Thorgils Sprakalägg - Disconnected parents

No Justin, this is mainly about a case where the supposed father had 273 managers and the one who cut off this line didn't bother to even start a discussion before acting. Without some good guidelines, you have a site in disorder, free falling where any random fumble head rules like a dictator, big different.

Ulf, that would be a huge issue if there were good sources for the line. But there's not. It was never anything more than a theory. All modern scholars have rejected it. Genealogy isn't about playing fantasy and make believe. It's about documenting history.

It's also about rediscovering history and it that way we might play a part.

But you can engage with history and historical research just as much by trying to understand the many different arguments, and why someone might not be your ancestor, as by just arguing that they probably are.

For example, for many years I've played with asking myself a hypothetical question -- why did "that guy" (Langebek) decide to go with Styrbörn as his theory. Assuming he is right that Thorgils' father was probably a man named Björn, why not to try make a case for Asbjörn Tokason?

The dating seems to work better. Asbjörn Tokason and his father Val-Toke Gormsson were both killed at the battle of of Fyrisvellir, just like Styrbjörn. That would make Thorgils a grandson of King Gorm and a nephew of Harald Bluetooth. Plus, if you accept the hotly disputed idea that Pallig Tokason was another son of Val-Toke, you'd get an easy connection to the Anglo-Saxons that would help make sense of Thorgils' daughter Gytha marrying Earl Godwin.

There's no answer, of course, This theory can't be proved any more than any of the others, but it's interesting to explore and question.

Didn't I post this private to you once?
Toke Gormsen, who were a drottin, equal to earl, before this terms came into use in Scandinavia, but by doing this move, I also open up for that his brother Asbjörn, really were his brother, not only a comrade in arms, according to another rune stone, this Asbjörn was elected to be the new drotin, after Toke's death, and odd enough, this Asbjörn also had a son named Odinkar, but, that's not the end of this Odinkar kids, according to the sources, Odinkar the Bishop had an uncle that were named Odinkar too, leaving us with the fact that this also were Gorms son and a brother to Toke.

I was blocked once because I corrected the lines to Odinkar the bishop, people rather prefer dysfunctional lies instead of just following the leads to the only truth, and set up the family right once and for all. Danish historian want to actually have more or less unknown parents to Gorm, as this makes hims a genuine 100% dane, born in Denmark by danish (unknown) parents. But He was just half dane and really, under this time in the history they were all "dannemen"...

Modern nationalistic agendas has hindered people from doing a correct work, because what ever they find, the so called legit "experts" will deny it immediately.

Another lie: Harald BLUE TOOTH, = Harald the black thane, who after his fathers dead become king. We live in a world full of history forgery.

Just a reminder Justin, according to me and some runestones in Denmark.

Asbjörn Gormsen, became the new Earl after his brothers death, his wife Sasgerd Finulfsdatter and their son Odinkar Asbjörnsson occupation, hirdman.

Ulf, I remember the argument but not the details.

I was disappointed when the curator made the decision to cut the parents of Pallig Tokesen, Ealdorman of Devonshire without a public discussion. Particularly since I had just turned over the MP to her. However, I did a quick check of sources and didn't find enough information to make a clear decision either way. I'm persuaded by the rune stones but I can see why she isn't. A perfect case where a discussion would have been desirable.

I think your Odinkar problem was part of the same package of problems. It's not an area where I have any experience so I've stayed out of it.

Well, since I already knew we would end up here, I took the liberty earlier today and added a new profile image to the bishop.
Odinkar "den store" Tokesen, Biskop

@ulf the number of managers of Styrbjørn is irrelevant. Styrbjørn's existence is well documented (as far as anything is documented in this day and age); it's only his being Thorgils' father that's being discussed.
There's no way to tell how many of the 273 managers have an opinion about Thorgils, far less how many of them have tried to figure out the evidence.

What's relevant is if major drastic changes are to be done, and if so, there ought to be a discussion before doing it, if it's only about correcting minor mistakes in a profile, then it's not as important to start a discussion as long as the finished result is in accordance with the sources.

In this case, I do not call it a correction, I see someone who got really tired of sorting out peoples messy doings, so that he just decided to cut off the son completely, (what actually went around in his head, (if anything at all), I really don't know, but my reading of this mutilation make sense).

Anyway, I wasn't one of the managers, so it took me some weeks until I noticed this very cut, and yes, nobody else reacted what I know, so maybe, they didn't care at all, but that is another story.

It might be that simple, but I don't think so.

With people adding duplicates, and doing merges, and cutting, and correcting the tree is never very stable.

It's never fun to find a line you thought was solid has been changed. But I could tell you horror stories. I used to spend a lot of time in one particular area of tree. If I didn't do a cleanup pass every day it would be destroyed within a month.

It will be better when we get relationship locking.

Making a profile private can prevent such unskilled modification and demolition today. Is relationship locking planned and if yes for when ?

Not a good strategy. It's an abuse of the Geni system. Profile privacy is intended to protect the privacy of living users. Geni has said it would require a very strong and unusual case to have a private profile older than about 100 to 150 years ago.

Relationship locking has been on the table for many years now. I don't know how soon we'll get it. It's probably not far off, I think.

My practice at Geni is to always click on "Send message" to inform the administrators of the profile about something new or incorrect. I never make a decision to edit a profile that is not managed by me.

In the case of profiles of historical or very old people, if I do not have supporting documentation, I think that the task of editing these profiles should be attributed to those who have the support for it. Historians, scientists (such as Christian Settipani, exemplifying Charlemagne) or responsible people who can present arguments that can be accepted by all people.

I know Justin Swanstrom is a historian, genealogist an writer. And I respect that! Just like the other curator's expertises here at Geni. I accompany some heated discourse them with other users. When I'll have some divergence from them, I hope to conduct the dialogue wisely!

But if the users are from the regions where people from the profiles lived, I think we should give them the attention they deserve. Out of respect for even the reason they are still there, as proof of their roots.

If they change my lineage in ancient times (as has already happened, as reported by Eliane Prates-Svennesen) I regret it and unfortunately I can only report it to the curators. I have the humility to accept my limitations in researches and recognize that the vast majority of my tree was inherited through the addition by other people. I do not added all my ancestors!

Wise words, but there is another thing to thing about.

Profiles in the very distant past (like Thorgils Sprakalägg) are ancestors of millions of people alive today. That far back, most people do not have the historical knowledge to evaluate the primary sources.

So, it is better if we rely on the majority opinion of scholars working in the field rather than choose an amateur version.

Of course, anyone who has primary evidence -- real sources from the person's lifetime and shortly after -- is still welcome to bring out that evidence for discussion and debate.

That's what I meant. Sometimes I'm very wordy (prolix).