wrong earl of huntingdon
GNP4-W68 mixes at least two different men. The 5th Earl of Huntingdon (b. 24 Apr 1586, d. 14 Nov 1643) was son of Francis Hastings and Sarah Harington and married only Elizabeth Stanley 15 Jan 1601. Walter Hastings/Joyce Roper and Dorothy Huddleston/Eleanor Knyvett belong to other people. The profile needs to be locked down and redone with correct info. This is an English earl and we are having to many bad merges.
Answers
-
After reviewing the two records associated with this named individual - GNP4-W68 and GWTT-RWV and the many changes, I have submitted this post to be reviewed. I hope the note you added today will help others.
0 -
@DannyLRaymer - re your statement "I have submitted this post to be reviewed".
This sounds perfectly helpful, but... What does it mean, given that we are continually told that it's only the FS users who check and update profiles?
5 -
Was about to say the same as @Adrian Bruce1.
Also, our understanding is that Data Quality issues, however egregious, are not considered Abuse.
5 -
Both of you are partially correct. Yes, FamilySearch allows users to add and modify records based on accurate source records. When there are conflicts of information by multiple contributors, the goal is for all contributors to leave information in Notes to help explain those record adjustments. The vast majority of users are happy to collaborate and help all interested in a specific record by sharing source documents to substantiate record details and changes. The few users that may elect the course of not following the published Code of Conduct can have actions taken to limit their access. We hope the issue above can follow the more charitable communication with each other to come to decisions based on the best available sources.
0 -
@DannyLRaymer I assume you mean the wider content of this page https://www.familysearch.org/en/legal/terms not just its Code of Conduct section? I don't think the summary you have provided above is entirely backed up by the Terms of Use; certainly no-one is obliged by these Terms to base their contributions on accurate source records (as the current state of the Tree bears out, even taking into account only those contributions added after 2012).
5 -
@DannyLRaymer - I don't disagree with what you said in your last reply, and for the record, I would also hope that
the issue above can follow the more charitable communication with each other to come to decisions based on the best available sources.
However, I'm still wholly unclear about the meaning of
I have submitted this post to be reviewed
If there is some sort of FS review mechanism, I for one would be both interested and relieved.
5 -
@DannyLRaymer
From the dates on your comments, I see that you are a new participant in the FamilySearch Community.Welcome!
Perhaps there are new features that we long-term users of the site and the community don't know about? Can you enlighten us?
Thanks.0
