Person talk:Robert Bartlett (1)

Savage Shows two different Roberts that have been merged into one. The first married Mary Warren not Anna.

The Second Married Anne, I have as Warringer, not Warren

ROBERT, Plymouth, came in the Ann, Ju]y 1623, m. 1628, Mary, d. of Richard Warren, had Benjamin; Joseph, b. 1638; beside six ds.; Rebecca, m. 20 Dec. 1649 William Harlow; Mary, m. 10 Sept. 1651, Richard Foster, and next, 8 July 1659, Jonathan Morey; Sarah, m. 23 Dec. 1656, Samuel Rider of Yarmouth; Elizabeth m. 20 Dec. 1661, Anthony Sprague, of Hingham; Lydia, b. 8 June 1647, m. James Barnaby, and next John Nelson, of Middleborough; and Mercy, b. 10 Mar. 1651, m. 25 Dec. 1668, John Ivey of Boston. He was of the first purch. of Dartmouth, and d. 1676, aged 73; and his wid. m. 24 Oct. 1692, or 1699, Thomas Delano. Unhap. both yrs. are giv. in Winsor's Hist.

ROBERT, Hartford, an orig. propr. had been of Cambridge 1632, if, as is prob. he came in the Lion, arr. 16 Sept. of that yr. had Samuel; Nathaniel, wh.d. unm.; Abigail; and Deborah, bapt. 8 Mar. 1646; rem. to Northampton, a 1655, there was k. by the Ind. 14 Mar. 1676. His wid. Ann d. the same yr. Abigail, m. 17 Dec. 1657, John Stebbins of N. as his sec. w. and Deborah m. John Cowles jr. of Hatfield. --Scot 15:33, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Feel free to rip 'em apart, but we want to create a disputed lineages section on each person page noting the issue. Not because I doubt your analysis, but because someone else probably had an incorrect combination of information that led me to conclude I was looking at duplicate people.-Jrm03063

I think I figured out how to separate them and did it. Since Dallan added the view talk page tag, does that not serve? I hate to see theperson page cluttered with discussion.--Scot 20:02, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

I would defer to your judgement, but I think they were merged in the mind of someone who contributed a GEDCOM, before they were actually merged by me. I wouldn't repeat the whole discussion on each person page, but is it not wise to make it very explicit that this was a mistake that at least some researchers have made? I imagine a sentence or two and a suggestion to see the talk page - but again, you're doing the editing, your sense of it will be best. --Jrm03063

How about this - a one sentence disputed lineages section that takes the form "Robert Bartlett (X) is sometimes confused with Robert Bartlett (Y)"? --Jrm03063

Yes, or could be a note with the added: "see talk page--Scot 00:46, 24 July 2008 (EDT)