Why is there duplicates?

+1 vote

There are duplicates of the same person- and both profiles have been changed significantly (click through all of the changes to see the enormous amount of changes, and what they were: parents deleted, redirected, names changes, dates deleted, ect.). It seems to be gearing the conversation, and looks to be trying to redirect . 

Margaret Courtney and Margaret Courtney


WikiTree profile: Margaret Courtenay
in Genealogy Help by C Anonymous G2G6 Mach 1 (10.1k points)
One is born after 1417 and marked uncertain existence, the other was born abt 1345. Sure they both have the same married name, but that doesn't mean they are the same person. Perhaps send the profile manager (same on both profiles) a private message and ask him about these ladies. I don't think they are duplicates at all.
Look at the spouse, the parents (in the profile changes especially). The dates have been changed as well.
You are not making any sense.

The dates are vastly different and one of them has no parents or spouse at all - so how do we know that they are the same person?  We don't know.
Did you look at the actual profile, and the changes in bio (it takes a while, I know)? Also look at the first line of the bio on [[Courtenay-9]] it shows [[Grenville-23]] and gives a specifically skewed dialogue about Margaret.

On [[Courtenay-1057]], [[Grenville-23]] is attached as the spouse.

The whole profile of [[Courtenay-9]] is strictly there to dispute [[Courtenay-1057]]... You just have to read the profiles.


I am thinking a PPP sticker need to be on [[Courtenay-1057]] until it gets sorted, and looked at properly.
That's not possible as Courtenay-9 was created well before Courtenay-1057. Courtenay-9 represents the fictitious daughter of Hugh Courtenay of Haccombe. Courtenay-1057 represents the supposed daughter of Sir Hugh "10th Earl of Devon" de Courtenay. Not the same person.

3 Answers

+6 votes
Best answer
This is an awkward situation. They are the same person. And they are not. So nobody is wrong here.

Both profiles are by the same researcher, who seems to have recycled his data into a new, later profile for the same individual, but wanted to distance her from another, incorrect, iteration of herself with the impossible parent Hugh Courtenay of Haccombe. That Margaret, had she existed, might have been born circa 1417 but could not have married a man who died in 1381.

Either Courtenay-9 should get the father Hugh of Haccombe, with the caveat that if he had such a daughter she was married to neither John Cobham nor Theobald Grenville, or, if she is to granted no parents, her birthdate needs to be altered (as, so far as I can see, it is only based on that presumed parentage) so she can be merged with "Margaret the younger" Courtenay-1057, who was the wife of Theobald, but could not also have been the wife of Cobham (married to her presumed elder sister, another Margaret, Courtenay-67).

Consequently Courtenay-1057 is speculated as a second, younger, daughter named Margaret born to Hugh Courtenay, 10th Earl of Devon. But it is the two latter Margarets who should not be merged.

My thinking is that it is probably preferable not to merge Courtenay-1057 and Courtenay-9, but simply to attach Courtenay-9 to the incorrect parent as she already has a disclaimer of being an "imaginary person".
by Monica Edmunds G2G6 Mach 3 (31.6k points)
selected by Brad Foley
+4 votes
The question should be - Why ARE there duplicates?

There are both pre-1500 profiles

And I don't think there is enough details to know for sure that they are the same person. One says born after 1417 and the other says born about 1345. That is rather a huge difference,

 They could easily be 2 different people who have the same name. Especially if one is married to a relative to the other.

And the father is also not known for certain either according to the comments on one of these profiles.

I'm wondering if perhaps a PPP sticker might be needed to safeguard the first (Courtenay-9) profile?
by Robynne Lozier G2G Astronaut (1.0m points)
edited by Robynne Lozier
+3 votes
Duplicates are obviously all too common on Wikitree and in most cases they should indeed be merged. But maybe this is a case where two profiles were being confused even though they were different people.

I have sent it happen before that a profile contains information or connections which are really belonging to another person with the same name. In such cases obviously a merge is not the solution, but a more clear separation.

NOTE: What might at first seem controversial is that in such cases a decision is sometimes made to turn one profile into the profile for a different person than the profile was originally intended to be. For example it might be that two profiles might have been originally intended to represent the same person, but over the years editors have turned one of them into an article partly about someone else who has no other profile, but needs one.
by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Pilot (116k points)

Related questions

+23 votes
7 answers
+47 votes
3 answers
+36 votes
4 answers
+27 votes
13 answers
+31 votes
5 answers
1.8k views asked Mar 31, 2016 in Policy and Style by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (752k points)
+6 votes
1 answer
138 views asked Jul 26, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Lena Svensson G2G6 Mach 5 (50.9k points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright