Fictional people on FSFT
During the course of my extensive additions to FS I came across the fictional FORSYTE family from John Galsworthy’s ‘A Forsyte Saga’. I am sending here a list of the main characters and their PIDs, but I have not done a comprehensive survey of this large tree.
Jolyon FORSYTE 1741-1812 farmer of Hays Dencombe, Dorset MSSK-BS5
Wife Julia HAYTOR m 1786 MSSK-B36
Child: Jolyon FORSYTE 1770-1850
Wife Ann PIERCE
Children: Ann FORSYTE 1799-1886 M9D4-CKW and 9MN8-Z36
Jolyon FORSYTE 1806-1892 MM75-PLZ
James FORSYTE 1811-1901 9MJ5-WHS M4TV-9HS KHRZ-R8G
Swithin FORSYTE 1811-1891 M4TV-9HR 9MJ5-W4P M2QL-H5Q
Roger FORSYTE 1813-1899 9MJ5-WH6 M4TV-9CD K4RK-2NR
Julia FORSYTE 1814-1903 (1905 in FS) KZV4-38B
Hester FORSYTE 1815-1907
Nicholas FORSYTE 1817-1908 MSCL-5FS
Timothy FORSYTE 1819-1920 9M5J-WHB MM75-PGY
Susan FORSYTE 1821-1895 M4TV-9D4 K852-MVR
I note that all were added by FamilySearch, and that a patron has merged Nicholas. Most have duplicates or triplicates, there are several spelling errors and FORSYTE is used interchangeably with FORSYTH. They are not joined into a proper tree, although a couple have wives. And there are NO SOURCES! There is no such place as Hays Dencombe (sometimes Doncombe in FS) in Britain. Temple ordinances have even been done eg. for Nicholas, Swithin, Jolyon (b1806).
I am wondering how this situation has arisen. Is it perhaps used as a training exercise?
One wonders how many other fictional families have been added ?
I don’t want to ask about this in a widely-viewed forum, as it could be used to heap ridicule or insults onto FS.
I would appreciate help in understanding how this has occurred, and any remedial acton that is necessary.
Sincerely,
Penelope Christensen
Best Answers
-
Any profile with a 2012 date was migrated from an earlier version. Those earlier versions had no capacity to include sources, and it was not possible to migrate the name of the original contributor. IOW, those profiles were not added by FamilySearch, the organization, but by a contributor to an earlier version of the collaborative tree.
3 -
As stated in "How do I delete a person from Family Tree?", please report persons who are not real to FamilySearch Support at https://www.familysearch.org/en/fieldops/familysearch-support-contact-us.
2 -
1
-
Thank you, I'll try it.
0 -
I am so sorry, @Dr Penny Christensen. I will send this into the specialty team that looks at these.
For others: The best way to deal with this is to report it here or to Support so that the persons can be deleted from the system.
2
Answers
-
Fictional people still shows up in the tree. I had to delink one repeatedly (no such English princess!). The only way to "kill" that fictional person is to erase all data, even name and changing sex to unknown. This will stop those who think so.
Plus sending FamilySearch message to those persons reminding them of the fictional names not allowed and debunked.
1 -
I once had a person tell me that he was decended from King Arthur, which he had found in FamilySearch.
I have also seen Thor, Odin, Freya and other figures from Norse Mythology before, though they used different spellings that I assume are more acurate to how the Norse would spell it.
Connections to real historical figures that lived too long ago to actually find a connection to are fairly common as well.
I have no idea why people put them in there, it seems kind of absurd. Maybe pre-2012 FamilySearch allowed for multiple trees, and some people thought it would be fun to make trees of those fictional people? Perhaps someone thought it would be a funny prank to put someone into the tree at the end of their line and brag about the connection to others?
Regardless, I think that @W D Samuelsen contact me please's response is probably the best method of getting rid of obviously fake people.
0 -
Since these profiles have no contributor name, there is no option to "send a message to those persons."
1 -
Thanks for all the helpful replies. I did initially report to FH Support but was told to put it on the Forum! I have now tried to send to https://www.familysearch.org/en/fieldops/familysearch-support-contact-us but this address is 'Not recognized'. Help!
0 -
That's where I started out, so I have come full circle. They just referred me to the Forum.
0 -
Thank you so much , Maile L
0 -
I've just removed Judy Garland from her "Parents" She was listed as a sister to Frances Ethel Gumm. The thing is that they are the same "person" One real and one fictitious.
0 -
Err - Judy Garland was not a fictitious person. It was the stage name of Frances Ethel Gumm - that's not the same thing at all. Certainly, the parents shouldn't have had profiles for two daughters named Judy Garland and Frances Ethel Gumm. So far as I understand it, the correct way out of that should have been to merge those two profiles together - I wouldn't be at all surprised if all the data on the JG profile was already on the FEG profile but that's OK, it can just be ignored.
As it is, if I understand you correctly, there is now a spare profile floating around for a Judy Garland, which may confuse.
4 -
In the past, I have taken action along the lines @W D Samuelsen contact me please suggests. I know some might consider this to constitute vandalism - it certainly would if real people were involved - but FamilySearch has been very slow to act of certain instances of this behaviour. In these cases, I don't think it is wrong to take matters into our own hands - by disconnecting these branches of fictional families, or even altering the profiles, in a way similar to the suggestion of "W D".
0 -
@Tennuchi Alan Cyril Edward Your actions have now caused the profile for Judy Garland (https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GLGF-YSF) to be disconnected from any family members. Although you had good intentions, the result is an orphaned record that serves no useful purpose and yet continues to be in the Family Tree.
As @Adrian Bruce1 explained, Judy Garland was a very real person who happened to have a stage name. It's unfortunate that someone created a duplicate profile for her, but duplicate profiles are created all the time for a variety of reasons. In all cases where two profiles describe the same individual who lived on the earth, the correct remedy is to merge them (in this case, to merge GLGF-YSF into LVJH-S16).
5 -
I have been dealing with a similar situation where a user has been disrupting multiple well known, well researched profiles with fictitious genealogy in order to create fictional royal family lines.
He will create fictional children and spouses of royalty and eventually link them with a real person in his family tree. Every time myself or others remove the fictional characters (who have no factual evidence of their existence) then he will re-add/re-create the fictional characters. Multiple sources and alerts on the profiles have not deterred him from creating new fictional profiles or adding incorrect children to valid, royal profiles. I have reported him many times and he always comes back with a new user name. He honestly believes he is the true ruler of Great Britain as well as a descendant of many royal families and Jesus as well.
2 -
"I have reported him many times and he always comes back with a new user name."
Have you used "report abuse" link?
Have you contact other cousins to let them know about this person. A collective action is much more effective. This is how I was in constant contact with other cousins who were having a major problem with one certain person in New York disrupting the proven certain PIDs.
1 -
Judy Garland profile had been merged into Frances Ethel Gumm.
I did that because her husband Truman Herron was my cousin.
I added alert note to Frances' profile to show that Judy Garland was her stage/movie name.
1 -
@W D Samuelsen contact me please Yes I have used the “Report Abuse” link many times. It will seem like he is blocked by FS but will come back with the same user name just slightly different. For example Bob1, Bob2, Bob3 etc.
And yes I have been contacted by other patrons about this user-that is how I became aware of his YouTube videos and social media where he goes on about being the true king of England etc.
0