What is an acceptable level of evidence to support a link within Geni?

There are numerous documents and discussions connected to that Ragnar profile.
One of the biggest factors when looking at this sort of profile is that if the profile was deleted due to a lack of evidence then someone would make a new profile within a week and the process would begin again.

The Ragnar you link is a composite character based on the two main sagas that tell of Ragnar's life. There is another Ragnar profile based on Saxo's version of the story and a third version but i cannot recall what that one is based on.

I try to do a clean up every few months to merge any new Ragnar profiles into the existing 3 MPs but haven't this year yet.

The question that always comes up is where to cut, what is fact, where does myth begin?

Sorry if this is not a detailed enough answer but most Geni users only have a very vague understanding of Ragnar, if the profile was not locked it quickly deteriorates.

If you want a better insight i suggest reading the existing (very long) discussion thread, there are many nuggets of information within it.

PS as full disclosure i am the author of the text in Ragnar's profile's About section. Unless it has been changed recently

add Zeus to those mythical characters here!! No reason for it to be on here....

Zeus

Ok guys, this isn't about Ragnar. I don't care. What I do care about is the double standard on display throughout Geni. If you read the second half of my concerns you should get the point. Ragnar is not a proven profile and if his profile is proudly displays all I ask for is the same consideration to complete this link in the family trees of many individuals, some with DNA evidence.

Geni must become a level playing field. I would like the link between Rane and his father restored, put a unproven label but allowing the linkage will create a fair process.

Martin

With respect to Zeus. No question, it has no place in this website.

I realize this does create a situation where many people may not believe the Bible for example. BUT, there is a book, it has proven many things like the "Hittites" for example and in many chapters references things that most have been recorded and is now considered fact. And most of the worlds laws and justice systems are founded on Biblical principals.

Sorry Martin, now you are displaying a double standard by saying that because the bible has some verifiable facts we have to accept every statement that it makes. Which edition of the bible do you propose we treat as "gospel"?

Rather than reconnecting Rane with an "unproven label" (you realize this thing does not exist? We cannot use tools that do not exist) we are actually trying to disconnect Ragnar from being anyone's ancestor (because how can he be your grand dad if he didn't exist?) but this means studying and researching every path from Ragnar to proven people in order to cut in the correct place. This is a huge job requiring nuanced understanding of the subject matter and no one is paid to do this on Geni, those who do this on Geni are few and do it for love while those who add false/bad/duplicate profiles to Geni are many and do it for many reasons.

Take Zeus as an example, clearly he is not human so should not be connected to our tree, are his children humans or mythical or a mix? What about their spouses and children? Their children and grandchildren's children, is there a line in the sand between myth and reality or is it a big grey zone?

For every user that asks us to cut off a mythical profile there is another complaining if we do.

In the previous few years i have spent a lot of time reading about sagas and going myth trying to clear this part of the tree. The most important thing i have learnt is that there is no Cannon, we have only a tiny part of the knowledge of this subject and what survives is contradictory and vague. Buy a 1000 piece puzzle from the shop, throw away the box, now throw away 900 pieces, now try and put the one hundred pieces together... that is what amatuer genealogists have been doing for the last hundred years or so.

I don't even claim to be an expert, i have basically stopped working this part of the tree. You can say there is a double standard but i will contradict you by saying there is no standard at all, Geni users can do what they want to the tree and there is very little that you or i can do about it.

Have a good day, try not to get too upset about things outside of your control.

Alex, you still do not get the point. There can be some level of acceptable standard. Many people have pretty solid family tree information but if they had to prove it, that could be impossible. My claim is simply this, in cases where the evidence howbeit by name , DNA or reasonable conclusions could reasonably link two individuals it should be allowed. The statement of the fact that the relationship can not be proven at this point can go into the writings about that person. It's unfair to do it any other way. For example, Remi Trygve Pedersen one of the curators on Geni has decided that no information can even be added to Rane Eyvindsson, is that fair, NO it is not. But no one on Geni seems to care or even challenge his behavior. I am only asking for some level of fairness.

Martin

> My claim is simply this, in cases where the evidence howbeit by name , DNA or reasonable conclusions could reasonably link two individuals it should be allowed.

One very common rule when working collaboratively is that something is proved if the evidence shows it could not reasonably have been some other way.

Have you proved x is the father of y? Only if no one else could reasonably have been y's father given the evidence. The word "reasonably" operates here to filter out all the minor skepticisms that could exist.

If you watch the work of professional genealogists and academics you'll see this rule at play even if it isn't made explicit.

And of course in a shared tree like Geni it's almost essential to adopt this rule or something very similar, because in the end anyone can believe anything and anyone can doubt anything.

> For example, Remi Trygve Pedersen one of the curators on Geni has decided that no information can even be added to Rane Eyvindsson,

Geni has a built in safeguard for cases where users disagree with curator decisions -- start a discussion from the profile. You can add all the information you want, all the sources you want. You can be as strict in your opinion or as crazy in your opinion as you want.

As long as you are relatively polite and don't engage in personal attacks, your information will be attached to the profile -- permanently -- and no one can delete it.

Hi Justin

I added the DNA evidence into the discussion, but of course the site remains locked. I would say that Remi believes that he is correct and does this sort of locking to prevent other opinions. Not sure what gives him the right to lock discussions.

Martin

Martin,

I wonder if you see that part of your comments makes no sense. Remi has not locked this discussion. He can't. None of us curators have that power. So this is exactly what I said. This is your place to argue with Remi's decision.

Present your evidence. If your evidence is strong you'll persuade the other curators (including me, although I'm not so active anymore) to all tell Remi we also think he's wrong.

But you haven't presented any evidence that persuades me. Not yet, anyway. For this line you would need to show that claimed male-line descendants through at several of the different claimed sons all have DNA that matches on high-resolution tests. If that level of proof existed it would be front page news on every history, genealogy, and DNA website in the European diaspora.

I'm willing to be persuaded but you'll have to present strong evidence, and you'd have to be willing to have it examined in detail.

Justin

DNA aside my main evidence is that Rane Eyvindsson and Nikulas Eivindson Reine are brothers. Nikulas is the son of Eivind Raneson Sodheim Søum (1280 - 1336) and if so then it only makes sense that Rane must also be the son of Eivind Raneson Sodheim Søum. Remi's argument is that he can't find any text that say so, but even without that type of evidence he is ignoring the obvious connection. Besides that connection was in place when I first joined Geni. I didn't create the linkage it was there until Remi edited it out.

Go and look for yourself if you don't believe me.

Martin

I think I would want to see more. You might be right but knowing two men are brothers does not tell us they have the same father.

It's not persuasive to say the connection used to be there. That's true of many of Geni profiles. Remi is just one of thousands of people here who spend time cleaning up bad lines and bad information. This kind of edit is exactly Remi's job.

This goes back to your question, though, doesn't it? What is an acceptable level of evidence? I think that's a very good question because so many people have different opinions.

I think the only possible standard to use on a collaborative site like Geni is that the available evidence doesn't allow any other scenario to be true.

On sites where someone puts up their own version of their own genealogy, I don't see why it would need to be so strict. But in the world we all share we have to be stricter so we can be more sure we're not imposing our own fantasy connections on other people.

I think we also need to realize the reality of fire. How many records have been lost in church fires, war or just spite. I wish that I could research some of the documents that I have found, unfortunately my only language is English. The other point is that where there is conflicting documentation Remi seems to have lined up on the side that proves his point and isn't willing to admit he might be wrong. So using your logic is Rane is Nikulas's brother than who could possibly his father if it's not Elivind Raneson Sodheim.

Maybe I need to dig in that direction.

Marty

Sure. Do some research. That's always good advice, no matter what you're thinking.

But, reality of fire? I think you're on the wrong path there. Reality doesn't care what could have existed. There might have been a relationship, and it might have been proved by a record, and the record might have been destroyed by fire. It's just a fairy tale if you don't have the records to prove it.

You're asking if Rane is Nikulas's brother than who could possibly his father if it's not Elivind Raneson Sodheim? The answer to that one is the easiest one in the world. He could have been anyone, and he might have been named Eyvind. But you don't know which Eyvind until you find the evidence. That's the way this works ;)

My compliant is not about the facts. It is the method being used to determine what the acceptable evidence is that I have concerns about. As curators many of you are basing your "facts" on your personal interruption of the evidence that you are personally choosing to use while rebuffing any debate about your facts and choosing to ignore some of the old sagas as mentioned by others in this discussion. This is not the way to get at the real truth.

Case in point is Eyvind Ranesson Sodheim and his possible son Rane Eyvindsson. When curators lock the profile so no other information can be added you are not helping to create a world tree where if additional facts are found, those facts can be easily added. If new information can only be added when a curator approves them and makes a personal judgement on the merits of the information through his own person view something is very wrong This is NOT the way to have input that could be important to the overall profile. I am not the only one complaining and sometimes my frustration has shown. It's extremely important to be seen to be fair and some of your curators have lost their perspective. I am not deputing any of Remi's facts, just the dictatorial methods he is using to lock profiles in order to control the agenda. That is not fair and that method is not getting any respect from me and obviously from many others. Remi you need to unlock the controls and allow contributes that could be a benefit to Geni as a whole.

Martin Nordstrom