As the title said. I do recognize that there is a legitimate case for having multiple sets of parents when there are biological parents as well as step or adoptive parents, which should be taken into account.
It might help if you could suggest where such a "warning" might be placed.
Good point! I suggest it should go under “Research Helps” as a red “Data Problem.” I encounter this issue regularly.
EricShelton Multiple parents is not a data problem. Why would you think that?
Hmmm…. Not sure I understand how having two biological fathers and two biological mothers isn’t a data problem. Can you help me understand how that wouldn’t be a problem? Perhaps you mean not a “data” problem, but some other category? In any case, it would be useful for this situation to be flagged as something that should be checked and corrected as necessary.
EricShelton First of all, you have already mentioned the normal types of multiple parents: adopted, biological, step, guardian, foster, etc. Many people don't know you can edit the relationships and establish the type of parent, so I'm sure most people exist in the tree with multiple parents where a close look is needed to establish which are the biological. In fact, the vast majority of parent/child relationships in the world tree are undefined. If you click to edit the relationships you will see "add relationship".
Second, I have one spot in my husband's lineage where there is a dispute as to who the parents are for a certain ancestor. Both sets of parents are linked to that ancestor currently. I admit I'm shocked it has remained that way because it's a bit of a hot bed topic in Ancestry. It's very difficult to confirm by paper trail which set are correct because currently, not enough sources are available to eliminate everyone. I really don't see that as a data error and I'm not going to conform to any guidance which says "in this case pick a set of parents and delete the other because 2 sets are a data problem." Any genealogy which suppresses evidence is bad genealogy. Leave the evidence on the table until there is enough evidence to support a decision. If you want to flag it, fine. Correcting it? No. Not until there is evidence.
Third is the reverse, which you don't mention, but should be a similar problem to you: duplicate children. In several spots I have 2 instances of what appears to be the same child attached to a set of parents. And it's on purpose. In one case there is evidence both existed and vanished from the records prior to age 10, but there is no evidence they are the same child. The separate sources can't currently be reconciled. They probably are the same child, but no evidence is currently in, and I have an alert in all the person pages asking people NOT to merge them unless new sources come to light. In the other case the 2 sons of the same name are actually cousins. I am still sorting out which source belongs to which cousin and am currently working in Ancestry. When I get it all settled, I will come back to FamilySearch, add a second son and start the process of "moving" sources to the correct cousin and adding the correct parents to the correct son.
To me this tree is all about evidence and communication. How many people come to this community raging over the fact that someone deleted a whole line of their ancestors and don't know how to get them all back? No one will be complaining about me doing that.
I can see both sides of the arguments raised here. Strictly speaking, a child should only have one set of biological parents, so the data warning is not a bad idea - as long as it can be dismissed with a reason statement. Because, following on from Gail's comments, I do have a relative who is shown with two sets of biological parents, and wish to have it left that way (at least for the present). Whist I am confident I have added the correct parents, I admit I do not have sufficient evidence to deny another user their conclusion about the alternative set of (biological) parents they have added.
In summary, I would not be against such a data warning, but would hope it would not lead to others users deleting the current (hopefully, temporary) additional relationships, which I consider to be perfectly acceptable under such circumstances.