|
|
Parents? [6 February 2014]
I have no "skin" in this particular dispute. However I think this is a very good place to use the Speculative Parents template. From a casual reading it appears to me there are two sets of candidate parents with equally good/shaky arguments in favor of either. Why not remove the links to both sets of parents and add two Speculative Parents links?--Jhamstra 02:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. I am not accustomed to using that template and when I get knee-deep in analysis of sources I don't want to get side-tracked by looking it up (call it laziness). I know I should get used to that template, but I haven't yet.--DataAnalyst 03:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why not? Because it's ugly and unproductive. Better to have both set of parents linked so she shows up in both families and attract the attention of researchers working on two families. Then you only have to remove one set of parents from one person page to fix things when you do find out, not remove 4 template from 3 pages (1 person and 2 family pages), assuming you are aware they are all there to be cleaned up. --Jrich 04:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- So why am I surprised that we disagree 8-)? In this case there is nothing more than speculation about either set of parents. To me it is as likely that when and if her true parents are discovered it may be none of the above. Personally I find the duplicate parents to be even more ugly. If you do not like the templates do you have any suggestions regarding how to make them better?--Jhamstra 04:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Other people like to show the minimum we know: i.e., "unknown", but I think genealogy is a work in progress and in collaborative genealogy, until things are known, we should be documenting all reasonable theories in a way that allows others with access to different resources to help share data that may shed light on that speculation. It would be nice if this can be done in a way that is easily removed when the answer becomes known. So my answer is that the system already has the capability of multiple parents which allows both possibilities to be fully simulated, and yet removed easily, and the templates are a kludge to work around an artificial restriction that was put into place in order to find duplicates, but which does not reflect how genealogy progresses (by speculation directing research until new evidence is uncovered). --Jrich 05:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Besides the lack of system support (i.e, that might make sure the removal of a speculative parents would be accompanied by removal of speculative child tag, or to have a speculative child treated like a real child so the side effects of that speculation can be visualized easier), another, part of the problem with the tags is that such assertions still need sources or explanations. It is inappropriate to merely label the parents speculative and not put an explanation justifying that label. So, the tags do not remove that need to put a note on the Family page saying it is possible so-and-so is their child for these reasons, and put a note on the child page to say that it is possible the person's parents are so-and-so. If you do things right, therefore, it merely adds an additional data entry task.
- As above, speculative theories (if documented) are a stage in normal genealogical research that simply represent varying degrees of possibility, and are to be expected in some percentage of the cases. All in all, I see nothing practical added by these tags, and in this particular case, I think Dallan's red Duplicate Parents is a more appropriate way to flag the (idyllic) desire that there be only one set of parents. The choice of color and the very eye-catching swath of color of the tags suggests to me that this tag is meant to signal a bad thing: as if it is only some lack of attention that may have caused this problem and it should be fixed right away, and not that what is on the page may represent the current state of knowledge.
- If we are going to flag anything with attention catching tags, it should be lack of sources, because whether the answer is known, or the answer is a hypotheses, the sources and explanation justifying what is on the page are needed to allow other people to interact with it. There was a case of one lady's being presumed to have royal blood lines because she kept a portrait of an English nobleman prominently displayed. But even that is alright if you know the basis for the speculation. As soon as real evidence was found, this weak speculation vanished like dust in the wind. It is speculation without sources that creates the problems. --Jrich 15:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
On 20 Jul 2022, user Jrich chose to defer resolution of issues on this page, including the issue "Multiple sets of parents". Other users should feel free to resolve the issues if they have the appropriate expertise and access to sources. Please do not remove this template unless you are Jrich, or if all issues on the page are resolved. Comments left by Jrich: see discussion of possible parents on page
|
|
