Challenge Parent-Child link
Is there an approved or standard procedure for challenging a parent-child link here? There are probably several I will want to do eventually, but one in particular is front and center for me right now. I can give the details to a staff person if needed. Or, point me in the direction I need to go. Thanks y'all..
Answers
-
@CMichael7
The FamilySearch tree is open-edit, and we users can edit almost any connection. A small percentage of profiles are read-only - mostly famous people and early LDS Church leaders.
Unless the profiles are read-only, there is no staff approval involved.
You can attach your evidence/sources and change a parent-child connection, if you wish.There are, of course, many people with the same name, maybe even with the same birth dates, in the same location. We should use caution to be certain that we are connecting or detaching the correct families.
This Help Article covers the basics: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/connecting-and-correcting-relationships-in-family-tree
If you have questions, there are numerous experienced users here who can assist.
Hope this helps.4 -
Thanks. I've read several Help articles and Q & A with the same tag. I guess my concern isn't how to do it, but more about policy. If I simply detach unsupported links, someone will come along and reattach. The one on my mind is all over the internet. In my 35 years of genealogy, I've never seen a primary source to "prove" the parents are correct, just a bunch of junk genealogy. Besides unproven/unsupported parent links, I have a big distaste for people adding unsupported maiden names to my female ancestors. Adding wrong info (and unsupported is wrong) often means it's nearly impossible to disprove. We need the evidence up front to make links and add maiden names, not to try to make us find evidence to refute it, which may never be found. I have a bunch of unknown surname women as well as dead ends, but I'd rather they stay that way than have the wrong lineage attached.
3 -
Very much agreed on your last point - "We don't know" may not be satisfying, but it's way better than a palatable lie.
I don't see anything wrong with removing an unsourced relationship, and putting that in the comments when doing so. I would hope that anyone who felt compelled to put it back would do so with some evidence, but it's the internet, and unfortunately not everybody thinks that is a priority.
I watch a few long running wars on various profiles, both famous (Rollo, kings and queens of England) and other that are less so. It's just part of the landscape. One day I'm related to someone improbable, the next day I'm not - it's all down to which person last asserted their perceived truth.2 -
I once had 3 connections to Pocahontas (on another site), all probably wrong. The ones I'm concerned about here are just common folk, but even so those interested will fight for their accepted version, as you know.
1 -
I assume you have, on occasions, tried to query such unsubstantiated work with the individual who made the inputs - via the "Chat" messaging provision.
If so, you'll know responses are very mixed. I get everything from "my sincere apologies…" to no response whatsoever. But it's always worth a try in either trying to get an explanation for such inputs, or at least to make such users aware that Family Tree is a collaborative effort and not about this being "their tree".
On the point of women's surnames, it is indeed the suggestion we should leave the "Last Name" field blank if it cannot be established. Unfortunately, too many individual users (as well as organised "Projects") are inclined to add a surname that is the same as that of the (male) spouse. Otherwise, I often find the surname found in a marriage record is automatically added for the woman, with no consideration she might have been a widow / divorced at the time, so that is not her maiden name!
As suggested above, you just have to go ahead and make changes you believe to be correct - always providing a reason statement, of course, so others can follow your reasoning through the Change Log section. The "edit wars" scenario can become a bit challenging, of course - you make the change, the other user changes it back, etc. - but that's just part of the "joy" (antiphrasis, of course) of the open-edit Family Tree.
As has been discussed on this forum many times, one can't generally expect "admin" to get involved in any disputes over the "facts", there being quite a "high bar" before a FamilySearch employee will accept the matter as "Abuse", instead of the matter being just a genuine difference of opinion between two (or more) users.
3 -
Yep, I've used Chat as well as posting on the Collaboration tab. Mostly no response, even from a cousin close to my age who grew up a mile and a half away. I have started to remove some unsupported maiden names; no backlash yet but time will tell. One thing that I would like but don't see is a way to comment directly on individual sources, to explain why they're not good, etc. (I know I can put it in the Collaboration section.) And I found some indexed names that are wrong on the source's page that I am not allowed to edit and no obvious way to notify someone who could.
0 -
Once the items are in the Sources sections of the relevant individuals, all you can really do is:
(1) Add comments under "Reason this source is attached"
(2) Edit the title of the source to reflect the correct name of the individual who has been incorrectly indexed.
Regarding the latter, most of the indexed sources I add have no connecting images, so all I can do is something like I illustrate below, where (say) the Margaret Wilson in the original document has been indexed as Mary Wilson:
Mary (s/b MARGARET) Wilson in household of Joseph Wilson, "England and Wales Census, 1881"
I would then add a reason statement explaining there wasn't a MARY Wilson in the original record, where the name is recorded as MARGARET Wilson.
There are no FamilySearch support staff members who carry out such work, as there would need to be many thousands of them to correct the huge amount of indexing errors to be found in such (index only) FamilySearch records!
Hoping I have understood the points you have raised.
0 -
Many index-only records can be edited while at a FamilySearch Center or Affiliate Library.
2 -
Yea, I had just done an edit to the "Reason this source is attached" even though it was a reason it should not have been attached.:) You explained it fine, except left me wondering what s/b stands for.
0 -
Yes, sorry, probably just me that always uses the abbreviation as short for "should be"!
On a lighter note, maybe not just me, but see how you were baffled after I read this:
1 -
Thank you for advising that. One to bear in mind if / when I get to visit one again!
2 -
@Paul W Or you can always ask me to take a look when I'm at my FSC or AL. I'm always happy to edit accessible records when needed.
2 -
@CMichael7 said "…If I simply detach unsupported links, someone will come along and reattach…"
In addition to attempting to contact other users directly (if you can figure out who did what) like @Paul W said, I'd suggest adding Alert Notes to the profile explaining the changes you've made, why X source is unreliable or has been proven wrong, etc. There could be any number of people who come along and want to change it back, even if they're not the person who originally added it. Or people are reading the profiles, but not making changes.
Also put clear reasons in the "reasons for deleting" boxes. These show up on the "Changes to People You Follow" page. If other users are skimming their list, they might be on auto-pilot with the "Oh, no, someone changed that again and I'll just fix it back." A detailed reason will hopefully slow them down.
Add the profile to your 'Following' list and be prepared to keep re-fixing it for a while, until the info starts to spread and take hold.
Sometimes when people "unfix" something, I send them a chat message and, as nicely as I can, remind them that it's a good idea to always read the Notes before they make changes, because we're discovering new info about our ancestors all the time, etc. Then I give them a quick summary of the changes, like "XYZ sources has been detached from Ancestor Sue, because it's been proven wrong. We also don't have a source for a maiden name. More details are in the Notes on her page!" I don't include all the details so that it's tantalizing enough that they want to go read the Notes. Teach people to read the Notes.
For some profiles, people will be thrilled you made the changes. For others, it's a long slog. Be prepared so you don't get frustrated.
0 -
I'm already doing what I can along the lines you suggest. I can't provide a source for why something is unknown; they have to provide a valid source or at least a rationale for what they are adding. I'm using alert notes sparingly, like when I can give a reason why something important is wrong.
0
