How do I submit a correction for an error?
I have identified several errors over time, and my OCD has finally forced me to attempt to fix a clanger, but there seems to be no easy way of doing it, which is probably fair, because from what I can see, at least a dozen people have made changes, who apparently have no, or at least very little, idea what they are talking about.
'When Agnes Lascelles was born in 1205, in Chapel Haddlesey, Yorkshire, England, her father, John de Lascelles, was 30 and her mother, Ann de Lound, was 26. She had at least 1 daughter with Sir Milo de Bassett. She died after 1272, in Yorkshire, England, and was buried in Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), Falkland Islands.'
I do not have a burial location for Agnes, however the Falkland Islands were not discovered until 500 years after Agnes's death, making it highly doubtful she was buried there. It is not unreasonable that she may have been buried in Falkland, Scotland, however it is also unlikely, as she appears to have had no connection to the place, being a native of Yorkshire, England.
Answers
-
The profile of Agnes Lascelles https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/G3VQ-3YY
Good morning @Ken1073
The FamilySearch Family Tree is fully open-edit and collaborative. Any signed-in user can made edits and update the tree. The pencil icon is the entry to editing any event.
Before you begin, it's a good idea to review the Change Log, especially any past merges, especially on a profile from so early in history. Look under Latest Changes on the right side, and click Show All. You can filter to show just the merges. This profile has been merged many times.
This Help Article contains the basic instructions for making edits to the Vitals of a profile. https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-change-vital-information-in-family-treeIf you need more help as you work on the profile, please come back and ask. There are many experienced users here who will be happy to help.
Best of luck!
2 -
Thanks, how about
Read Only: This person's record is read-only. No additions or changes can be made.
When Sir John FitzWilliam was born in 1298, in Yorkshire, England, his father, William FitzWilliam, was 25 and his mother, Isabel Deincourt, was 23. He married Joan de Reresby in 1326, in Sprotbrough and Cusworth, Yorkshire, England. They were the parents of at least 6 sons and 5 daughters. He died on 10 August 1349, in his hometown, at the age of 51.
The page then goes on to list his children, commencing with Joan in 1300 and John in 1303. I hold very few medical qualifications, however do not believe he was having children at age two, 2, between 1 and 3 !
Joan's daughter Margaret Thornhill appears to have been born about 1334, so a potential DOB for Joan could be about 1313-1321.
There appears to be far to little thinking applied to far to many entries to invoke any sort of confidence in this site.
1 -
For a Read-Only profile, you can submit here in the Community and request moderator assistance.
Read-Only profiles are usually limited to early LDS church leaders or famous people.
0 -
@Ken1073 Read only pages are there to protect an individual for many reasons.
FamilySearch occasionally sets restrictions to prevent the data of historical figures from being deliberately falsified and to prevent extensive contention among users.
To request additions or changes to people with a read-only banner in the FamilySearch Family Tree, please contact Family Support to request a change in the status.
0 -
@Ken1073 said "… There appears to be far to little thinking applied to far to many entries to invoke any sort of confidence in this site. …"
I would suggest that the sad truth is that anything medieval (whatever that means) is more likely to be garbage (and I said "garbage" and not "wrong") than right. This isn't just FamilySearch - quite the most unpleasant thread that I've ever read was on a Medieval Genealogy board elsewhere that had been recommended. I was only interested for amusement's sake - the amusement disappeared very rapidly.
Fundamentally, the examples you have above are from medieval genealogy and are therefore subject to all sorts of issues, which start with a relative lack of contemporary sources. Into that lack, various people have driven all sorts of hobby horses often intended to show that they are descended from Charlemagne or that the Princes in the Tower have descendants or…
Many of their so-called sources were fraudulent genealogies designed to separate American business barons from their dollars.
People also pick up on contradictory stories, using the one that suits their purposes. For instance, just look at the various origins of Thomas Bruce of Clackmannan, founder of the aristocratic Bruces of Scotland (i.e. not the Royal Bruces) - a mention of him as a cousin of David II has been interpreted literally as what we today call a first cousin, i.e. his father was a sibling of Robert the Bruce. King Robert had numerous brothers, so you will find trees from most of those brothers. Quite possibly the actual relationship was further back.
The list goes on.
One of the flaws in FS FamilyTree is that it doesn't do possibilities. The above Thomas of Clackmannan is in FSFT as LDKR-K67 (and probably others as well). There are some sensible discussions on his ancestry in his notes but the actual profile has a single father stated, in defiance of the sensible discussions.
If the above sounds too much like a rant, I apologise but I think it important to set expectations to avoid too much hitting of heads on desks.
TLDR - forget using FS FamilyTree for medieval genealogy outside the actual monarchs who, by reason of their occupation of the throne, have known fathers. Usually.
2 -
Well said Adrian, however I do believe historical record extends beyond 'actual monarchs' and that the Peerage is quite well documented, and 'mostly' historically confirmed.
What is really frustrating are the multitude of 'completely brainless' entries, that even the AI and/or logic is unable to comprehend;
By what bohemian, drug fuelled, mindlessness can anybody accept Ella was born 65 years before her alleged father?
1 -
I appreciate the points being raised about the difficulties of medieval genealogy. It is indeed a complicated field with many pitfalls. However, this thread has moved away from the original question, which was specifically about how to request a change to a Read‑Only status.
I’d also like to remind everyone to keep the tone of our discussion courteous. Terms such as “garbage” can come across more harshly than intended and may discourage others from participating.
That said, the challenges you’ve described are real. Medieval genealogy is an area where sources are limited, interpretations vary widely, and long‑standing inaccuracies can easily find their way into online trees. Many researchers encounter these same issues.
At the same time, it may help to clarify how the Universal Family Tree is designed to function. FamilySearch intentionally allows anyone to add or edit information. That openness is a core principle of the platform, even though it sometimes results in entries that are incomplete, subjective, or incorrect. The collaborative model relies on the community to review, refine, and improve the data over time.
Because medieval lines are especially vulnerable to speculation and unproven claims, FamilySearch has implemented safeguards such as Read‑Only restrictions and warning banners on certain profiles. These measures exist specifically to help reduce the kinds of issues being discussed.
As we continue the conversation, please help us maintain a constructive and civil environment. Strong opinions are welcome, but respectful phrasing ensures that all participants feel comfortable contributing as we work together to strengthen the tree.
Thank you for helping support a positive and collaborative community space.
1 -
@sc woz - I am glad that FS does acknowledge the issues associated with medieval genealogy. Whether read only profiles are particularly useful in this aspect is perhaps a moot point since they can only be reactive and don't prevent multiple inputs of long rejected legends. However, I'm not confident in alternative suggestions either as line-specific moderators can be as big a problem as substandard input (based on experiences elsewhere). So, yes, I'm glad there's an acknowledgement but I also acknowledge that there are no easy answers.
As for me using the term "garbage", I specifically did not associate it with any researcher, which would have been naughty, rather I referred to data, of which the instance above of someone being born in 1105 when their parent was born in 1170, is a prime example. That's not just wrong, that's requiring a time machine, and I feel justified in highlighting such practices.
2
