Person talk:John Walker (193)

Changes [6 March 2009]

I'm working to add background and source information about Meadow Creek John Walker. One of the objectives is to present results of YDNA testing that shows him to be unrelated to the Wigton Walker lineage with whom he is often associated.

The format and structure in which the article is being cast is similar to that for articles in the Southwest Virginia Project. However, as an experiment, I've added a Wikitable summarizing the family data as part of the TOC and Source Box. This is intended to give a brief summary of family data, without the details given in the main "Personal Data" section. Q 19:51, 5 March 2009 (EST)

This is beautiful, Bill; I just nominated it for a featured Person page. Nice work. -- jillaine 09:50, 6 March 2009 (EST)

I'd move discrepancy up [6 March 2009]

Bill, I recommend that you put the following at the top of the page, perhaps in a little box or something. It's buried too far down; I fear it will be ignored down there:

WARNING! For many years, some researchers believed that this John Walker was John WalkerIV, of the Wigdon, Scotland, Walker line, but this has been apparently disproven by y-dna research. Please read the information provided below before you make any revisions/changes to this family!
BTW, there is nothing on that link that provides more information.

--jillaine 12:03, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Thanks Jillaine, input and thoughts are always welcome. One of the interesting problems in genealogy are "Confusions"---where some idea has become entrenched in the literature, passed around and repeated so much that it's commonly accepted as fact, even though there is no supporting evidence, or in this case evidence that suggests otherwise. Some Confusions are "grander" than others. This one at least has going for it the fact that there was a good reason for thinking MCJW was John IV. The coincidence of Charles Kilgore settling right next to MCJW at about the same time sure makes it look like MCJW was from the same area as Charles---when you already know that Charles has close connections to the line of John IV. But DNA results say otherwise, and there you go.

But there are other confusions associated with this family, and some are very far reaching---mostly because they were established in commonly relied on books. I can count at least three other significant confusions in this family. I sort of like Jim's idea of flagging this with a warning; I wouldn't have thought of that, myself, but those who come to this page may be taken back a bit if they don't read the text. Jim initially placed this fairly high up in the article, and as I played with it, it got pushed down. I think you're right, his original placement is better, but its a bit distracting too. I'm wondering if somekind of icon with a link to an explanatory text might work well for something like this. Q 12:30, 6 March 2009 (EST)

I'll be curious to see what you come up with about proper placement of the discrepancy tag/flag. I did some research the last couple of years that i believe disproves commonly held beliefs about one Richard Taylor of Yarmouth (actually, two of them). If I'm right, I've broken a major arterial branch of many people's trees (although I liked your reframing of a "new set of roots" that you gave someone about John Walker IV). -- jillaine 13:23, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Took a shot at it. This may be a bit too cute. Q 14:47, 6 March 2009 (EST)


I like the red flag, but perhaps you don't need both red flag and the "loud" WARNING! Keep the flag and then write "See origins discrepancy"


Jillaine--jillaine 17:06, 6 March 2009 (EST)