Another much-needed merge: disconnect all parents? [closed]

Question

The other profile involved is Valoines-3

I don't see any real controversy about the fact these are real people, so it seems this is stuck because there are two theories about the parents. Does this mean we should disconnect all parents? Without some kind of decision this is stuck.

In this case Richardson's proposal seems to be in the minority but I can't see anything weaker or stronger. Here are some SGM discussions:

John Watson in 2011 agrees with Valoines-19 but perhaps did not know about Richardson's idea: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/0VFdl_5dGWQ/jYKQc2k8U3cJ

John Ravilious agreed with him.

More clearly looking at Richardson, see this discussion started by Jim Weber: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/q4EQepJmDaU/ARc716hDYukJ

Comments

I have fixed up both profiles, made clear tags and links to explain the possible connections and make sure the sourcing etc was equally clear on both.

Then I removed the parents and proposed the merge.

Answer 1

We have a rule that duplicate profiles MUST be merged. There's no rule that says people must have parents provided. My usual opinion:- write it up, disconnect parents, complete merge. If we intend to be the best there is then we have to be ready to admit that we "don't know".

Comments

SJ if I understand correctly you've looked at the case and seen a problem with my reading of it, and the reading of the other people I mentioned. No problem, but at least explain where?

---

Was on the iPhone juggling kids, I think I mixed up my comment from two different answers - please disregard.

---

No worries. :) So far CM's advice sounds fine to me. I will wait a bit though.

---

I also agree that it seems better to disconnect from both set of parents and explain the conflicting theories in the biography.

Richardson's idea seems to be based on the fact that Sybil's name is never written as Valognes, but as Eric ? points out in the discussion started by Jim Weber, linked to above, none of the families appeared to use that spelling and they all used Valoines or similar variations.

---

John the merge is apparently blocked because Valoines-19 is project protected. I can not see by who? Not sure how to fix this.

---

Andrew, I've removed the PPP on Valoines-19...

---

tried to tidy it

---

Looks good.  Thank you.

Answer 2

I am currently working on a set of people where the parents of the 'female' are not certain.  Sources show 2 different sets, both sets have wills naming the child, so probably they are both correct, but the problem comes in with which husband to connect each to.  There is nothing clear on the parents when marrying or dying.

I am working on an Uncertain Parents section in the profiles to make sure that the possible parents are not lost, we don't have a duplicate daughter, we have one husband profile (those were duplicated across the multiple female profiles) and the children are not duplicated. 

SJ has a profile that he posted to a G2G discussion because he has uncertain parents and conflated daughter, so you can see how he has handled it  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lanckford-1

Comments

Hi Linda, I am not sure how to connect this response to this situation. In this case we have two profiles which need merging. For both of them, there is no evidence to say who their parents are.

...Therefore, the different parents are an artificial problem holding up a needed merge.

This is not a case about conflicting evidence as far as I have found so far. Both sets of parents are apparently modern guesses.

---

You have the 'Disambiguation' section on both profiles.  Wiki IDs should be included with parent names in both children profiles, and then something included in the parent's profiles also.  

Since they don't have the same spouse, it would see a bit more questionable about them being the same person, though.  Valoines-3 has a birth year  that is uncertain, especially compared to the 1st child.  That 1st child has its own issues on birth, and parents, also. If the child of that 1st child has correct birthyear, then that child can't be a 1st child of Valoines-3.

Valoines-3 says she married Ralph in 1181 but the Valoines-19 has children born in 1160s which doesn't match to marriage date.

There is too much ambiguity and different spouses and information, as well as parents to merge those 2 records, I think, after looking at the information in those profiles. The comments, from 2014 on Valoines-19, also don't seem like they should be merged.

---

Yes, if you look at the profiles now and only base yourself on those it looks like that.

I can see we are talking past each other a bit. My approach in this discussion was to hold off on editing the profiles, and first point to some evidence outside the profiles which already shows where we are heading, which is definitely a merge. I am thinking ahead.

My reason for thinking ahead and planning this step-by-step is experience. In fact, it is already easy to see that editors have hit exactly this wall in the past and then given up or put it off. This happens very often for profiles in this period. Many people have trouble finding and understanding the real sources, and almost all dates are guesses - often copy pasted from somewhere. Many other people struggle to come up with a way to fix profiles that are mixed up.

I can address your concerns though. According to your approach to this discussion, if someone rewrites the articles to make them more clearly the same person, then you will be convinced. So then the concerns you have mentioned will be resolved if/when that happens.

My question was about a step/procedure prior to doing the actual editing which will tidy up various issues AND of course provide source information to verify that the new version(s) are correct.