Merge of Unknown-305555 and Fitch-75 - rejected. What next?

Question

A merge of Mary Unknown-305555 into Mary Fitch-75 has been proposed.  I intend to reject this merge for a number of reasons, but I wanted to discuss it here first.  Both profiles are attached as a spouse to Thomas Sherwood-62 with the same estimated year of birth and year of marriage (hence the assumption that they are the same person.  There is plenty of evidence that Thomas married a "Mary."  However, there has never been any reliable source evidence brought forward regarding any name for Thomas Sherwood's wife Mary, let alone that it was "Fitch."

Anderson, in The Great Migration, writes the following about Thomas Sherwood-62:

BIRTH: About 1586 (aged 48 on 30 April 1634 [Hotten 279]).
DEATH: Between 21 July 1655 (date of will) and 7 September 1655 (date of inventory).
MARRIAGE: (1) By about 1611 Alice Tiler, baptized Hitcham, Suffolk, 16 November 1585, daughter of John Tiler [TAG 82:211-13]. She died by about 1638.
(2) By about 1638 Mary _____. (In 1938 Jacobus presented the evidence that Mary was not a Fitch [NEHGR 92:303].) She married (2) by 4 June 1658 John Banks [Fairfield LR A:496-97; FOOF 1:25, 548]

So the standard source for PGM profiles rejects the notion that Thomas married a Fitch.  What to do with these two profiles? I am not a trained (or even well-seasoned) genealogist, and I sometimes jump to the easiest but not best conclusions.  So here are some proposals.

1. If Mary Fitch-75 truly represents the wife of Thomas Sherwood-62, then merge Fitch-75 into Unknown-305555, since the last name of Thomas's wife, Mary, is unknown.
2. If Mary Fitch-75 a real person (whose last name was Fitch) then she should be detached from Thomas Sherwood-62.
3. There are probably other options, so I would request that anyone interested in Mary Fitch-75 (or Thomas Sherwood-62) please jump in!

Comments

Perhaps the other Mary married the other Thomas Sherwood :)

---

Please add the pgm tag to this question.

Answer 1

All Merging info can be found here and will answer all your merging questions. http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Merging

Rejected Matches 

If two profiles look similar but represent different people they should be set as Rejected Matches.

This helps prevent you and others from confusing them in the future.

FindMatches will skip Rejected Matches by default, but you can opt to have them included if you want to review them.

Click here to browse Rejected Matches.

 

Answer 2

I've skimmed Anderson's comment about Mary's last name and also the 1936 article by Donald Lines Jacobus that Anderson cited. It seems that there has never been any evidence for her being named Fitch. Jacobus says that the name Fitch was first associated with Mary in an 1889 book that mentioned Mary several times without any indication of her LNAB, but associated her with the name Fitch in one place, without explanation. From his descriptions, it looks like this was a mistake, pure and simple. I haven't made an effort to discern how Mary got attached to the Fitch parents and siblings that appear on her profile.

It appears to me that the two profiles should be merged, but the "Unknown" profile should be the merge destination, because that is the proper LNAB. Before the merge is approved, http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Unknown-305555 needs to be project-protected to ensure that the merge goes in the intended direction.

Also, the Fitch parents should be disconnected from Mary's profile.

Comments

About the will of Thomas Fitch

"Although the will mentions only three daughters by name, Thomas and Ann may have had an elder daughter named Elizabeth; if so, she may have married the month before one Henry Allen. Each of the other three, Mary, Anne and Sara, are to receive 300 lbs each, receiving 200 lbs. when they are 18, and the other 100 when they reach 21. "

So Mary was named in Thomas Fitch's will. She was a real person and daughter of Thomas Fitch. It's the current last name and death date and place that need to be removed. And as you said the biographical material moved.

Answer 3

I have reviewed both the Jacobus Article and the Anderson section on his wives., and you are correct Fitch should merge into Unknown. I've rejected the merge. Mary Fitch was in her father's will, she will stay connected to him, but be disconnected from Sherwood.

Edit to: I have reviewed both the Jacobus Article and the Anderson section on his wives., and you are correct the wife should be Unknown. I've rejected the merge. Mary Fitch was in her father's will, she will stay connected to him, but be disconnected from Sherwood.

Comments

Since Mary Fitch is a real person, most of the content of her profile needs to be moved to http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Unknown-305555 , since it's mostly about the woman named Mary who married Thomas Sherwood and later John Banks.

---

I've placed "communication messages" on both Thomas Sherwoods profile and Mary Fitch's profile. Would someone else move the material (that belongs to Unknown) from Mary Fitch to Mary Unknown

---

Anne B I think you meant to type "Fitch should *not* merge into Unknown."

:)

---

Actually I started to do one thing and then changed my mind. I've already removed the merge into Unknown

---

I think it's pretty coincidental that all three of us were reading and answering almost simultaneously. I'm going out now. Go for it guys.

---

Prompt PGM support team :)

I've moved over the bio and will disconnect now...

Thanks!

---

I am a little confused here now.  Your first sentence says that Fitch should merge into Unknown, but your second sentence suggests (to me) that Fitch-75 not be merged into Unknown, but should remain a Fitch and be disconnected from Sherwood-62.  Could you clarify this for me?

Edited:
Never mind, I responded too slowly. :-(

---

Daniel since Mary Fitch was a real person she should be disconnected (done) and the married name Sherwood removed (done) and death date removed (done). I think Anne B changed her mind after she read the will information and saw the Mary Fitch was a real person (just not the wife of Sherwood). If there was no Mary Fitch to begin with the best option would be been to merge her into Mary unknown.

---

No worries - it was great that you caught the issue!

Thomas Sherwood's bio needs work still. All references that say his wife was Fitch need to be removed. This needs to be discussed in disputed wives. And copyright maternal needs to be reworded in our own words.

---

Thank you Roland, you interpreted my thought processes precisely. I started to merge Fitch into unknown and noticed Fitch had a father, read his will and then changed the merge to a disconnect.

---

Daniel, I reread my answer, no wonder you were confused. I started typing one answer as I was going back and forth between profiles, changed my mind and didn't delete enough of my first thoughts answer, before I added the second thoughts answer. It's a good thing Roland and I were on the same wave length.

Answer 4

Thanks for bringing this up Daniel!

Both Jacobus and Anderson agree that Thomas Sherwood’s wife Mary is not Mary Fitch. So these two profiles should not be merged. Instead Mary Fitch should be removed as a spouse and her current name and dates date and place removed. Mary Fitch daughter of Thomas Fitch was a real person but she was never Mary (Fitch) Sherwood. Since she has no children attached to her disconnection is easy.

All the references to his wife being Fitch should be removed and a disputed wife section clarified to state clearly that Mary was not a Fitch.

Also in the biography for Thomas the quoted sections from Anderson need to be paraphrased and not copied verbatim. That is copyright infringement.