Fantasy Tree is haunting the real research in the Charles Fallin's Tree
About ten years ago I posted in the Community about my problem with a Fiction author who was using an incredibly well research tree to support his Fantasy Novels. Charles Fallin PID M8R8-713 and his wife Jane PID L7ZL-TY5 are the first families of Northumberland County Virginia. His family and the Northumberland Historical community have beaten the bushes for every hint of additional records, because the birth of their son was one of the first church records in this Virginia County.. DNA shows Charles was Irish. We even know the county in Ireland. However, every few months I have to remove members of the "Clement Falling Leaf Wolf Clan Aldredge GHL9-SWR" into the family of Charles Fallin Leaf and his descendants. If any original sources are cited, they are from South Dakota, 200 years after Charles Family is living in Virginia.
This group of individuals (are there really that many contributors or are they using false names?), keep adding Chief Falling Tree into the family. They ignore the documents and explanations and post memories that say such things as "this marriage is recorded at the Library of Congress." or "Abundant sources support the surname for Jane as Eyes," although repeated statements to the contrary are in the Family Tree.
In the notes is the following:
Any connection to Indians is FAKE. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Shawnee_Heritage_Fraud. I have been removing this lie for at least 5 years. Don Greene wrote a fantasy fiction and then tried to use the Fallin documents to say it was real. He started with a pedigree in MyHeritage and then used that for "documentation." Every few month this Fake shows up trying to use the carefully documented Fallin Family. Oh, and now there are a bunch of these fakes on Ancestry.com. For a full expose see FAKE INDIANS: http://ancestorstealing.blogspot.com/2017/03/shawnee-heritage-by-don-greene-aka.html.
I updated that posted that 5 years ago. Yet, Charles Falling Leaf appeared in the tree again this week. Please FamilySearch, address this joke. Make the tree something that reputable genealogist can trust.
"
Best Answer
-
@M G Thomsen this issue has been reported.
2
Answers
-
I definitely think this would be worth trying Report Abuse against - the bar for it is very high, but I recall reading that one of the few occasions on which it had actually worked related to people from fiction being added to the Tree. If you've already tried Report Abuse against this problem, it would be good for future reference to know what your experience was. Thanks.
0 -
Thank you. I reported this problem to familysearch before. They commented. Someone suggested they can create their own tree separately, which is what happened. But then they kept connecting the fabled tree to the real documented tree. I didn't see any action. They don't respond to my comments. I hope to spend less time in protecting a well documented family.
0 -
Here are the responses I have received:
Thank you for contacting FamilySearch Support regarding this issue. We can tell that you are very thorough in your research and appreciate the sources and documented information you have added to Family Tree.
While reviewing these records, it appears that that these other patrons are changing data to what they sincerely believe is true. It does not appear malicious and is not considered against the Terms of Use.
Family Tree was intentionally created as an open-edit system, which is very different than other genealogy websites. Because of this, others can edit families even if you have sources to support the information you have added to Family Tree. Editing families in Family Tree is not against Terms of Use, whether they have a source to support those changes or not.
We encourage you to continue communicating your point of view kindly and work with other contributors to correct any data you see fit.
The purpose of Family Tree is to collaborate kindly and, hopefully, find a way to come together using all sources. However, there are times this is challenging because different users believe different sources. We at FamilySearch will not evaluate sources and make decisions as to what source is a valid and correct.
We wish you the best in your genealogical endeavors.
While adding a source on a record in Family Tree provides many benefits, a source for each vital event is not required. In the FamilySearch Terms of Use it states, “
You agree to input data accurately to the best of your knowledge
”. It does not state the data must be supported by a source. This situation does not qualify as abuse. We encourage you to continue communicating your point of view kindly and work with other contributors to correct any data you see fit.
My response is that in 1650 Virginia native Americans didn't use names like Chief Fallin Tree and his wife Bear Claws.
The Family Tree is not a fable or imaginary tree. It is based on evidence and sources. To change evidence based information to a fantasy novel is harassment. It is like graffiti in a public place. You have not spent the time to look at the imaginary family created by these individuals or you would understand it is not friendly or a belief based on any form of research.
My problem is that more and more researchers grow weary of contributing to Family Tree because evidence based trees are a the mercy of jokesters who prank the tree. This is a perfect example. Compasion should also be tempered with responsibility. If there are no documents supporting these fable names and fake families, why should Family Tree have any value? Why are does FamilySearch putting effort into adding new sources and evidence?
Take a look again at the fake individuals without any sources and you will see, this is not something to be fobbed off with a form letter and response.1 -
@M G Thomsen thank you for the detailed update. This doesn't really surprise me, unfortunately - I don't get the impression, from the many threads I've seen here discussing the Abuse process, that the data quality of the Tree is something they care about much at all. I can only suggest you keep up the pressure on the Abuse team on the subject.
0 -
@ShelleWells any news? The OP seems to have been given pretty short shrift by the Abuse team, see above.
1 -
@MandyShaw1 Thank you for bringing this up. The issue has already been reported to the appropriate team, and they are currently reviewing it. MG Thomsen will receive a direct response from that team, so the resolution will happen privately rather than here in the community.
2
