Input, please, on merge I'm about to propose

+4 votes
68 views

I plan to propose a merge of John Rude (Rude-47) into John Rood (Rood-172). They are shown as brothers, but they are clearly the same person, although "Rood" has no bio, only one parent, incorrect birth date and location. It comes from an ancestry tree. "Rude has correct names, places, dates, although sources have not yet been added (I have located them though). Rude was actually born with LNAB Rood, but he changed his name. See Thomas Rood, his father, for the full story. Quickly his father was hanged in 1672 for committing incest with John's sister, Sarah, who had a child by her father.

I propose the merge into 172, because it has the correct LNAB, but to show Rude as the current last name. Of course, the "records" I'm looking at are transcriptions of Town Records, but after his birth, the records are entered under Rude. Then, of course, correcting dates and adding sources. I am not the PM for either, but I have run into the Rood family several times whilst playing sourcerer. (Doesn't "whilst" seem appropriate for 1600s-1700s people?). I will volunteer to do the bio clean up as I have the sources at hand.

WikiTree profile: John Rude
asked in Policy and Style by Jim Parish G2G6 Pilot (126k points)
retagged by Keith Hathaway
Were I doing this, I'd put the correct information on the proper profile so that anyone inspecting it can judge it, rather than waiting until the merge is completed.

1 Answer

+4 votes
 
Best answer
You made a good case here for the LNAB being Rood, but in the profiles themselves I don't find clear support for your assertion that these are the same person.

When you are proposing a merge, particularly when you aren't on either of the trusted lists (as in this case), you need to lay out a good case for the merge -- and be prepared to have one of the profile managers reject the merge because they didn't read your reasoning. So before you propose this merge, make your case for it by adding documentation and sources that support your opinion that these are the same man and that tell his life story.

Yes, these men both have the same name and the same father and a son named Noah born in 1704, but one of these men is currently shown as born in Norwich in 1658 and the other is born in Taunton in 1665. The 1658 birthdate is supported by the text in Rude-47 that says "In 1679 at the age of 21 John was granted...", but in that text I cannot see where he is supposed to have been born, and I can't tell where the statement about the grant came from.  As for the name, I see the statement in Rude-47 that "John changed the spelling of his name to RUDE because of the family taint," but I see no information about the "family taint."

Before you propose the merge, see if you can add some footnoted source citations that document the information about life details other than the will. It wouldn't hurt to explicitly explain the basis for the birthdate of 1658. If some details were inferred or estimated (by you or by a published author), say so (there's no shame in not being able to find records from the 1600s -- many early records didn't survive).
answered by Ellen Smith G2G6 Pilot (912k points)
selected by Maggie N.

Related questions

+6 votes
3 answers
+8 votes
3 answers
+4 votes
0 answers
+8 votes
0 answers
58 views asked Feb 18, 2016 in The Tree House by Debi Hoag G2G6 Pilot (209k points)
+1 vote
0 answers
+1 vote
4 answers
66 views asked Feb 27 in Genealogy Help by Kay Sands G2G6 Pilot (199k points)
+1 vote
0 answers
35 views asked Feb 14 in Genealogy Help by Kay Sands G2G6 Pilot (199k points)
0 votes
0 answers
21 views asked Jan 28 in Genealogy Help by Kay Sands G2G6 Pilot (199k points)
+3 votes
2 answers
112 views asked Jan 16 in Genealogy Help by Kay Sands G2G6 Pilot (199k points)
+2 votes
2 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...