Is there such a thing as a "red alert"?
I received the following message from another user:
"Hi, I have noticed that you have made changes to this person after a Red Alert was attached (see top tool bar); so I wanted to take a moment and explain to you about Red Alert. I don't claim to be an expert but the researcher that I hired and paid for definitely is. She is the best researcher in the state of Utah and often does research for the Church on dignitaries visiting the state. All such research on our common families can be found in the Memories of the respective families. An Accredited Professional Researcher traces the data back to the oldest original source documentation per the Church's instructions. When such research has been done, the Church authorizes a Red Alert to be put on such families; and any changes are only to be made only by another Certified Professional Researcher and then with absolute original source documentation. Your co-operation and help in achieving these objectives on our common ancestors is appreciated."
The profile is not a restricted profile and there is not a note in the tool bar as they indicated. Profile is LT28-YK6.
Is this "red alert" something that I need to abide by (not making any changes because I am not a Certified Professional Researcher")?
Thank you for any guidance.
Answers
-
There is an Alert Note that appears in red print.
You are still welcome to make changes as long as you are sure of the facts. The Alert Note is meant to make others aware of possible issues that have been encountered. For example, I sometimes add an Alert Note when a profile with a common name has been incorrectly merged and I've spent a long time repairing the profile.
It sounds as if the other contributor is concerned about LDS profiles - and I'm not LDS, so I don't have any insight to share on that front.
3 -
I have looked around for other profiles that reference a similar "Red Alert." Every single one that I have come across was done by the same contributor. There may be other contributors who use this same approach, but so far I've only found the one. Each of these profiles has an alert note and/or reason statements that contain text that uses many of the exact same phrases quoted above.
Until I came across this set of notes and reason statements, I had not heard of the term "Red Alert" used in this particular way. Several of these profiles do have an Alert Note (an example would be LZG8-THF). It could be that the real term "Alert Note" is somehow being changed into the artificial term "Red Alert" (perhaps because the display of the Alert Note is done with red text). Or it may just be a term that this contributor made up or borrowed from some other context. I sincerely doubt that "the Church authorizes a Red Alert to be put on such families"; if that were the case, there would be an official program to that end, which there is not.
In any case, I don't see any reason to give extra deference to the contributor of these notes and reason statements. We should always exercise care and provide documentation for the changes we make, preferably with original source documents. But one contributor doesn't get to create their own rules to govern the actions of all other users. If you follow sound genealogical practices and are considerate in your communications, I see no reason why you shouldn't proceed to make appropriate changes to these (or any other) profiles.
6 -
Hi @Áine Ní Donnghaile -
Thank you for the response. Just wanted to point out the above screen shot you attached is for a different person than I was referring to-my question was in regards to Samuel Smith LT28-YK6. I am aware of notes than can checked to show as an alert but this profile does not have one. Also, it sounds as if the person who messaged me was referring to something else-perhaps like you referenced as being related to the LDS church of which I am also not a member.
0 -
I used an example from MY research - an ancestor to whom I have added an Alert Note so that you could see what I meant. I wasn't trying to use YOUR example.
0 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile -Ah I get it-thank you!
0 -
Thank you! Yes I agree with everything you said :)
0 -
There's no alert note here, so I don't know what this "Red Alert" is supposed to be. It's not an official term that anyone uses. I even did a google search, and... nothing.
If the church was enforcing a red alert as described, I don't think you would be able to edit it at all. And, really, I'm not sure why there would be a red alert. This person died in the 1600s, after all, so they clearly can't be an important person in church history. If this person had a red alert--Well, why not give every person with disputed information from this time period (A.K.A. pretty much all of them) a red alert status as well?
The person would be far better off just explaining what's wrong than trying to enforce a term that doesn't exist on the site. It looks like the issue was that you changed "about February 1624" to "about February 1625", but the sources give both years (both in one source, even!), so I personally don't see how it's a problem.
4 -
@BraydenGraves There's no alert note on that particular Samuel Smith LT28-YK6, but there is an alert note on both his parents. The reason statement for the reverting of the changes begins "A RED ALERT has been placed on this family." Note that it says "this family" and not "this person" (although the user message in the OP does inaccurately state that there is a red alert on the person). But as I've said before, I don't think that there is anything binding about this fictitious "red alert," so I agree that there's no problem with making appropriate changes.
3 -
And even "the best researcher in the state" can make mistakes. We're all human.
4 -
@Alan E. Brown I missed everything you said earlier, it must have all been written while I was writing and/or editing my message. (I took a break for a bit.) I never thought to check his family, that was a good call.
0
