Fix Earl Marischal numbering

+3 votes
71 views

I updated Category: Earl Marischal with the correct numbering with a JSTOR citation for Innes' 1927 article, and ODNB links for most of the Earls. The numbering is off becuase the 1st Earl's father is cited by most peerage sources before 1927 as being the 1st Earl, but Innes' research indicates he was probably the 1st Lord Keith, and his 2nd son William was the 1st Earl Marischal. 

Because the numbering is wrong in every profile who is linked to one of these Earls, this is a huge lift to change. It is also wrong in Wikipedia, while I corrected the main page, it is a lot of work to move the existing articles to new numbers and correct the text in various linked articles (way worse than Wikitree!). 

If you are inclined, I would suggest fixing wikipedia first. Otherwise, I was hoping a Scottish Clan or EuroAristo members would consider fixing all the wikitree profiles. They had a lot of children and it will be wrong all over the place.

If you have JSTOR access, here's the Innes article -> https://www.jstor.org/stable/25525738

On sources, The Complete Peerage 2nd edition has the correct numbering (starting on p.475, before that it has more info on his ancestry), although it is unclear who was the 1st Lord Keith. Cracroft has a good summary and because it is based on BP2003, thepeerage also has the right numbering The ODNB has the right numbering for Earl 1-6, but the wrong numbering for 7-9 (they have 8-10, plus that was how I found Innes article in the first place cited in the 3rd Earl's article!). Note: The Complete Peerage 1st Edition has the wrong numbering, along with the Scots Peerage which also has a summary of the Keith family. 

WikiTree profile: William Keith
asked in Genealogy Help by Kirk Hess G2G6 Mach 4 (46.8k points)

2 Answers

+1 vote
If this is the correct succession, I would be glad to revise these profiles on Wikitree. I manage Clan Keith for the Scottish Clans Project and Keith is in my wife's lines through its connection to Clan Murray and Tullibardine. I will look at linked profiles, but, with a quick scan, didn't see a lot of detail that needed to be changed immediately. I remember Stevenson Browne questioning the numbering when he first became active on Wikitree. Perhaps he and I could find a way to work on the changes together.
I'll hold on this a while and see if other responses come that offer a better solution, if that's acceptable. .
answered by Michael Thomas G2G4 (4.1k points)
Michael:  We worked on this in 2016 and I believe we agreed to use the numbering in agreement with Wikipedia, so I corrected many of the profiles. My opinion is that we should maintain them as they are unless there is a change by Wikipedia.  I think it best to avoid changing them all every time the alternative is suggested.

Stevenson
+1 vote
Stevenson has made some changes that should allay any concerns. All the numbers now match with current thought. Thanks, Stevenson.
answered by Michael Thomas G2G4 (4.1k points)

Related questions

0 votes
1 answer
48 views asked Aug 29, 2013 in Genealogy Help by Sir William Arbuthnot of Kittybrewster G2G6 Pilot (147k points)
+2 votes
0 answers
+2 votes
2 answers
190 views asked Jan 22, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Kenneth Kinman G2G6 Mach 3 (39.3k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
+12 votes
1 answer
281 views asked Sep 2, 2016 in The Tree House by Chase Ashley G2G6 Mach 8 (86.7k points)
+5 votes
2 answers
+12 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
1 answer
41 views asked Jul 10, 2017 in Genealogy Help by C. Mackinnon G2G6 Mach 9 (95.3k points)
+6 votes
1 answer
+14 votes
2 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...