{{Uncertain existence}} tag needed for a few Pre-1500 profiles (Noblett)

+11 votes
156 views

The following profiles are in need of a some changes.

They need an uncertain existence tag and a note added to the bio.  They might also need an {{Unsourced}} tag.

There should also be a link to the discussion page:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/589703/questions-surrounding-lineage-noblett-noblett-francis-richard?show=589703#q589703

If anyone can assist it would be appreciated.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Noblette-1

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Valippiere-1

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Noblet-2

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Noblet-1

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lechiere-1

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Noblet-68

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Fourney-1

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Noblet-67

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_la_Chiera-1

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Noblet-66

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Laportes-1

Maybe something like this could be added to these profiles:

[[Category:Uncertain_Existence]]

[[Category:Halberts_Publishing_Company_Fraud]]

Note: This profile was created from the genealogy published at http://jlwhite-online.com/noblitt3.HTM that used as its source, a genealogy created by Halbert's Publishing Company.  Halbert's has been sanctioned by the US Postal Service and had a cease and desist order issued against it barring it from producing any more family trees.  Information on Halbert's can be found in the category link above.

There is a G2G discussion of this line here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/589703/questions-surrounding-lineage-noblett-noblett-francis-richard?show=589703#q589703

 

WikiTree profile: Alexander de Noblette
in WikiTree Help by SJ Baty G2G Astronaut (1.1m points)
edited by SJ Baty
I've posted the "source" in message boxes.  If some kind soul would like to transfer it to the bio, they can delete the messages as they go, please.

Since they're basically internet fiction, I don't think there's any point in anybody looking for primary sources.
Do you mean instead of adding an unsourced box, we should directly brand them "Uncertain Existence"? Not that I would have a problem with that, but it is sometimes a minefield.
Actually, after reviewing the descendants, they've already been addressed so in this case it' probably not a minefield.
I'm going to edit the post to read:

I need these to be marked:

"uncertain existence"

"unsourced"

and to put in the bio a note that this line is fictitious with a reference to the Halbert's fraud page.
Thanks, SJ. Maybe it's possible to confront the line with the real Noblet family (see below) and perhaps clean the line up. That was done with the Chastaignier line.
I've tagged the pre-1500 profiles as recommended, but the comments must be removed either by the PM (if he's allowed to do that without certification) or by RJ himself.

"I've tagged the pre-1500 profiles"

Thanks!!!

2 Answers

+4 votes

The real Noblet family is referenced here in the Armorial Général, with some names in common with the genealogy here. This Noblette line looks a poor copy of the family; it reminds me a little of the Chastaignier genealogy that was previously linked to the Chastain Huguenots.

by Isabelle Martin G2G6 Pilot (452k points)
As RJ pointed out here:

 https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/589703/questions-surrounding-lineage-noblett-noblett-francis-richard?show=589703#q589703

Some of the names in this line are based on real people.  It looks to me that Halbert's mixed fact with fiction and created a masterpiece for sale to the public.

I'm working on the post 1500 profiles - I see that some of them are based on real figures - but many (most) of the connections are false; often unconnected people are strung together in a convenient family tree.

I intend to break the incorrect family links and merge the "real" profiles to their existing counterparts.  Or, if the profile does not exist, source it and leave it where it sits.

For the pre-1500's they should also be broken apart from each other, real merged to real, fake labeled as fake.  Until someone can get to that, they should be labeled as uncertain existence and a link to the Halbert's fraud page because, as they sit now, someone is copying and pasting them to their Ancestry.com tree ;-)
Absolutely. There is very little to save in the pre-1500 part, from what I can see, and your strategy sounds fine ;-)
Regarding "real merged to real, fake labelled as fake", I've tried two approaches over the last couple of years and have this experience to report:

A.  If George Anderssen Smith is a fake person with no real counterpart, then it's good to keep a profile, clearly label it a fake, and provide thorough documentation as to why it's fake, because mang people have been sold a bill of goods that they are descended from GAS, dragonslayer.  We owe it to them to tell them, no, you have no such ancestor.  And profiles like this need to be stripped of all links to parents, spouses and children, with the links continued in the narrative;  Fake people were never born, had no parents, spouses or children.

B.  If there's a real George Anderssen Smith as well as a fake one, I've tried maintaining two profiles, and my experience is that it causes confusion.  People try to add fake information to the real profile and real information to the fake one even though I've put links back and forth in the profile.  Therefore I recommend that there be just one profile for the real person.  The Biography section should contain only real information with inline citations.  There should then be a ==Research Notes== section.  Now, what one is documenting is not the life of a person, but the life of a fiction.  Who started the fiction, what did the fiction comprise, and how did it develop.  That way all the fictional "facts" get included, but as part of a narrative about how the fiction developed.  

That way it's all on the same profile, and someone seeking to add a fact which is actually fictional will see how their "fact" isn't really a fact" and they don't add it.

IF, of course, they read the profile.  I've run into people who happily make changes in the data field without bothering to look at what's in the narrative.  Haven't figured out how to handle that.  It's one reason I seek to be on the trusted list of many profiles I work on, so I get notified when it gets changed.
Thanks for the advice and it makes good sense - I'll leave the fake profiles with a note/reference and for those who are real I'll initiate a merge and then add a note so that those coming in the future who have this bogus tree will see that it is indeed bogus.

So far as this fantasy line from William the Conqueror to the 4 (real) brothers in New England.  Their "fake" father is Peter.  I broke the ties, and so as to keep them all related as brothers, I created an Unknown Noblett, linked him as their father and put an explanation and link to the fake Peter explaining the old connection and why it was broken.  In the end, the sons have a reference to the "fake" father-Peter and have a new "unknown" father, the unknown father has a reference to the fake Peter, and fake Peter has a reference to the sons & surrogate "unknown" father, and the sons each have a reference back to the fake father-Peter.

the old parents:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Noblett-19

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bertrand-243

the "new" parent:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Noblett-97

the kids:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Noblett-18

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Noblett-46

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Noblett-45

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Noblett-47

As to Jack Day’s suggestion about dealing with folks who add data without looking at the whole profile, maybe a good way to handle this for new WT volunteers would be include something in help pages just for those new folks asking them to read the whole profile before makes any additions or changes to the profile. Of course, this would a good reminder for all volunteers. Maybe post something to G2G as a gentle reminder for all of us to take care in situations like these. 

This is why I put the notes at the TOP of the profile, even above the Bio, often in bold so that the first thing people see is the note.  This is especially useful for people that have a tree that goes back several more generations and they assume that the WT profile just doesn't have that data yet.
SJ, can you give me an example of a profile where you’ve done this so I can see what it looks like? Thanks!
Look up 3 comments: I've listed the old parents, the new parent, and the kids.
+5 votes
Good work on creating the fraud category.  

One discussion we've had in categories is that it is not good to make people curser through mountains of text before they get to the list of profiles attached to the category.  So it would be helpful if you'd create a linked free-space profile for some of the text, especially including the US Postal Service injunction.  

Something else occurs to me at this point -- I don't think Halberts restricted their fraud to one family.  Would it be helpful to create the first family subdivision of the Halberts fraud now?

The Halbert's fraud category should be placed on ALL profiles affected by it, both the true ones and the fake ones.  This is because one of the nasty effects of frauds is that once fake information has been posted about someone, one has to be extra diligent to keep fraudulent information from creeping back in.  So the category serves as a warning and it doesn't hurt to include a sentence in the biographical narrative mentioning that.

Genealogical fraud is basically identity theft of the dead.  I don't think one can go much lower.
by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (362k points)

"Good work on creating the fraud category."

- I must admit, it was Ellen Smith's idea ;-)

"... it would be helpful if you'd create a linked free-space profile for some of the text, especially including the US Postal Service injunction."

Done.

"The Halbert's fraud category should be placed on ALL profiles affected by it"

Done, if I see any more I'll add them as I come across them.

Identity theft of the dead... yup, about sums it up.

"Something else occurs to me at this point -- I don't think Halberts restricted their fraud to one family.  Would it be helpful to create the first family subdivision of the Halberts fraud now?"

Not sure how to do that or the what/why.

Are you suggesting a Category: Halbert's Fraud

sub-category Noblett?

If so, how do you do it?

Not really suggesting a the moment, just wondering.  If Halberts made up 20 fake people per family and did the same nonsense with 25 families -- that's 500 fake profiles.  Or for that matter 500 frauds with 10,000 fake profiles -- after tall, they were making a profit off this -- so if we ended up with 10,000 profiles categorized under Halberts, would that be a problem? When we see a profile with Halberts Fraud on it, would we want to know which family the fraud was about, and have it be one of 20 or 50 profiles and not 10,000?  I don't know?  The reason I raise the question is it's easier to create subcategories at the beginning rather than after a lot of people have been profiled!

Related questions

+3 votes
2 answers
+5 votes
2 answers
+3 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
1 answer
83 views asked Oct 28, 2017 in Policy and Style by Connie Graham G2G6 Mach 1 (12.0k points)
+6 votes
1 answer
62 views asked Jul 25, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Cheryl Skordahl G2G6 Pilot (223k points)
+8 votes
2 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...