Jacques de Savoye, SV/PROG - Record of Alternative Data After Merges

Curator note and about me says:
1636

This is the Master Profile for Jacques de Savoye, SV/PROG.
Curator Note from June Barnes (5/19/2011):

Stamvader/Proginator. Born 1636 in Holland, died 1717 in South Africa.
Married1] Christine du Pont and 2] Marie Madeleine de Klerk (le Clercq)

http://www.stamouers.com/desavoye.htm

Jacques de SAVOYE (Savoije) gebore 1636, Aeth, Hainaut (Vlaandere). '''Hy trou 4 Julie 1657 met Christine du PONT, sy was van Ath. Hy trou die tweede maal in 1686 met Marie Madeleine de KLERK (le CLERCQ)''' sy was van Doornik. Jacques sterwe Oktober 1717. Hy word ook beskryf as 'n oortuigde Calvinis, wat baie vir sy geloof gely het. Blykbaar het sy ywer vir die Protestantse geloof tot gevolg gehad dat hy deur die Jesuïete vervolg is, en daar is selfs sprake van 'n moordkomplot teen hom. Trek van Gent na Sas van Gent in 1686.

He couldn't have been born 1610. That would make him 78 years old when he came to the Cape in 1688. Not likely.

I don't think much reliance should be placed on these alternative data entries where they are clearly a thumb suck.

One might perhaps discuss conflicting data in documents, but not this kind of conflict.

The point is simply to keep a record of data eliminated when resolving Data Conflicts - as a courtesy, in case people want to object or add.

If the record produces discussion, that is simply a bonus that shouldn't be discouraged, I think.

Ek stem saam met die inhoud van jul bronne,dit klop met myne. Indien die datum nie struik nie,dan is dit bloot 'n fout wat ek gemaak het.Jammer vir die ongerief,mens probeer regtig om akkuraat te werk,maar is ons nie maar almal
feilbaar nie...Die twee is getroud in Sas van Gent,Zeeland Nederland en Marie is gebore in Tourney,Belgie,indien dit vir iemand van belang is.

Dankie Linda Magdalena Engelbrecht :-)

Sharon, it is just annoying when you post this for master profiles, - you should trust that the curator have made the correct choices already.

Private User, if it annoys you, you should definitely ignore them then.

I am making 2 presumptions here:

1) Data on unlocked MPs will not always be resolved to comply with the original.
So, over time, without this kind of record and engagement - they can / will come to represent as 'gospel' data that the original MP never actually had.
That leaves Geni open to representing as 'set in stone', data that is actually degrading over time. This is a very bad use of MPs, and will give Geni a bad name.

2) Curators don't always know everything,
and other managers on the profile might actually want to engage with data choices being made on the MP by them and others.

Isn't better to leave resolving these data conflicts of you don't know what the correct values is?

This works to exclude anyone who doesn't see him/herself as an indisputable expert on that profile’s data. Geni is built on the premise of accumulating mass knowledge and skewing it towards validity through popular engagement over time, not on the notion that only the experts can touch anything.

So I am presuming that there will be many cases where the agreed upon 'correct value' is best established/ maintained by giving the managers whose data have been elided the chance to discuss it.

Evidence suggests that the Data Conflicts on profiles tend to accumulate unmanageably because too many people are wary of making irretrievable choices about 'correct values'.

This reticence results in wholescale 'dumping' of data, when the stacked profile data is too numerous to easily sift through. - Which weakens Geni's content validity in the long run.
Logging the elided data in a Discussion is an attempt to resolve this problem.

In examples like this where you both have a curator note, source links and the fact that it is a MP should be enough to just resolve the dataconflict quietly and not start a discussion about it.

I think SHaron is doing the right thing - people should be resolving conflicts not leaving them to hang there as it only causes confusion
The problem with MP's is that they are only as good as the information they are based on.
History is not a static thing - new things get discovered every day - otherwise it should not be science and it should not be thought at University.

Maybe the best way to make queries about a profile is to message the managers - as these are now all included in "contact the manager" message? That way only managers and not the whole of Geni are privy to it? I am not sure how this works with those who are not managers of a profile but who follow it.

Private User is right though - some queries are easily resolved and it would perhaps be better to contact the manager of the profile being merged into the MP telling them what you have done and suggesting that if they have alternative, sourced information they should contact the managers?

I said - "as these are now all included in "contact the manager" message" - but I think it applies only to the first X? number?

I think I've made the point rather ad nauseum now:

This is not a query, at all -but a record of elided data,
- against the possibility that the other / future managers - may want to re-engage with it. (June, a private message means there is no record for any future managers of the profile - of which we hope there will be many.)

So, I have already resolved the Data Conflict,
and am simply making sure that all the managers involved in that merge, know what data of theirs I removed.
I am doing this as a courtesy, and not deliberately to irritate my friend Bjorn :-).
And it does not require a comment, unless you disagree with the way it was resolved, or as Justin, Sheldon, Harald, Lea and others do, you want to add useful info about the data presented – that others can benefit from.

Exactly as Jadra points out - history is not static. The record of our negotiations about how the data will be represented is what makes written History.

Private

Sorry - I don't know where the word 'Private' at the end came from. Mentally delete it please :-)

As this conversation is rather off topic of Jacques, I have started a specific one here: http://www.geni.com/discussions/115121?msg=832542, in case anybody feels there is more to be said.

Birth Date c. 1636 OR 1/29/1636

Death Date 10/8/1717 OR c. October 1717

Sharon I am very glad to have discovered this Discussion on Jacques de Savoye ..As far as I have been able to discover, he was indeed born in 1636 in Ath..The de Savoye family were a very prominent family in Ath, & a cousin line which remained there, were later created Barons by the King of Belgium..But to return to Jacques, one "myth" which I would like to set aside, & which is repeated on many SA sites, is that of his fervent Protestantism, & how he was being pursued by the Jesuits who were out to murder him...If that was the case, why did he marry my ancestor, Christine Madeleine du Pont, on 4th July 1657, in the CATHOLIC church in Ath!....From what I can gather, he was a wealthy merchant who traded goods to South Africa...At some point, he made some bad business deals, & was "stuck" in South Africa..I think he did mean to return to Flanders later, but poor health kept him in SA..I believe he himself concocted the stories about being in fear of his life...Maybe it was helpful to him when dealing with others of a more fervent Protestant persuasion...Who knows...But myths do grow around individuals, as I know some of us, are only too aware of.......I don't know if what I have written here, has any relevance to the discussion, but if not, maybe Sharon could start another one regarding the de Savoye family, as she has done with the du Plessis.....At least there is a lot more information, with the de Savoye family!!

Private User - those are interesting musings. What about setting up a de Savoye family page? If you'd like me to for you, I can do that.

Yes, please do that Sharon!