Don't put profiles into the Frauds and Fabrications category!

Question

I just noticed that the Category: Frauds and Fabrications, which is for fraudulent genealogies, was acquiring profiles at quite a clip, apparently part of the Spring Clean-Up.  They don't go there -- that's for fraudulent genealogies!  If you have a profile that's affected by one of the Anjou frauds, for instance, you put it into the Anjou fraud sub-category; if your profile belongs to some other widespread fraud that doesn't yet have a sub-category  then create a sub-category for it, document the fraud and affected sources in there, and add your profile to that.

If it's just a one-off but commonly repeated error, the profile itself can and should provide its own documentation -- put a nice firm explanation of why it's erroneous at the very top of the profile, with a bolded, centered heading, and put an "Uncertain Existence" template on it, and it will show up in Google searches and as a match on Wikitree when someone tries to recreate the thing.  I just beefed up the "Uncertain Existence" instructions, btw. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Uncertain_Existence

I generally put a very stern warning at the very top of real profiles when I disconnect  them from bogus profiles, for example: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Foote-43

 

Comments

OK I see this - not very used to creating categories; was just following a couple of profiles already there under "People or pages in Frauds and Fabrications" - these are all one genealogy; will finish what I am doing, then work out the sub category for the Goodman Genealogy category & move them.

OK - Got your message to stop, but had to stop at a place that I could get back to, so many strings of children & wives with others attached. This is a genealogy that others have had trouble with so its worthwhile being a little patient and getting it sorted today. I did think I had created a category for this genealogy but have missed a step somewhere. Looking at it now.

---

Whew!  You were going FAST!  I hated to see you do so much just to have to re-do it.

Yes, there were a couple there; there's a fellow who created a fake record for his father while he was still alive; for some reason we couldn't figure out what else to do with him, but now IMO think we should create a sub-category for him, too, so he dosn't attract others.

I don't know what the others are -- I was starting to look at them to see, when I noticed all those Goodmans accumulating...!

You can create your own private tag for something like this, btw; one I use is [[Category:Hawkins-4497 Church Anjou cleanup]]  -- just change to your profile id and the thing  you're doing.

If you drop that on your own profile too, you'll have a handy link to follow to the space.

---

I created a new [[Category:Frauds and Fabrications]][[Category: Goodman Genealogy]] page before I started - looking for that now. I am not the only person interested in this category - have to leave it so that others can follow up & connect to free space pages etc. It appears to be quite a big deal today.  https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/381383/fictitious-genealogy?show=381994#c381994

---

It seems like there's a problem with the name of Category:Goodman Genealogy. Because it would be impractical to put every profile into both specific categories it fits into and all of the parent categories the the specific categories  fit into, we need to make sure that category names are meaningful when the category name appears alone. Because there's nothing about the name "Goodman Genealogy" that connotes a problem, the profiles in that category have been placed in both "Goodman Genealogy" and the parent category Frauds and Fabrications. I think the Goodman Genealogy category needs a name that communicates its purpose more clearly. A possible alternative name is "Goodman Genealogy Fabrications" -- that's similar to some names we've used in other cases where it is apparent that there was large-scale fabrication of genealogy, but a lack of evidence that fraud was the motive for the fabrication. 

---

Was looking for the problem & just discovered this duplication - as you say, it is appearing automatically a second time on the front page for Frauds & Fabrications; I'll experiment & reword adding "Fabrications" & see what happens.

---

I placed the Goodman Genealogy category into the parent category and I revised the category description to be consistent with descriptions for similar categories. However, as stated above, I continue to think that it would be best to change the category name.

---

Profiles are appearing in both categories because the codes for both categories are being placed on the profiles. "[[Category:Frauds and Fabrications]]  [[Category: Goodman Genealogy]]" places the profile in two different categories.

If you'd like, I can create a new category name and start moving profiles, but I don't promise to do many (it's after midnight).

---

Ellen, was looking at the category page you just moved and wondering "do I have to start from scratch with a brand new category?"

Am happy to do so - will 1 - create new category & category page then 2 - visit each profile, delete existing category & replace with new category do the trick neatly?

 

---

Yes, unfortunately we would have to start with a new category. It's not technically possible to rename a category page.

I've created a lot of categories, so I'm comfortable doing this and I'd be happy to set up a new category if you agree on the name. But then all of the profiles would need to have the category names replaced -- for example, remove Frauds and Fabrications and change Goodman Genealogy to Goodman Genealogy Fabrications.

---

Thanks Ellen, would be very pleased if you could re categorise just one profile, then I'll copy the category and go through the others.

---

Done. The new category Category:Goodman_Genealogy_Fabrications exists with one profile, so far.

---

Thanks very much, Have taken over now - its working.

Sleep well knowing you have been an angel today. I talked to Beth today,  It'd be nice to have this tidy for her sake too. I imagine that others can disconnect those profiles that can be properly identified and sourced. These are all "connected" profiles so will have to watch carefully for that first bona fide "connected" profile.

7 pm. N.Z. time - all done

---

I've found where 'my' Pitts meet your Goodmans

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Goodman-1628

I have put the associated Pitts into the category but the problem as I mentioned before is that they parallel a real set of Pitts  (well documented Members of Parliament and their families ) so have also added a link to a freespace page with comparisons to the legitimate ones  . All but one I have found was orphaned

How large is this gedcom? I do wonder if it would be possible to obtain a list of names from it: much easier to work from

(I'll get back to it later: I didn't join in the cleanathon officially as am travelling this weekend)

---

Brilliant, My 11th-13thC lot are all "connected" so trying to find where that connection is.

re size of genealogy one would go back to the first profiles ever posted by Beth - I'll do that now.

For any with doubts re this Goodman genealogy - I found a PDF copy of part of the Goodman Genealogy posted on the profile of Anne Maria O'Kelly

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/O'Kelly-50

 

---

I don't think 'veracity' is the word I would use :)

---

John, I noted that you were concerned about today's activities. Sadly, this whole genealogy is complete bunkum. I did wonder if it was just the result of a combination of illiteracy and some mistake with the dating, then I discovered the pdf attached as per comment above, and all doubt was removed. Its the lack of veracity that's in question.

---

Kudos to Beth for her diligence in creating profiles, and then for recognizing the problems with the data. Her work and Valerie's work will help keep others from falling for this fake genealogy.

---

Just to add I've been looking at some of the profiles now categorised. I was very uncertain about whether the whole lot should be categorised with the warning or that some research might enable parts of it to be saved (as in repurposing the doppleganger Pitts) . However, I noticed that one of the pseudo Pitts   recently had a correct profile created leaving her parallel profile attached to the false lineage

But reading  about Rockingham Plantation in medieval Cornwall has convinced me that the whole lot should be categorised: a mammoth task and hopefully eventually  deleted )

---

Wow, everyone's been working hard all day -- I've been out.

No, we don't delete fraudulent profiles, we put documentation about the fraud on them, and use them to prevent new ones from being made.  Then they show up in web searches, and when someone tries to recreate the profile.

Otherewise, they just... keep...coming...back.

I just edited the Frauds and Fabrications category page  to document best practices,  and also how to create and name an F&F subcategory, see what people think: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Frauds_and_Fabrications

No way should it be this much trouble!

---

Oops, must have forgotten to hit save.  It's there now: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Frauds_and_Fabrications
 

---

Thanks - sorry you now have x 2 Goodman categories, hadn't wanted to use the word "fraudulent" when creating that first category. Hope there's a way to loose it.

---

I converted the first Goodman Genealogy category to a "Misnamed category."

---

I saw the new Frauds and Fabrications issue raised and answered in my 13 Feb Wiki Genealogy Feed which brought to mind several questions I had about the Frauds and Fabrications process.

I adopted a lot of orphaned Goodmans, many of whom were born and died in England.  Several weeks later when I started paging through them to see what else needed to be done, imagine my surprise to find that someone had decided that they were Frauds and their entire life stories had been Fabricated!  No one contacted me, the profile manager.  No one provided any rationale for believing that someone had perpetrated a Fraud for who knows what purpose!  They just put the Category on these people and considered it settled.  Well, I don't consider it settled at all.

---

Judy please contact me directly so that we can work on entering good sources for those Goodman profiles you have concerns about.

---

Judy, the sad reality is that there have been some perpetrators of fraudulent genealogies whose work has contaminated many family histories. Their fakery often is blended or interconnected with valid information, which can make it very difficult to separate truth from fraud. Inclusion of a profile in one of these categories means that the person is in a family group whose genealogy was in a body of work that is now known to include fabricated information. The particular person's data may not be adversely affected, but careful research is needed to figure out what's valid and what isn't -- and to weed out the bad information.

Thanks to Valerie for offering assistance.

---

comment deleted

Answer 1

this is great, and I thank all of you for fixing and trying to prevent others from chasing down the wrong path - have done that and it is what makes a lot of folks give up! So although I do not think I have any connection to this mess I do appreciate your work sorting it all out

Answer 2

Overarching this discussion note that fraud is any action by intent to deceive. All fabrications of false information are frauds. The category title is redundant. The law dictionaries I tend to consult most are Webster's 1828, Bouvier's 1856, Black's Law 4th Edition. Last time I checked there were at least 35 downloadable law dictionaries, and I have them all, with more available only online. Court English is a monster, but it can be tamed. :)

Comments

As I see it, the distinction between "Frauds" and "Fabrications" is largely one of intent. "Fraud" connotes a deliberate intent to deceive, usually with a profit motive, and it is often a criminal offense. On the other hand, in the genealogical context the word "Fabrication" indicates made-up information, but not necessarily with intent to deceive.

There are some fabricated genealogies (or fabrications contained within otherwise valid genealogies) that appear to have arisen from the delusions of a mentally ill author, and other fabrications may have been created by family historians who were so convinced about a particular ancestral connection that they fabricated evidence in order to "prove" it. By using the word "Fabrication" for these, we avoid suggesting criminality on the part of someone who might only have been deluded.

---

How is it possible to fabricate something without the intent to deceive? Committing an error due to poor or incomplete research is transposing. Ancestry is riddled with profiles that are errors, but not fabrications, while it surely also has fabrications such as in this discussion, but I don't go looking for them. I've found several errors while scouring my branches there, and have removed many incorrect relations. One manager of a profile of my paternal brickwall is keeping an incorrect father and mother in her tree that is proven wrong in Wiki. Because I informed her of her error, she is now perpetrating a deception. If there are other managers doing the same, I'll eventually inform them of their error. If someone is brought into awareness and do not correct themselves they cross the line.

---

I've decided to use Frauds as basically a subset of Fabrications, when the origin of the fabrication is known and the culprit can be identified. Like in the case of Gustave Anjou frauds, or Robert de Roquebrune's invented pedigree of his ancestor Philibert Couillaud.

I leave in Fabrications the numerous incorrect ancestors that look like  random married couples have been picked as the parents of anyone of unknown origin, using "Select Marriages" or similar recources when they were first made available on line. These come more from the cluelessness of a few genealogists who apparently believed that every one with a similar family name must be related. The Collineau de Montaguerre profiles also fall in that Fabrication category. Someone used the name as a marker for "Unknown mother" and they were disseminated by people who thought they represented real people.

---

I see your rationale and that in genealogy there are types of errors for which the common term fabrication might appear to fit, however in strict legal terms a fabrication is a subset of fraud, not the other way around. Thank goodness this is not Court. :) We don't wanna go there...

FYI:

From Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition:

An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Brainerd Dispatch Newspaper Co. v. Crow Wing County, 196 Minn. 194, 264 N.W. 779, 780. Any kind of artifice employed by one person to deceive another. Goldstein v . .E quitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S·., 160 Misc. 364, 289 N.Y.S. 1064, 1067. A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get ""advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald, 170 Ok!. 117, 39 P.2d 150. "Bad faith" and "fraud" are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc. Joiner v. Joiner, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W. 2d 903, 914, 915.

---

I guess you've never been acquainted with a person who could not distinguish fantasy from reality, Bruce. There's one "Fabrications" category for a genealogy publication by a man who (apparently) had lost touch with reality, but was still able to express himself with enough lucidity that people didn't always recognize his insanity, and had the financial resources to publish his fantastical version of his family history. His book has contaminated some people's family histories and has created a problem for serious genealogists, but I don't believe he can be accused of intentional deceit. Similarly, outside of genealogy, I have had experiences involving a highly educated man who expresses himself eloquently and has repeatedly commingled solid technical information with his own delusions to generate accounts of alleged conspiracies that got broad public exposure before they could be convincingly disproven/discredited. This man is dangerous, but I wouldn't label his ravings as "fraud."

I believe there are other fabrications that can be best understood as being grounded in self-deception -- not an intention to deceive others.

---

Ever hear of the hydrostatic principle of controversy, Ellen? Anyway, you guessed wrong, unless you're one. Moving on.

---

As you said Bruce, this is not Court. The name of the categories where to hold fake, deceptive, highly uncertain or otherwise disproven by further research profiles have been previously discussed in G2G and are the result of this discussion. Let's keep it at that, please.