Can we remove the connections between these different fabricated families?

Question

This is bizarre!

Elizabeth (Nash) Simmons, her supposed husband Thomas Simmons, their supposed daughter Elizabeth (Simmons) Brooks, and their supposed sons Moses Simmons and Aaron Simmons are a fabricated family group that supposedly lived in the Plymouth Colony (early Massachusetts). They are the fraudulent creations of a genealogist named Raymon Meyers Tingley. Their made-up biographies are entangled with the real biographies of some Mayflower and Puritan Great Migration families, and they (and other fake people) have profiles here largely because if we deleted their profiles, new profiles would pop up again.

I had not paid attention to this family for quite some time (after the Raymon Meyers Tingley fabrications were PPPed to prevent them from procreating), but today I see that these fake people have sprouted new probably-fake family members not named by the original fabricator (supposed children Joan Simmons,  Abigail Simmons, and Anna Simmons) plus a connection to a questionable-existence couple (John Simmons and Mary Young) who are supposed to have lived in colonial Virginia!

Does anybody have some sort of special interest in preserving Joan Simmons,  Abigail Simmons, and Anna Simmons as children of Elizabeth Nash and Thomas Simmons? Or can we disconnect them without further ado? If we do so, is there a reason to keep these three people connected to each other via an "Unknown" parent?

Does the Southern Colonies project know anything about John Simmons and Mary Young? I would like to disconnect them from the Plymouth Colony family. I note that their profiles refer to a book called "The Thigpen Tribe" that appears (according to the posts I've been allowed to read thus far on https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/thigpen/729/ ) to be held in what I will call "high disregard."

Comments

One previous discussion of the Raymon Meyers Tingley fabrications:  https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/353985/this-disputed-existence-persons-profile-needs-some-help

The Fraud category for Tingley: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Raymon_Meyers_Tingley_Fraud

---

I’m in favor of disconnection. Isn’t the protocol to leave the profiles in disproven existence but sever the connections? I’m sure Jack Day will weigh in.

Answer 1

The prediction that I would "weigh in" is accurate.  Thanks, T Stanton!

There has been discussion within the Disproven Existence Project on connections.  I personally believe a person who never existed cannot have parents, spouses or children and when such a profile is retained on WikiTree all connections should be severed in the data field, but named and linked in the research notes so the people can understand why the person never existed and what other profiles are involved.  However, it is acceptable to retain the connections between non-existent persons, i.e. Mr. Fraud can be connected to Mrs. Fraud and both to Baby Fraud.  The critical connection which must be broken is the connection between a non-existent person and a real person.

Project protection can't solve every problem but it does reduce the possibility of adding bad connections, so usually a Disproven Existence Profile is project protected.  It can be project protected by any WikiTree project  that has an interest in it, and if not, by the Disproven Existence Project.

I just looked at one profile categorized under the Rayon Meyers Tingley fraud.  Intentional genealogical frauds are loathsome because they contaminate every person they touch -- if a name of a real person appears in a work by a fraudster, there must be extra care to ensure everything about that real person can be verified, because we know that fake stuff is out there as well.  Hence, the real people get categorized as well.  The profile I looked at was of Anthony Day, a real person.  One thing missing from his profile is an explanation of why he is categorized under the fraud.  An explanation that he was named in the fraud, and of anything falsely attributed to him, would be helpful in that profile.

The "Uncertain Existence" template invites further research.  Once we've given up on a person and really believe they never existed, they are candidates for Disproven Existence.  A key ingredient of getting that label is what I call the "G2G Challenge" -- G2G must be notified of their candidacy ("Disproven Existence Notice") and they only get the category if no research proving their existence has shown up in a week.  

I don't think anyone has won Disproven Existence's "G2G challenge" yet.  I would consider it the pinnacle of research skills for someone to respond to the G2G Challenge and prove through reliable sources that a candidate for disproven existence actually existed.  Some sort of award ought to be in order, perhaps posing for a photo with the WikiTree Team at Rootsweb!

Comments

In this instance, Raymon Meyers Tingley created several people and gave them relationships to each other. He did claim connections to real people and he gave some of them the names of real people, but we disconnected those real people about 7 years ago, and project protection was applied to prevent reconnections. This was done before the Disproven Existence project was born (what do we need to do to get people accepted as "disproven" instead of merely "questionable"?).

I posted the question because it looked like some new questionable-existence people who were not invented by Tingley had been attached to Tingley's fake family. (Who knew that fake people could reproduce?) The most unusual one of these strange connections was "John" who supposedly was born to Plymouth Colony parents and lived in Virginia, apparently an Anglican. He needs to be disconnected from his fake Massachusetts parents. I can do that, but I want the Virginia/Southern Colonies crowd to be aware that he is being disconnected so you can pick him up (real or not).

I have no idea who other children added to this family are supposed to be. If I disconnect them, they will float around in WikiTree space as unconnected profiles with even less meaningful information than they have now...

As for Anthony Day, his profile says "Anthony Day is sometimes said to have been born in Ipswich, Suffolk, England, presumably based on the report of Raymond Meyers Tingley. Tingley, however, gives no sources, and is known to have been "creative" in his reporting."

Answer 2

Ellen, some thoughts directly to your question:

I strongly recommend, especially in any situations of controversy, a separate subheading "Children" in a profile, in which a couple's children can be listed -- and their relationship documented with reliable sources.  This would be especially important for pre-1700 profiles, which are subject to a higher research standard, and project-managed profiles, which are also subject to a higher research standard.  In the case of Thomas Simmons, both of these standards would apply.  Having such a section would call attention to which children can be documented -- and which cannot.

In this case, Puritan Great Migration manages Thomas Simmons' project.  A quick glance at the supposed children's profiles can verify whether there is important documentation hiding on the child's profile that should also be on the parent's, proving the connection.  If no such documentation exists, Puritan Great Migration not only has permission to disconnect the child -- I would say Puritan Great Migration has an obligation to do so, with a note and link under Research Notes that it has happened.  I focus on Maryland in Southern Colonies, but I can't imagine those who focus on Virginia objecting to removing an undocumented connection!

Full disclosure:  I don't like making a connection between parent and child and marking it "uncertain."  Uncertain is kind of, "I'd like this to be true but I can't find any facts supporting it."  People use WikiTree to create ancestral tables, and uncertain relationships show up in the table. So I think putting in an "uncertain" relationship gives fake information to those trying to create an ancestral table.  We love connections in WikiTree but we want them to be real.

Relationships that are uncertain can certainly be valuable clues for further research, and should be described under Research Notes.  Not entered in the data field.  Everything in the data field ought to be backed up by specific citations in the Biography.