Emily Louise Cunningham

Ora Cunningham Petersen

Private

James Frederick Maclean

Patricia Jane (Stanley) McLean

Grace Alma Stewart

You are going to need a curators help on this because anyone not in your family group can't see or edit the profiles because they are currently marked as private. You could make the changes you want and if there is a specific field you need locked then either contact a curator you like directly or go to the "ATTENTION Curators, please assist" and ask them to help this. But they have limited bandwidth so I recommend contacting like this:

First Name Last Name:
URL to profile
Wrong information or information I need locked
Reason why I know the information is wrong and why it needs to be locked

etc.

Make it very specific to each change, which profile and why. If they agree with your reasoning and evidence they can help.

Roland Henry Baker, III

bandwidth=the energy or mental capacity required to deal with the situation

Curators have repeatedly "dealt" me several responses to my inquiries. The majority of the interchanges have included directions laced with testy sarcasm. For some reason or another this is a "trigger". i.e. don't bother us with your inability to speak and/or navigate in our domain.
This is a serious problem. If Geni and My Heritage continues to support or allow folks to assert false and undocumented claims I believe that the whole project is doomed. It appears that "the curators" have been charmed by my first cousin's plea for assistance and have chosen to "lock me out". So, it appears that they "agree with her reasoning, not mine."
I am not going anywhere. I will continue to add documents and be ignored.
We are just now getting ready to sell what was left of the grandparents farm. The battle over my uncle's estate will finally come to a close after 23 years of litigation. It is my firm intention to "set the record straight" by asserting and reasserting that my uncle Fred was married to one woman until his death. He had many lovers, two he bore children with. His wife inherited all rights to his estate and sold 1/2 to my mother and the other 1/2 was apportioned among those children who could prove (DNA testing) that they were biologically his. There was no marriage with anyone other than Patricia (Stanley) "Scott" McLean.
It doesn't matter if anyone likes it. It's the truth and I thought that was what Geni claims to be all about?

Bob Marley

I'm not 100% what needs to be "fixed." When I look at the profile of James Fredrick McLean:
James Frederick Maclean

I only see the correct wife Patricia Jane (Stanley) McLean, I don't see a wife Emily Louise Cunningham attached. I do see a couple of children that are connected to private mothers. But if they are biological children that's how they should be represented in genealogical software. Genealogy is first and foremost a biological study. Am I missing something? Or did this already get fixed and I'm just seeing the final product? Possibly because the wives are marked private I just can't see the issue.

Genealogical trees should always represent the biological truth. If a relationship isn't correct you should first try to fix it yourself. If you can't ask someone for help, not necessarily a curator. if they can't ask a curator and if that doesn't work ask support. I've never seen anything here not get fixed if it isn't correct.

But if you goal is to try to disconnect biological children from you dad that wouldn't be correct genealogically because they are his biological children even if they are illegitimate.

If you are trying to change the relationship type from wife to partner that would be correct.

If you already have them as partner but what to visually show them as not connected that wouldn't be correct. Because biologically they were partners.

So I'd have to understand what needs fixing. Then fix it and get it locked. No one should be set as wife if they were actually a partner.

Does that make sense?

This shows some of the basic relationship edits you can do on GENI:
https://www.geni.com/blog/new-on-geni-adoption-387942.html

The profile for Emily Jane Cunningham shows a relationship:

Ex-partner of James Fredrick McLean (Maclean)

(And their children). This seems exactly as described in the post.

At a loss at what needs fixing?

Ah, I think I’m getting it now.

Geni is correct (it’s Heather’s entries and she would know).

It’s “other” trees, outside of Geni, that have set the relationships incorrectly.

Since most people in the trees are living i don’t think anyone can even see them?

The question was: how does this get corrected?

My answer is: I don’t know. These are private trees from other people on other platforms.

All I can think of is what I would do?

Honestly? Probably nothing. My tree, did I get it right? That’s what would concern me; there’s always little details ... if I got motivated, would make IDs for Ancestry and MyHeritage and FamilySearch and whoever, and write the tree owner nice little notes. They may or may not respond.

I don’t know what strategies others might have tried who have encountered anything similar.

(No Name) I just flipped over to tree view (i usually “proof read” in profile view) and I swear, everything looks exactly as it’s supposed compared with the notes and data. Aside from being a clean and attractive tree, some of the relationships are complicated and can be tricky to nail technically, but you did, including ordering relationships, which a lot of people forget or don’t know to do.

I wish I could help you just to say I did, but if there’s anything that doesn’t match facts, I sure don’t see it.

On MyHeritage.com and Acnestry.com I have people contact me if they see errors and I contact other people. I always correct as requested. The more active users will respond to my messages but there are also a lot of less active users who won't. That's the nature of personal trees as opposed to shared trees. On ancestry.com you can leave a note on the actual profile of the person in question in other people's trees that others will see. I don't really like using that feature because it feels invasive but they do allow you to leave notes. But on shared trees like FamilySearch, GENI, etc. I just fix them myself and leaves sources. Wikitree I gave up on fixing.

Sympathies for the annoyance... I see some weird stuff too. Someone has my grandmother's sources on their grandmother in their tree - a bit weird to see a "hybrid grandmother." Two of my cousins have the wrong 3rd great grandparents on our shared ancestry and have no interest in fixing it, etc. because it shows us descended from the brother of the signer of the constitution John Hancock. We're actually descended from a more colorful Hancock but I digress. Likewise my adopted 2nd great grandmother shows adopted parents as biological on nearly every tree on ancestry.com. etc. And I have lots of cousins on Ancestry.com who get really close to connecting to the correct shared ancestors which would be nice for DNA matching, etc. but then their tree takes a wrong turn on the turnpike and they end up in the wrong city. I've never seen anything weird with my own parents - that must be a little bit more personal especially if the error was knowingly propagated by a close family member. I guess all you can do there is work on building better communication and trust with them over the long haul if the relationship is salvageable. If not you just have to publish publicly accessible notes for future researchers to see.

Looks like your dad is my 8th cousin via the Bullard line and Hopestill Leland. Hopestill Leland's ancestry is another family that gets messed up all the time. Henry Leland the immigrant ancestor had no father in New England but most trees show one. Erica helped me fix this back in 2016 and locked in the changes:

Henry Leland

Thanks for that Erica!

Thank-you Erica Howton .........please and thank-you, ma'am.
Roland Henry Baker, III ......please and thank-you, sir.

It is not my intention to criticize or upset. I am merely trying to shine the old proverbial spotlight on a complicated area (my immediate family) that seems to be carrying genealogical error into the future .....potentially causing many mix-ups for successive generations.

This entire process has helped me to see that I am going to have to bring in some credentials in order to be heard or respected. I mistakenly thought that adding stones and producing documents would be enough. Wow!

Thank-you all for your time and considerations.

If consanguinuity is EVIL and/or illegal because the resulting offspring will produce genitically damaged children AND many, many, many of us directly descend from the Royal Houses of Europe are we all the "poor, illerate & strung out" cousins of our accusers?
I suggest not.

"To the victor goes the spoils?"

What about our dear cousins The Romanov's? Was there anyone to protect them?
Are we all out of touch? Are we tonedeaf?

*tone deaf