How many think Daniel (no surname) GZN4-XLW is real?
This person was tacked on to one of my lines along with wife, children, parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc, 29 in all.
None of them have surnames. Places are just countries, in the main.
No sources. Just a claim to a "Private Journal" as the origin of the information.
After several requests to the submitter for sources (none given), and several exchanges with Familysearch Abuse reporting (not abuse - take it to the Community Forum, they said), here I am. The submitter finally allowed me to disconnect Daniel and all the rest from the well-researched people.
Is it appropriate to merge all of them into two black holes, one male, and one female? Objective is to prevent anyone from spending time doing temple work for what look like fictional characters. There are about 29 listings involved.
Anyone else dealt with this situation?
Appreciate any input.
Thank you for your query - a puzzling one. However, the data could very well be genuine.
Possibly you could ask the person who created them to put in a screenshot or some evidence of the journal that he mentions.
It would not be appropriate to dump it by merging. Just leave it in Family Tree and one day maybe someone will find out who they are. Since they are no longer attached to your tree, you will not see them again.
See this article in the Help Centre: How do I correct parent-child relationships in Family Tree?
I hope this helps.1
Hi Paula - well, thanks for your input, but you didn't seem to note that there were repeated requests to the submitter, and responses from them claiming their private journal was as good as any other source, but no sources were forthcoming.
The problem with leaving them out there is that people will do the temple work for what really looks to be a work of fiction. Even in the 1750's, there were surnames, at least for the men, and the information was recorded in Parish records, or land records, or probate records, with a variety of details, none of which are included for any of the 29 people. For any researcher, finding a collection of people like this one, if genuine, is a cause for celebration, a bragging point, a feather in one's cap, an accomplishment to be demonstrated and proven by including all the clues that lead to the break-through. This set of people does not pass the sniff test. I believe I have already determined who these people are, a figment of someone's imagination. The problem is what to do about it with Familysearch no longer actively cleaning up problems like this one.0
We agree that this is a troubling issue to see in Family Tree.
The contributor has, however, followed the guidelines for the information required to do temple ordinances. Admittedly, the bare minimum information for every individual in this lineage is unique and genealogically speaking not up to standard.
The guidelines indicate that a complete name is preferred. (See https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/what-information-is-required-to-do-temple-ordinances-for-my-ancestors)
It appears there are 21 individuals in the family of Blaise GZ23-Z5H and Lizzie GZ23-8CN, taken out 4 generations. And, the ordinances for each have been shared with the Temple System.
You have done what you can do -- you have tried communicating with the other contributor and you have disconnected the one individual improperly connected to your lineage.
When it comes down to it, each contributor is responsible for the data they input and it is incumbent upon them to provide documentation and sources in order to have a "best-sourced, public genealogical family tree." (See What is the purpose of FamilySearch and Family Tree? https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/what-is-the-purpose-of-familysearch-and-family-tree)
For Church members:
- The features in Family Tree are to help you find, reserve, prepare, and share temple ordinances.
- Family Tree compares records and sources to help you resolve and prevent the duplication of these ordinances.
We recognize that you understand these principles for working in Family Tree and that you are working hard to ensure accuracy and completeness. We're just hoping to give you some consolation and perspective in this effort.1
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I conclude there is no way for users to remove the trash from Familysearch, and no intent on the part of Familysearch to clean up data problems.
There needs to be.1
One other part of this problem - would Familysearch please check to see if the submitter of the fictional no-surname 29-member family has done the same thing in other parts of the tree?
Check out the original poster of Daniel (no surname) GZN4-XLW. They changed their surname, but previously it was the name of a known author of a 10-volume set of religious fiction.0
Where do you draw the line in deciding what is correct and what is wrong? Some cases are clear cut. Your case looks like one of those but even here we cannot be wholly sure without knowing all the facts. Other cases are much less clear. Some people find a person that broadly fits their criteria for the one they are looking for (name, age, place, etc) and assume it is correct. There may be several other candidates that fit the chosen criteria just as well, if not better. Which one is correct? They may all be wrong!
FamilySearch relies on its users to try to be as accurate as possible but errors are there and will continue to be there - placed by well meaning people and perhaps less well meaning people. To try to police it would not only be a nightmare to implement but would probably drive away many users thereby defeating its purpose.1
Thank you, Graham, for your response - you touch on a number of thoughts tangential to the question, which was, has the submitter of this fictional group created other fictional groups? Can Familysearch check at least that concern?0
In a personal journal it is possible that only first names were kept. Would it not be better to capture that information than to leave it out completely? It could be a lead for finding legitimate sources.0
I agree with Patricia's comment. As I said before, without knowing all the facts, one cannot assume it is fictional. It would be good if the person uploaded a scan of the journal but she may be unable or unwilling to do so.0
For what it is worth, I have started with far less (bare given names, and no dates) and still was able to match the family to historical records.
The contributor may be hoping others will do that here.0
Again, I move the previous question - can or will Familysearch examine the contributions of this submitter to see if they have created other clusters of fictional families? A pattern of this behavior would contribute to the conclusion that the contributor is a fiction writer and should be banned.0
Yes, if there are truly fictional entries there will be consequences. In this case I do not see strong evidence that this is necessarily fictional.0
The stronger evidence would be derived from an examination of the person's activities, as a whole.
If you have not looked at each of the entries in the cluster of 29 flimsy entries, considering the time period, the early 18th century, and the usual evidence used to establish families and relationships, you should do so.
This group meets none of the genealogical proof standards. The submitter will not share the supposed evidence, an action which is highly suspect. Genealogists doing legitimate research are more than happy to share discoveries, especially for a line like this one that has been the subject of skilled research for multiple decades. When a cluster of 29 people suddenly appears, tacked on a dead-end, there needs to be evidence.
Familysearch needs to have a mechanism for dealing with issues like this, and did through about June when it was possible to post cases which very often lead to resolution.0
@AllenHSmith, FamilySearch does not police individual contributors. If that pedigree is real then historical records will be found and attached. If not, the pedigree will remain unattached to the rest of the tree, as it is now. Time will tell.
There are many fake pages and pedigrees on Family Tree, some very obvious. In general the most useful response to them is to ignore them.0
I invite a representative of Familysearch to respond to this topic with an official position statement.0