Pre-1500 profile where the "experts" do not agree [closed]

Question

This is just one of many Pre-1500 profiles where the "experts" do not agree on dates.   They seem to agree on "relationships", but not the eras in which people lived.   My question is whether we ignore these errors, or do as indicated in this profile and then mark the error as a false error...(not really false, but not workable)

Comments

Robin,

I like the Warning paragraph you have -- I would simply add links to discussions or other sources where the experts are disagreeing, so that people can go read those.

Answer 1

In my dream we never use false errors..... we explain so the reader can understand our reasoning....

 

1. Wikitree should also when we have unsure facts explain different opinions....
2. It should be easy for the reader to follow 
   1. what sources exists
   2. what facts are from which source
   3. what the different sources tell
   4. easy to locate the sources if they are online and check if you agree with the WikiTree author

Many areas of Genealogy are difficult so it's no shame to just jump to the next profile if its to difficult....  I never touch Swedish profiles older than 1700

• Ps. I added a comment to the Error report
• Pss. WIkidata Q1272106 ?!?!? Is that correct?!?!? ==> you also have WeRelate Person:Conaire_Moglama_(1) and they have just copied Wikipedia....
• Pss. A List_of_High_Kings_of_Ireland

Comments

Just trying to balance...so it's no shame to just jump to the next profile if its to difficult...with all the comments about the large number of Pre-1500 errors.

Answer 2

Pre 1500 is difficult,There often is evidence they existed,but is difficult

too pin down a date,no Parish records,no evidence of anything,They are

merely postulating on dates.I stopped working in this era years ago.

Answer 3

I believe any competing stories should be identified and these types of profiles should be looked at as extremely suspect unless we can disprove a competing story and find something that points to reality.  A lot of what was called history in pre-1500 into the 1800s were made up histories to glorify a specific royal line giving it more credence.  Hence King Henry asking his historian (antiquarian) to look into how he might be related to King Arthur.  Exacting research standards just did not exist nor did decent record keeping.  A lot of what we know about these people (if they even really existed) comes from snippets of information found in multiple sources.  The farther you go back the worse it generally gets.  

Also there is often confusion with multiple people having the same name or similar names and the inconsistency of spelling.  

http://medievalscotland.org/kmo/AnnalsIndex/Masculine/Eochaid.shtml

Comments

I agree Laura, when all you have are long genealogies, and no one can be confirmed by other sources (because there aren't any other sources) then it does suggest they might never have existed.

Answer 4

Am working on pre-1500 data errors in Ireland; came across this line where DOBs too early etc. Profile managers are both inactive & not pre-1500 qualified, so have modified the warning on this particular profile to read '''This profile derives from a genealogy going back to Adam, constructed by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_de_Diceto  Archdeacon Ralph de Diceto] for William, King of Scots. Expert historians do not agree on dates for individuals in this period of Scots/Irish history'''

Am removing birthdates from this group of profiles, hoping the new category [[Category:Irish History, Kings of Dál Riata, Imagines historiarum]] will be sufficient in the meantime. Generally tidying up place names and have concerns about the way in which profiles are named but not looking at that at the moment.

Comments

Thanks Valerie for all the great work your doing.

Answer 5

I have found the current WikiTree policy that only four major headings -- Biography, Research Notes, Sources and Acknowledgements -- are allowed on a profile to be quite helpful for profiles such as this.

My objective with pre-1500 profiles I work on is to put only well documented facts under Biography.  Everything else goes under Research notes.  This profile is a good example of someone who quite possibly only existed in legend.  That doesn't mean he never existed, only that contemporary documents testifying to his existence don't seem to exist.  He may have existed, but the facts associated with him may have been amplified, the relationships confused, and the dates -- in the time he lived they didn't really use dates as we know them.  So it is not a problem that "experts differ."  It would be a miracle if experts did not differ.

While under ==Biography==, I believe facts are best arranged in chronological order, ==Research Notes== lends itself to discussing the sources -- the different legendary narratives, starting with the earliest, and to see how the legend developed.  That way one isn't choosing among the various discordant facts, although identifying which ones are in the earliest legend does give the earliest ones a bit more likelihood of actually being true.

Answer 6

Where evidence I am aware of conflicts, I draw attention to this either in the main biography or in Research Notes, naming the conflicting sources. I do much the same with any uncertainties about family relationships: such uncertainties are not uncommon with medieval profiles.

Answer 7

I would hope that every point of contention, if it is sourced, is listed and annotated.  History gets very blurry the farther we go back, but our understanding is getting better through advances in archeology.  What is unprovable one day is fact in a decade from now.  I think that WikiTree should at least provide breadcrumbs of substantiation for those looking for specific peoples in time.  It's the best shot at the honest picture for which we strive.

Those error messages might be better worded as "More Sourcing Request."