Should profiles be merged before or after correct parents are determined?

Question

Someone recently removed an unmerged match of Sarah (Pike) Collins and Sarah (Pike) Strout and suggested a merge, saying that the parents should be sorted out AFTER the merge. It is generally agreed that these are duplicate profiles, HOWEVER, each profile has a different set of parents. Several people have been researching this issue, as can be seen by the comments posted. And none of us have found any definitive sources to say for sure which set of parents is correct. If I recall, one has to choose a set of parents in order to complete the merge; therefore the two profiles should go back into an unmerged match until the correct set of parents can be determined. Am I right about this point?

Comments

I did some further comparison and realized that the children don't match, and only one husband matches. It just gets deeper!

---

Not an answer to the question, but some sources for the profile(s)

[Marriage] Strout, Christopher and Sarah Picke, Dec. 2, 1680.

Source: Joseph Warren Chapman, comp., Vital Records of Marblehead Massachusets to the end of the year 1849, Vol II. (Salem: Essex Institute, 1904), 414; digital image, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/stream/vitalrecordsofma02marb#page/414/mode/2up).

The Will of Joseph Collins, dated 9 Aug 1723 and proved 25 Feb. 1723/4, discloses the fact that he had a second wife name Sarah (Barnstable Probate Records, Vol. 4, p. 171). That this Sarah had been previously married to Christopher Strout is proved by records showing that the estate of Christopher Strout of Provincetown was administered by his widow, Sarah, 9 July 1715, and referring to her, 25 Oct. 1716, as "Sarah Collens Late Sarah Strought Administratrix to ye Estate of Christopher Strought Late of Cape Cod in s[ai]d County [Barnstable Co.] now Deceased and Now Wife of Joseph Collens of Eastham in ye County of Barnstable" (ib., vol. 3, p. 245).

Source: Anna Chandler Kingsbury, [notes], New England Historical and Genealogical Register 69 (1915): 91; digital image, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/stream/newenglandhistor69wate#page/90/mode/2up)

Additional sources are mentioned in Find A Grave, memorial# 41723806

---

Thank you, Rob, that helps a LOT!

---

expanding on the above, here is a [link] to the FamilySearch image of the probate cited above as Vol 4, p. 171 found at image 140 of film 7705975, and here is a [link] to the Vol 3, p.245 found at image 608 of film 7705950.

Now my analysis:

The fact that Sarah Collins formerly Strought is named in the probate of 1723/4 certainly suggests a later date of death than the 1716 date given in the profile - the death location however makes sense with the headstone given in the the FindAGrave Entry. (sidebar the death of Joseph Collins is given as "the 18th 1723/4" see last entry on https://archive.org/stream/townofeasthammam00east#page/n23/mode/2up )

The 1714 date for the marriage of Sarah to Joseph Collins should be an 'after' date as Joseph's first wife died on 28 August 1714 (while it is a terrible scan, see electronic page 42 of this collection of vital records for the Town of Eastham). Adding a mourning period, would suggest a marriage after August 1715 which would fit with a marriage between the July 1715 inventory referring to Sarah by surname Strout and the Oct 1716 entry mentioning her by the surname Collins.

As to the identity of Sarah's parents - given the average age of first marriage for women in Massachusetts at that time was about 23 years old, a 1680 marriage could fit with the the daughter of John Pike, born at Newbury Sept. 13, 1655 (see: https://archive.org/stream/vitalrecordsofne01newb_0#page/n813/mode/2up). My main concern with this association is geography - Newbury is relatively distant from Marblehead/Eastham/Barnstable where the marriage to Strout is recorded - I see no evidence that John of Newbury and family removed to the Marblehead area so I would expect the marriage to identify Sarah Picke/Pike of Newbury. The omission of this information could suggest she is not the child of John of Newbury, and while I do not find a candidate records in the vital records of Marblehead, the "Records of the Pike Family" identifies George Pike as a resident at Marblehead by 1663. The work does not (so far as I skimmed) name all his children, but simply based on place of residence I would consider him the more likely parent for Sarah (later Strout, later Collins) and can easily explain the absence of Sarah from the vital records by saying she was likely born about 1657 (based on average age at marriage) and the family only arrived in 1663.

---

In 1678 a Sarah Pick is a witness to the last will and testament of a Mrs. Ann Condy of Marblehead (Probate records of Essex County, 3:282)

I also ran across a suggestion that George Pike of Marblehead may be associated with variant surnames Pick, Peak, Peek or Peck

One final note: Some genealogies suggest that George Pike who married Esther Atkins was brother (not father) of Sarah Pike Strout Collins and that their father was also a George Pike whose first wife was Sarah and who later married a Harriet Trevitt.

---

So basically we don't know, and it's unlikely we ever will.

But there'll be an endless supply of people who (a) think they have the answer because they've only looked in one place, or (b) want to go with whichever answer they like best, for whatever reason.

Answer 1

I have to agree with you on this one. If the parents were duplicates then I would choose the lower numbered profile and propose a merge of them but in this case it appears that the parents are totally different people and we need to be sure which ones are correct or if we really have two Sarah Strout's.

Answer 2

You will not be able to merge them with two sets of parents. One, or the other, or none.

The advantage to sorting out parents after the merge, is that you don't have to communicate with two sets of profile managers. But one set of parents will get lost during the merge unless someone is very careful to document both sets on the profile.

Answer 3

If unsourced parents weren't connected, the issue would hardly ever arise.

In this case, one set of parents looks improbable, but the danger is that this results in the other set being left in place, in spite of total lack of evidence.

Answer 4

I think the answer to the original question, as illustrated by these profiles is that in general a merge should not be completed until there is sufficient information to say two profiles are for the same person - and in this specific case I would say that the two profiles are for separate people whose details have been conflated... (apologies for some duplication from previous comments)

Person 1. Sarah (of Newbury), daughter of John

[Pike,] Sarah, d. John, Sept. 13, 1655

Source: Vital records of Newbury Massachusetts to the end of the year 1849, vol. 1., Births, (Salem: Essex Institute, 1911), 405; digital image, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/stream/vitalrecordsofne22newb#page/n643/mode/2up); imaged from Allen County Public Library, Fort Wayne, Indiana, call 974.402 N434v v.1.

[Pike,] Sara, d. John, Nov 19. 1659

Source: Vital records of Newbury Massachusetts to the end of the year 1849, vol. 2, Marriages and deaths, (Salem: Essex Institute, 1911), 694; digital image, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/stream/vitalrecordsofne22newb#page/n643/mode/2up); imaged from Allen County Public Library, Fort Wayne, Indiana, call 974.402 N434v v.2.

John Pike of Newbury is known to have removed to Woodbridge about 1665 and died there about 1689. As we know Sarah, wife of Christopher Strout was living at this time, her omission from the will of John Pike suggests she was not related (portion of the will abstract follows):

1688-9 Jan. 24. Pike, John, senior, of Woodbridge; will of. Late wife Mary. Children - John, Thomas, Ruth, wife of Abr. Toppin, Joseph, Hana; legacies to Richard Worth, Obadiah Aires, John Worth. … proved January 20, 1689-90.

Source: William Nelson, ed., Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey, vol. 23, calendar of New Jersey wills 1671-1730 (Paterson, N.J.: Press Printing and Publishing, 1901), 365; digital image, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/stream/documentsrelatin23newjuoft#page/364/mode/2up); imaged from Robarts Library, University of Toronto, Ontario, call AAP-9061.

Person 2. Sarah (wife of Christopher Strout and Joseph Collins)

Given the average age of first marriage in Massachusetts for females in this period is about 23 years old, so a guess of her date of birth is 1657. Her birth location is unknown, and I have not yet found any evidence of her parents names. As is hopefully already established above she is almost certainly not daughter of John of Newbury, leaving us to temporarily accept (pending further investigation) the other popular claim: that her father is George Pike of Marblehead. (NB: I did note there are other Pike families in the area that she could have belonged to)

Strout, Christopher and Sarah Picke, Dec. 2, 1680.

Source: Joseph Warren Chapman, comp., Vital records of Marblehead Massachusetts to the end of the year 1849, vol 2., Marriages and deaths, (Salem: Essex Institute, 1904), 414; digital image, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/stream/vitalrecordsofma02marb#page/414/mode/2up); imaged from Boston Public Library, call 1112505. Note: Sarah Picke is not identified as being "of Newbury" nor "of Woodbridge" which can be seen as 'negative evidence' supporting the idea that there are two different Sarahs.

Based on surname usage in the administration of the estate of Christopher Strought, Sara was married to Joseph Collins Between 9 Jul 1715 and 25 Oct 1716

Source: Barnstable County, Massachusetts, Registry of Probate, Vol. 3, 243-246, Estate of Christifur (sic) Strout of Cape Cod, 1715-16; digital image, "Probate and guardianship records, 1674-1950 [Barnstable County, Massachusetts]", FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9YB-53DS); imaged from FHL microfilm 1838958.

Based on being named in the will of her husband Joseph Collins (and therefore living), she died some time after 25 Feb 1723/4.

Source: Barnstable County, Massachusetts, Registry of Probate, Vol. 4, 171-2, Last will and testament of Joseph Collins of Eastham, 1723-24; digital image, "Probate and guardianship records, 1674-1950 [Barnstable County, Massachusetts]", FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9Y1-33L9); imaged from FHL microfilm 1839286.

A headstone for Sarah is found at Mount Pleasant Cemetery, South Portland, Cumberland, Maine, alongside some of her Strout children.

Source: Find A Grave, database and images (http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=41723806), memorial page for Sarah Pike Strout Collins (1660-1724); citing Mount Pleasant Cemetery, South Portland, Cumberland, Maine. Note: The contributors to this memorial (erroneously?) associate her as the child of John Pike of Newbury born 1655,

Also see:

Anna Chandler Kingsbury, [notes], New England Historical and Genealogical Register 69 (1915): 91; digital image, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/stream/newenglandhistor69wate#page/90/mode/2up); imaged from David O. McKay Library, Brigham Young University, Idaho, call F1.N56 v.69.

 

Comments

You could also say that both profiles are supposed to be about the mother of Christopher's kids.  Nobody's interested in a profile for John's daughter Sarah with husband and kids removed.

And if she's left lying around like that, it's only a matter of time before she becomes Sarah Strout again.

---

RJ,

I ask myself "If I merge these two profiles, would I have to create another profile?" Since the answer in this case is yes, the two profiles therefore represent more than one person (who have been conflated) and not the same person. As they do not represent 'the same person' they should, in my opinion, be corrected into the two distinct people and not merged.

Wikitree aims to have one profile per person - there is no caveat that they must have married, or had offsping (these two criteria would exclude President James Buchanan and Condoleezza Rice, for example), nor that they must have attained a certain age - the only thing that is expected is that there is credible sources that the person existed.

Is a profile that consists solely of a birth record, and a death record "interesting"? - probably not... but it is useful as a place to present the evidence and evidence that Sarah of Newbury is NOT Mrs. Strout/Collins - and such a profile will go much further in preventing her from becoming Strout again than having no profile for her at all.