,

I'm really having difficulty getting my head around "inclusive" meaning to accept relations that have insufficient proof. The honor code may not use the word "proof" but it does say that we care about accuracy and we cite sources.

As for the new "uncertain parent-child relationship" button, that does introduce a new consideration. And I know that Chris W wants our "disputed parentage" policy-- whatever it finally becomes/remains -- to be at least not in conflict with the use of this new button.

Frankly, I am concerned that the new "uncertain" button will make the Relationship Finder tool totally worthless, unless the Relationship Finder can distinguish between those links that are uncertain from those that are certain. But perhaps that's a separate g2g topic.

---

Well, think of it from the other extreme.  If we change the policy to restrict all WikiTree entries to only those with "sufficient data", then everyone that lacks a birth certificate, Bible record or baptism record should be disconnected from their parents.  I have very few documents to support my early family tree branches, but I think my secondary resources are pretty accurate.

Perhaps the difference is that I never stop looking for new or better sources. Profiles are never "finished" for me because I occasionally find a new tidbit to include.

I hope the general policy remains unchanged. It is still perfect as written.

---

Okay, I'm beginning to see your concern when looking at the other extreme.

But if we go with the existing policy, then we will have a slew of profiles continuing to claim unproven links to royalty, for just one example. The policy would allow descendants who want to be descended from one of the Magna Carta barons to put back (or retain) links between generations that are not otherwise supported.

I also WEEP at the thought of all the hard work of PGM and other project volunteers having their / our hard research work thrown out the window when someone comes along, uses the "uncertain" button and puts back in parents when hours and hours of research have shown no basis for such a connection.

---

Well, I don't know how much of a problem there already is, so I don't know the answer to that one.  I do think the project protected profiles should be Public  so that everyone can read them, but only Trusted List folks can edit them.  It won't change the duplicates, but it will cut down on erroneous parental connections.

---

Kitty, I imagine it was not in your original answer that got wiped out, but I'm troubled by the phrase "nothing about proofs, nothing about genealogists, and nothing about limiting the parent-child relationships."  Since family trees are all about genealogists, proofs, and documenting parent-child relationships, I'm sure you didn't mean that.  And one of the very first badges you get on WikiTree is "genealogists."  If we're not that, what are we, and what are we doing here?

---

I have been involved researching my family line for almost 15 years. My focus has been to work out the kinks caused by an earlier researcher who made a family connection which apparently based on circumstantial evidence. The error this researcher introduced was because facts about ignored the dates and location of the children’s births were ignored. The births  were happening simultaneously during the same years at the turn of the 17^th-18^th centuries in two different colonies a few hundred miles distant.

YDNA testing has disproved this person’s family group by showing the male lineage for the two groups of descendants are not genetically related.

Just a few years ago a similar error was discovered in a different branch of the same family. A book was published for the descendants of an individual and his descendants are thoroughly documented. However, the author relied upon the research of another family member who had made the connection of the subject to the ancestors. Unfortunately, the researcher confused to men with the same name by locating information which seemed to fit the family group. The error in this case involved Revolutionary War land bounties, and the researcher did not understand that land bounties were awarded to residents of the colony/state in the territories controlled by that new state. Therefore, a Virginia bounty would not be awarded for land in the Carolinas.

A recent yDNA test confirmed that there is an error in the book’s lineage, most likely at the parents of the person awarded the land bounty.

And more recently, a family connection has been made here, which is based solely on speculation regarding the names of individuals. Another Wikitree member, who is not actively researching the family group, stated this line was confirmed based upon what was contained on FamilySearch.org. Here again, the information presented on FamilySearch.org is the result of un-sourced connections which do not seem to agree with other researcher’s findings for the persons involved. Unfortunately, there seems to be no male descendant who could help determine the validity of the information on either side.

In this case, I do not feel it is appropriate the “uncertain” parents should remain connected, however the person on the other side of the profile does not hold the same opinion.

---

Jack, yeah, I was getting tired I think, but I meant that none of those specfic words are in the general sections of the Honor Code that I was quoting.  We are all here for the pursuit of family history, professional and hobbyist alike.

Michael, that is a difficult situation and comes up quite often in common surnames.  Thank science for DNA testing that is helping us straighten out these long held misconnections.  If you both feel strongly that the parents should or shouldn't be connected and normal collaboration has failed, then you may need to consider mediation.  

I still think the guide section in question, as currently worded, is perfect for general profile application.  I would urge no change to the wording of the section. 

---

Michael, your last example is one example of the kind of situation I am seeking to address through this discussion thread.

The current wikitree-wide policy would have us retain the connection to the parents in your example unless someone came up with concrete evidence of some other parents or that the currently linked parents could NOT have been the parents.

I argue for the practice we use in the PGM project which is to detach such parents from the parent fields, but link to them in a "Disputed Origins" section in the narrative. (And now, elsewhere, this project-specific policy is being challenged.)

---

Kitty, you wrote:

"I still think the guide section in question, as currently worded, is perfect for general profile application."

The guide section in question, however, is not about general profile application. It's about disputed parentage. I seem to be having trouble conveying this distinction.

---

Yes, I understand.  It is perfectly worded as a policy for general pofiles with disputed parents where only one set of parents are likely.  Profiles inside of projects may be held to different standards, but for your specific situation, if collaboartion has failed, you may want to consider mediation.  There is no need to change the curtent policy.

---

This has turned into an interesting case study for us. It shows how challenging it is for genealogists to collaborate when established genealogy standards are not followed.

There aren't two sets of standards that are completely at odds with each other. Our current policy seems to be an attempt to reinvent the wheel. Reasonable genealogists can review our policy and compare it to standards and conclude our current policy is aberrated. That has now been pointed out here repeatedly.

Now we're adding in all sorts of tangent issues - the 'uncertainty' feature, whether or not WikiTree is about genealogy, inclusive vs exclusive, the mediation process, etc.

If we can' t agree that genealogy standards have been established to promote genealogy collaboration, and that genealogists use standards in order to make genealogical conclusions (like resolving disputed parents), and that WikiTree is a site for genealogists to collaborate on, then how can we have a discussion about our genealogy policy? How can we say we're genealogists who care about accuracy?

If the answer is 'we're not really a genealogy site and should do things the WikiTree way, even if they contradict genealogy standards, just leave things how they are,' we can discuss that. That may be the most popular position.   

If we are a genealogy site, and we do care about collaboration and accuracy, then we should probably start talking about circumstantial evidence. In the 'worst case scenario,' given above as "everyone that lacks a birth certificate, Bible record or baptism record should be disconnected from their parents," circumstantial evidence was ignored. Conclusions drawn from circumstantial evidence would have the most potential to cause disputes.

Maybe a discussion about what constitutes a reasonable proof based on circumstantial evidence help ease fears of the worst case scenario?

---

One thing I want to clarify, technically, is that the Relationship Finder now takes into account uncertain relationships. A connection in a relationship path to a common ancestor will be highlighted as "[uncertain]" if a mother or father is marked as such.

It's on the to-do list to take this a step further too. We can highlight at the top that the entire relationship is suspect. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

"Uncertain" is also highlighted on the main tree views and in one of the widgets. We're working on adding it elsewhere.

This is the beauty of having one simple database field in addition to the full explanations in the narrative.

Answer 3

In some cases what one sees in a profile may be the result of thoughtful consensus, but from what I've seen, it is often there as the contribution of a generous individual who trusted undocumented material found elsewhere on the internet.  That profile then lives on WikiTree as the "status quo" until another person has a need to work with that material.

I'm not sure "generally accepted" is a meaningful concept.  One person with good documentation can outvote a "generally accepted" error.  What is more meaningful is the "status quo" of an undocumented profile.

It's a pleasure when I can come upon an undocumented profile, do the research, and undergird it with the facts that it needs to support the entries that are already there!   But sometimes the documentation requires a change.

I accept that whoever proposes a change in the "status quo" has an obligation to carry the burden of proof.  People engage in this activity because it's meaningful, and I have to assume that lines of descent based on flawed data are also meaningful, so if I have to take away some individual's cherished but dubious ancestry, I need to be sensitive.  But once you see an error staring you in the face, it has to be fixed.

I don't think anyone would agree that an error should remain in place if it is "generally accepted".  On the other hand, there is so much undocumented material on Wiki-Tree that if we determined "that all must be gone by tomorrow", we couldn't accomplish that if we multiplied our manpower/womanpower a hundred fold.  So we're left dealing profile by profile, and the ones that hit us in the face with the message "that's wrong" have to be attended to.  Because the person who posted it may have innocently believed it to be true, but we, having become suspicious of it, become complicit in falsehood if we leave it be.  But just slapping a label "suspicious" on it becomes a case of "he said, she said."  At some point, someone has to bite the bullet and provide documentation.

One reason I enjoy the Magna Carta project is the specific mandate to review a trail of lineages, provide the documentation which is readily available, and correct errors when they're spotted.

Comments

Jack,

In the situation we're describing here, we're seeking to address what to do when there is a LACK of evidence. Do we keep the parents attached, or detach them but link to them from the narrative? What does the Magna Carta project do when there is a LACK of evidence?

Thanks.

---

Jillaine, I hope I am not insulting anyone by saying this, but I would say that the MAJORITY of profiles I have seen are unsourced.  So using "changes" as a proxy for "a real human being has actually entered data for this person", you could program the computer to destroy all links where there are not two individuals listed under changes, and voila, we would get rid of a lot of links where there is lack of evidence.  This would be a blanket approach to the issue and I think it would be a terrible idea.  

So I think the situation you are describing is not a blanket approach to all the links without evidence, but a particular link you are looking at, at the moment.  At that moment, you do have one piece of evidence -- by no means conclusive, but evidence:  The person who created the link believed it should be there.  And your gut gives you another piece of evidence:  "out of all the undocumented profiles on Wikitree, is there something about this one that calls for my attention?"  If your gut says no, you move on.  Your time is limited.  If your gut says yes, you're hooked, because now you have two tiny pieces of competing evidence and you want much more.  This is what makes genealogy and history addictive.

My basic point is that at that particular moment, you have too much evidence to walk away, but you don't have enough evidence to just go in and break the link, using your gut to override the original poster's belief.  At that particular moment, you are now driven to find enough evidence to confirm or override the original poster's belief.

By including "your gut feeling" as evidence, I'm using the word "evidence" broadly, but I think it's important to do so.  We come across profiles that don't "pass the smell test" but it takes further exploration to figure out what's wrong.  Sometimes it may be obvious.  A woman having a child at age 5, or a couple marrying across a space of a hundred years, are not troubled by "lack of evidence" -- those narratives are troubled by the presence of the competing evidence of human biology and experience.

On Magna Carta, I had to break a parental link that a lot of people believe in and people have written books to support.  Richardson took the short route -- Giles Brent's will identified 3 children, therefore he had 3 only children.  I felt compelled to take the longer route and research -- and shoot down -- the competing theories that Giles had additional children whom he had some reason for not naming in his will.  

Magna Carta starts out with an unusually strong beginning -- well researched documentation/evidence for a whole line of people from the Magna Carta Surety down to the Gateway Ancestor.  So with the lines we're documenting, there is no such thing as lack of evidence -- only, sometimes, lack of someone having put the evidence on WikiTree.  And we're fixing that.

In the end, it really is all about the evidence.  Often the starting point is that it's not there.  But that's the starting point.  For me, the solution is to get the evidence, not to just disconnect people that somebody believes should be together but hasn't documented. Trust me, I will be disconnecting people in the future.  But I feel I need to be able to explain why with evidence of my own sufficient to override the evidence of the original poster's belief.

---

I concur that it's all about the evidence. And by no means am I referring to only gut sense.

The reason for my original post is that when the evidence is examined, and the parentage is still in dispute, what should we do?

---

Jillaine, that makes it clear.  When the evidence is examined (both the evidence already there and any additional evidence that one can find) and the parentage is still in dispute, you do what I did -- you break the link.  But you do more than that.  You clean up the mess made by the disputed links, make the correct links, if any, and post the full documentation for why this is the best approach at this time.   You can also leave a discussion in the narrative about what facts, if any, support the alternative approach, why this is attractive, and why the other facts outweigh them.   

The beauty of WikiTree with its retained record of changes is that if you were wrong, it's always possible to go back to the way things were.  

I hope the ideal for WikiTree is that every profile will be fully documented with narrative of life history and sources.  Any time a discussion and more facts appears in a profile, we have gotten closer to that ideal, even if it involves breaking questionable links.

Sometimes it's harder to discuss things in theory, because we're trying to imagine all sorts of situations, where when we're dealing with concrete reality, clarity actually comes more easily.  I've been happy with posting queries on G2G on whether particular links should be broken.  When confronted with actual situations, most people tend to be of the same mind on what should be done.

---

"When the evidence is examined (both the evidence already there and any additional evidence that one can find) and the parentage is still in dispute, you do what I did -- you break the link.  "

And this is what I'm asking for in a wikitree-wide policy. But as you've seen, there is not agreement about it. In fact, there seems to be strong feelings at both ends of the spectrum.

 

---

I think the diffidence may reflect a desire to respect the feelings of the person who posted the suspect information, and also maybe a reluctance to have a firm policy that could ride roughshod over people.  Because the situation you describe could well be a conflict situation.  "Those aren't her parents."  "Yes, they are."  So that could put you in the domain of "Stop, drop and roll", but it's even better to avoid getting there!  

I think if you put it to a vote, "Does WikiTree support fact, or do we prefer fraud," you're not going to get a split vote.  So ultimately, everyone supports the factual outcome.  I think the discussion really is about how we get there.

---

Some really good posts here.

As I read through these discussions, I'm realizing that we really do need two distinct policies.

One policy on Uncertain parents.

One policy on Disputed parents.

Lack of information vs. conflicting information, as Jack put it.

---

When would uncertain parents not be disputed?

---

I wonder if we aren't confusing policies and processes.  Chris wants a policy but really the only appropriate policy has to be a variation of "facts are good, lack of facts is bad."  On the other hand is process:  the number of willing hands is dwarfed by the mountain of bad profiles.  So as a process, only a small number of profiles are going to be under review at any given time.  

So the real operatonal question is not "what is good or bad", but "what am I going to do with this unsourced profile I'm looking at?"

#1.  Most often, my answer is going to be "do nothing".  Something took me to the Smiths in Oklahoma, but my focus is the Joneses in Maryland, and without any knowledge of Oklahoma families I haven't a clue whether the parentage claimed is right or not.  And I have neither the time nor desire to learn.  I'm going to ignore the profile.

#2.  Maybe the profile is in an area I work in and I note there's no documtation.  I might mark the parentage as uncertain, but I'm going out on a limb a little -- nothing in  WikiTree is anonymous, so someone may ask me tomorrow, "why did you do that?"  So if I mark it, it's a sign that I'm at least willing to engage on it.  But not enough to really research and get into the facts.

#3.  Maybe the profile is in an area where I have knowledge and something seems "off" about the claimed parentage.  But I'm frying other fish at the moment and don't have time to research this, but I do want to flag it.  So I mark it uncertain and attach a "disputed parent" flag or narrative section.  This represents an escalation in my energy over #2.

#4.  The parentage is in an area where I know something and have some values at stake and my level of energy is, "oh, darn, I'm going to have to fix this, I can't let it stand."  Now I've got to do some work.  I check the list of profile managers and the list of changes to see who's got some kind of stake in it, assess how much investment people have in the status quo, and either engage in conversation or just go ahead and fix the profile with some research showing why the parentage is wrong, put in a disputed parentage narrative to explain myself, and then cut the link. If after research there is reason to doubt the parentage, it needs to be cut or else you're leaving a time bomb that will confuse others' efforts and do long-lasting damage to WikiTree's credibility.

From the perspective of the profile and WikiTree, #4 is always the best course of action.  But none of us have the time or energy to do #4 all the time, and all of us will find ourselves rationing our time by doing #1, #2, or #3.

I really think we are all agreed on the policy that "Facts are good."  What it boils down to is energy.

To abuse the Hallmark slogan, "Marking a status "uncertain" is what you do when you don't really care enough to send the very best."

Answer 4

I'm concerned about unintended consequences from pursing the proposed policy without a study - a very broad, deep and thorough study.

Perhaps I'm not understanding this? For the Colonial era, it seems as if it would leave only people identified by Richardson or Anderson, or other accurate sources, being connected up the tree, and eveyone else being detached for lack of positive proof. I must not be understanding this correctly.

Consider the new indicator buttons for the mother and for the father: '''Uncertain''', '''Confident''', or ''Confirmed with DNA''. If '''Uncertain''' is checked, then Uncertain shows up on the profile next to that parent, highlighted in yellow. A discussion of why the parent is uncertain would be nice to have in the bio box, but the button says it all.

I've had no problem with removing disputed parents or children, but those have been cases where there is overwhelming evidence that they are incorrect. The mind boggles at removing the connections in the tree from all unproven parents. 

I hope this is not going to be decided quickly, as it seems there is a general disagreement here about some basic wording, which really means concepts, to start with.

I'd much rather just check a box '''uncertain''' and be done with it. Adding a Magna Carta Template to a profile is the positive side to this - a visual proof that the profile is sourced into a lineage.

Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that parents who have been thoroughly investigated multiple times by professionals and cannot be proven but are only disputed, should be left attached. That is not true of the majority, is it? If they haven't been investigated, then they are not disputed, they are '''uncertain'''. I would disagree with detaching all the uncertain parents.

 

 

Comments

Nice points, April.  Thank you.

---

Thank you, April. 

Your comments, as well as Kitty's, point out that I was unable to adequately express my concern in the opening post. 

I am talking about when there is a dispute about the origins of someone. The existing policy (which is also focused on when there is a dispute) says to keep the parents connected; I'm suggesting that this is problematic for the reasons I listed above.

I am not saying that all profiles should have their parents detached if there isn't a specific birth record documenting it.

But when we HAVE researched and found the connection lacking or cannot come to agreement about it, what should we do?

 

Answer 5

My new answer to this question is pretty much the same.  Disputed parents must be dealt with in collaboration with dueling sources.  If there is only one likely set of parents, they should remain attached.  If they are unlikely the parents, they should be detached.  

I think the policy should remain as stated.

On a different note, I do think that project protected profiles should be Public so that all can view the profiles, but only the Trusted List can edit.  I think this might cut down on some of the communication problems.  I know this has been discussed before, but maybe it is time to revisit the topic.  I know my thoughts have changed on this.

Comments

Kitty, I hope we don't require being on the trusted list to edit project protected profiles.  We ask for coordination with the project if a controversial change is made, but we have to trust people -- and we know that with all changes recorded, we can always go back.  If we start putting barriers on researchers posting information, a lot of people will lose interest in in WikiTree.

---

I don't edit ppp profiles very often, and I don't feel strongly enough to start a new thread, but I am open to reconsidering my thoughts. I used to feel as you do, but I think the Public privacy might help more than deter on ppp profiles. For one thing, it would slow down the addition of erroneous parents because only Trusted list members could add parents.  I believe that most additions are done by folks that mean well but the ppp profiles are usually pretty complete when they get ppp designation.  They usually don't need a lot of additions, do they?  

This should be moved to a new G2G thread if it is worth considering for real.

Answer 6

I have read through all the comments and see both sides of the story.   But, I would like to clarify where I agree with Jillaine with detaching the parents.

There are cases where it is a "stretch" to prove that the parents are the correct parents.   Parrticularly where people are trying to attach people to royalty or where someone has had a lot of "press" in their connection of people to each other.   My example is the US Presidents and the young woman that attached them all through King John.   In some cases, the mother is 50+ when she had a child, which seems unlikely in the 1600s and before.   Or the child lives in a different part of the country as an adult.  These are cases where, yes, there may be a lot of trees and writings on the web that indicate that these parents are correct, but, a "Gut Check" says, maybe not.  In many cases there are arguments on both sides.  So, my belief would be that if there are arguments for and against the relationship, we should detach the parents rather than propagate the "common belief" that may have flaws.

Now, there are other cases where we do not have primary or secondary evidence, but the facts line up without any creativity.   In those cases, I agree, marking the parents uncertain and leaving them as the parents is the correct thing to do.

Comments

Robin - I think these are good examples of how we deal with circumstantial evidence. That seems to be where most of the disputes will come from, and I think what you're proposing in these scenarios sounds reasonable.

---

changed this to an answer, as more comments intervened.

Answer 7

It seems to me we have more than one set of standards for this.  Jillaine says for PGM if there's insufficient proof to confirm parentage, the parents are detached.  And I know that John with the Questionable Gateway Ancestors project/category detaches parents that don't have sufficient proof.

Within my personal (private) database, I attach potential parents and note that it's speculative.  And it seems from the recent addition to Wikitree of being able to mark a parent as uncertain or confident (or confirmed with DNA) that the intent was to be able to leave parents attached but note that it's uncertain.

So... there definitely is a conflict here.  I would prefer to have a 'higher bar' set for pre-1500 profiles, whereas when you have no evidence (other than multiple ancestry.com trees or people's websites with no sources) that you don't attach speculative parents.  They can and should be listed within the biography section of the profile.  Otherwise, we end up (IMHO) with too many fairy tale lineages...

I can understand and relate to both sides of this discussion, and I can see the pros and cons of each.  I wholeheartedly agree with Peter's statement:  "When there is no proof at all, the speculative parents should be removed."  But I would phrase it:  Without proof and sources to back it up, the speculative parents should be removed.  And I don't consider ancestry.com and unsourced online websites to be proof or sources.

We have multiple naming standards for Wikitree:  the general policy, the EuroAristo policy, the Welsh policy, etc.  Why not allow different standards for profiles?  Just sayin'...  

Darlene - Co-Leader, European Aristocrats Project

Comments

Darlene, regarding your last statement: I don't think of project-specific style pages as different sets of standards. If that's how others view them we should probably start a new G2G thread to discuss this important question.

To my thinking, project-specific style pages are just extensions of the general rules, making them more specific and giving more specific examples. They should never conflict with the general style rules.

---

I went ahead and spun off a new question:

Do projects have different styles and standards than the rest of WikiTree?

Answer 8

It's wonderful to talk policy, but also frustrating, because we're trying to set one course of action for potentially a variety of situations.  

So it occurred to me it might clarify what we're talking about to address a specific situation:

Mabel Malet (http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Malet-15), the daughter of a Magna Carta surety, married Hugh de Vivonne.  Douglas Richardson has done extensive research on these people which makes documentation easy.  When we came to Mabel Malet's profile to review it for the Magna Carta project, we found links to six children for Mabel and Hugh.  Richardson only documents five.  

So I took the easy way out.  In the profile I identified the 5 who are confirmed and then added a line, "and then there's also Joan de Vivonia who is not recognzied by Richardson."    Now, Joan's profile reveals virtually nothing about her; it hasn't been modified since it was a Gedcom import.  I hate to tamper with her relationship without learning more about who she is or isn't, but I don't want to spend the time doing that.  So I took the easy way out, flagged the issue and moved on.

I think Jillian's question is whether I should have done more.  Richardson, full of facts, says Joan doesn't belong there and only the Gedcom importer, with no facts, says she does.  

So forget written policy at the moment -- just tell me what seems to you like the right thing to do!  

When we have those thoughts down, maybe will be able to go back and see whether the written policy is sufficient or needs to be enhanced!

Comments

Hi Jack!  In that case, I would delete the parental connection because stronger evidence indicates that it is a misconnection.

Jillaine's question is about,"One likely set of parents - If there is only one theory about who a person's parents were, and it is generally accepted to be true, even if it isn't completely proven, they should be set as the parents of that person. Then, in the biography section, you should explain that it isn't certain and cite the available evidence."

What you describe is not a "generally accepted to be true" set of parents but rather, a completely unsupported misconnection.  The current policy continues, "One fanciful set of parents - If, on the other hand, a person's parents are unknown, but there is a fanciful theory about them, which doesn't have any evidence supporting it, it is better not to link those profiles in the parent fields. Instead, simply explain the theory in the biography section."  

Answer 9

Robin, I like the way you put that, and I also agree with Jack that the issue becomes much more clear when we are dealing with one particular profile.

It's tough to have a blanket policy for all of WikiTree (including projects), because all situations are not alike.  The devil really is in the details, and no matter what the policy, this is only going to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

In a way, it almost seems like we are all saying the same thing .. that decisions about parents should only be made after a thorough search, citing the evidence, analyzing the results, and writing a coherent biography which includes any conclusions.

Interesting to me that the Board of Certification of Genealogists recently abandoned their previous language about "preponderance of the evidence" http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/prepond.html and adopted a 5-step process for decision making http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.html

Maybe we are in agreement with the Board, ... that's it's about the process, rather than any particular wording?

Answer 10

As the PGM policy has stated: "If there is only one theory about who a person's parents were, and it is generally accepted to be true, even if it isn't completely proven, they should be set as the parents of that person."

This was the case with Nathaniel and Ambrose Fish.  Historian of Plymouth Colony Eugene Aubrey Stratton concluded that Ambrose was "probably the son of Nathaniel Fish."  Earlier, the conclusion that Ambrose was the son of Nathaniel was embraced in  Mrs. John E. Barclay's article, "Hannah (Swift) Tobey, Daughter of Willam(2) Swift, and the Family of Ambrose(2) Fish of Sandwich, Mass.," in The American Genealogist, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.40-43 (Jan 1959).

This same conclusion appears in both of the old Fish genealogies.  There never was any reason to remove Nathaniel as Ambrose's father, per the old PGM policy as well as the new "uncertain" policy.

The recent disagreement over Ambrose Fish was the result of one single WikiTree member who wanted throw out a long-standing logical presumption supported by respected published authors.

Comments

Just for clarification: the text John pasted in his first paragraph above is not the PGM policy for disputed origins; it's the wikitree-wide policy on disputed parents. PGM project says (emphasis added):

• Add a "Disputed Origins" section at the top of the profile. In this section, briefly summarize the problem, and include links to the disputed parents in this section.
• Detach the disputed parents from the profile itself (as parents)
• Ditto with disputed spouses.

This was the policy that was followed in the Ambrose Fish illustration John describes. It's been used throughout the PGM project profiles for over two years.

As has been pointed out in subsequent g2g discussions, the PGM policy and the wikitree-wide policy are in conflict with each other. The PGM project awaits word from staff if its policy needs to be changed.

---

Thank you Jillaine; I appreciate the clarification.  But perhaps your quote from the PGM page should be put in its proper context. 

The relevant PGM section begins with the following quote: "Open with this when there is significant difference of opinion about parentage or spouses."

In this case, there is no significant difference of opinion among reputable published sources.   Perhaps the real need is to clarify what happens on PGM profiles when the PGM leader has a personal disagreement with long-established conventional wisdom among genealogists.  I suppose, in such cases, discussion on G2G is the way to start.