Urraca d'Ivrea - Urraca doesn't exist?

Discussion here: https://www.geni.com/discussions/205862?msg=1353029

Yes, but it does not gives you the right to delete the profile.

It should be renamed N.N. The parents should be cutted off, and that's should be enough.

The profile, with or without a known name or parentage, shall be here.

You're welcome to take the profile, Ulf. As we don't know the name/s of Gothelo I "the Great", duke of Lorraine's wife/wives at all, they've all been removed and his relationships locked.
Indications are that the Uracca profile is probably a genealogical concoction (to give Pope Stephen a mother?). The About therefore doesn't refer to a Gothelo's wife.

If you want to undelete her, you need to check on the sources for the relationships that go with her profile. They're likely to be made up too.

Daughter of Berengar II of Ivrea, king of Italy and Willa
Mother of Godfrey Duke of Lorraine; Ada de Lorraine; Regilinde of Lorraine and Gozelo, count of Montaigu and Behogne
Sister of Adalbert II, king of Italy and Rozala d'Italie, reine consort de France
Half sister of Adalbert II, king of Italy; Guido, marchese d'Ivrea; Gisla d'Ivrea; Conrad of Ivrea, Conon; Gilberga d'Ivrea; Rozala d'Italie, reine consort de France and Otto or William

I'm trying to save the screen, to document the amount of conflicts generated in the Italian part to cut off a simple profile, also documented from an old, but not primary, book, but it would take me 5 monitors in multiviev! XD
I'll wait a few more hours then then I call the "carabinieri" :P

Private User what value would a wife named NN, with no ancestry, bring to Geni?

No one is going to think Gothelo had six offspring without female involvement but having one woman as mother of all six would be an assumption based on nil evidence.

3 hours and old Italy is still a disaster:
-https://www.geni.com/photo/view?photo_id=6000000116430779858
-https://media.geni.com/p13/c0/d5/2d/aa/534448510828b5d2/sudafrican_...

Alex Moes Well, it's that kind of response I can expect from someone like you, because you actually don't know the answer.

If we, have a profile with 29 manager, and 233 followers, created in 2008, we should do our best to preserve it, we correct profiles that are faulty, cut wrong parents, etc, and we explain why and what happen in the about me field.

In this way, we can prevent someone else adding the missing (faulty) profile once again, hopefully. The profile will now be used as a placeholder.

Ulf since Geni introduced Relationship Locking place holder profiles are much less useful.
Having 29 managers for an empty profile is not useful, 233 followers of an empty profile are not useful. What is it you are so passionate to preserve? A single sentence in Gothelo's profile is enough to record that his wife(s) identity is unknown and the Curator Note (combined with the Lock) should be sufficient to stop any other wife being added.

It is a pity that you feel the need to try and make this personal.

Thanks, Alex Moes - that is exactly the reason.

Private User's hard work found no primary sources or sources from that era at all. This, on top of George Louis Leonardus Maria Brouwers and my research that turned up none either. Modern historians no longer think she existed.
Livio Scremin's point about researching Pope Stephen's ancestry provides a likely motive for genealogists to create her.

Livio - removing links to spurious / misattached profiles will always create what you're calling a 'disaster' in the tree. Every action this high up in the tree creates huge amounts of knock on work. You already know this. Gothelo I "the Great", duke of Lorraine's relationships were a complete 'disaster' of spurious attachments. Fixing those is going to take work. Leaving the incorrect relationship links isn't the solution to that, though.

Medlands finds no Uracca as a child of Berengar II of Ivrea, king of Italy and Willa of Tuscany. Disconnecting wife of Gothelo “the Great” from these parents, pending sources, before she gets merged into a Berta and brings with more spurious links.

'''BERENGARIO d´Ivrea''',
son of ADALBERTO I Conte e Marchese d'Ivrea & his first wife Gisela di Friulia ([900]-in prison Bamberg 6 Jul 966, bur Regensburg).
x ([930/31]) '''WILLA d’Arles''', daughter of BOSO Comte d’Avignon Marchese of Tuscany & his wife Willa --- ([910]-Bamberg after 966).
1. ADALBERTO d´Ivrea ([932/936]-Autun 30 Apr 971[545]).
2. GUIDO d´Ivrea ([940]-killed in battle on the Po 25 Jun 965).
3. CORRADO CONO d´Ivrea (-[998/1001]).
4. GISLA d´Ivrea .
5. GILBERGA d´Ivrea (945-).
6. ROZALA [Suzanne] d´Ivrea ([950/960]-13 Dec 1003 or 7 Feb 1004, bur Gent, church of the Abbey de Saint-Pierre du Mont-Blandin).
7. [BERTA . The primary source which confirms her parentage has not yet been identified. Abbess of San Sisto at Piacenza 952.]

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORTHERN%20ITALY%20900-1100.htm#Ber...

https://www.myheritage.com/names/urraca_d'ivrea#

Fuente de información confiable para millones de personas en todo el mundo
Urraca D'Ivrea
Registros históricos y árboles genealógicos relacionados con Urraca D'Ivrea.
Los registros pueden incluir fotos, documentos originales, antecedentes familiares, parientes, fechas específicas, ubicaciones y nombres completos.
• Árboles genealógicos de MyHeritage
• Geni World Family Tree
• Árbol genealógico de FamilySearch
Ver todos los registros
Árboles genealógicos de MyHeritage

Reliable source of information for millions of people worldwide
Magpie [Urraca = Magpie] D'Ivrea
"Historical records and family trees related to Urraca D'Ivrea.
Records may include photos, original documents, family history, relatives, specific dates, locations and full names.
• MyHeritage family trees
• Geni World Family Tree
• FamilySearch family tree
See all records
MyHeritage family trees

Urraca Prinses Van Italy Ukjent (born D'ivrea), Circa 965 - Circa 1007
Urraca Prinses Van Italy Ukjent (born D'ivrea) was born circa 965, at birth place, to Berengar of Ivrea King of Italy, Margrave of Ivrea and Willa of King of Italy, Margrave of Ivrea (born of Tuscany).
Berengar was born circa 900, in Torino, Piedmonte, Italy.
Willa was born in 924, in Arles, Departement des Bouches-du-Rhône, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, France.
Urraca had 6 siblings: Adalbert II King of Italy Margrave of Ivrea, Guido d'Ivrea Marchese d'Ivrea and 4 other siblings.
Urraca married Gothelo the Great Unbekannt circa 1003, at age 38 at marriage place.
Gothelo was born circa 967, in Verdun, Meuse, Lorraine, France.
His occupation was Margrave of Antwerp 1008, Count of Verdun, Duke of Lower Lorraine (Brabant) 1023, Duke of (Upper) Lorraine 1033, hertog van Lotharingen, Markgraf von Antwerpen, Hertug.
They had 6 children: Maud of Leuven Count of Leuven and Brussels (born de Lorraine), Godfrey Unbekannt and 4 other children.
Her occupation was occupation.
Urraca passed away circa 1007, at age 42 at death place.

Apparently the vast majority of Medieval age Geni profiles are completely devoid of "any" sources, much less "primary" ones. It's only fair and reasonable to delete all historical profiles lacking primary sources, since the precedent has been set in this case of Urraca / Unca, daughter of King Berengar II of Ivrea, wife of Gothelo I of Lorraine, mother of Pope Stephen IX.

Richard de Wassebourg, "Archdeacon of Verdun, Historian" -- in the absence of original official / clerical records of Milan, Italy, dating to circa 1000 AD -- is still an excellent secondary source, even today. He was no amateur.

"Iunca"

Neither MyHeritage, FamilySearch nor Geni is a reliable source for anything, don't believe any marketing people of they try to tell you otherwise.
All three are software platforms that support users publishing the results of their own research, Geni is different from the other two in that as we are a collaborative website users put the burden of proof on each other and expect claims to be backed up with evidence, preferably in the form of primary sources.

Debra we've cross posted, there is no new precedent being set here. What Sharon has done is standard practice but with so few curators and users doing this sort of maintenance and with it so easy to add incorrect data it is a task that has been going on for years but is no where near complete

Alex Moes
Neither MyHeritage, FamilySearch nor Geni is a reliable source for anything, don't believe any marketing people of they try to tell you otherwise.
Lo que dices es que no debemos confiar en estos sitios de manera que tengo derecho en no confiar en ustedes los curadores que por decisión propia destruyen el trabajo de muchos años.
What you say is that we should not trust these sites so that I have the right not to trust you the curators who, by their own choice, destroy the work of many years.

Debra, that's exactly what we're doing - and have been for years now. This is not a precedent, it's the ongoing work of creating/ maintaining a historically accurate genealogical tree.

Source documentation is what creates validity- not the reputation of the programme or genealogist. MH and Geni are not reliable sources unless the profiles are validated with documents / historical sources. A 15th century genealogist without a historical paper trail of sources is still hundreds of years away from a 10th century profile and does not constitute proof in itself.

Juan, a well researched profile with good evidence and sources on any website should be treated with respect.
A blank profile on any website is untrustworthy, regardless of which website it is on. I am sorry if i was not clear enough in my earlier post.
I see many profiles with no information in them, many without even dates. Why should I trust that this is a valid person? Especially if well respected academics state categorically that there is no historic records existing for this person? If a curator is destroying the work of many years can you show where this is happening, a blank or incorrect profile, or even a profile without any supporting evidence is not many years of work but only a few minutes. The curators as a team try to maintain the tree as accurately as possible based on available evidence.

Destroying this profile, for which I provided well researched good evidence, did nothing to inspire trust or respect. Quite the contrary. And it shows complete disregard for 'collaboration'.

It doesn't take years to delete all the unsourced profiles. That could be handled with a software program: "Delete all unsourced profiles prior to 1500." Click. That would be fair and equitable. Unbiased.

What you are doing is picking and choosing the ones you personally want to keep and tossing any that have no value for you personally. That takes a lot longer.

Private User I'm not going to keep up this back and forth drama, especially as it is now becoming personal.
Please feel free to ask Geni CS whether this is the protocol on the Medieval Tree.

In response to your bizarre charge of picking and choosing my favourites - I responded to a user inbox to take a look at this profile which lacked historical validity. I made it public (I didn't have to). We all looked for primary or contemporary sources together. There were none, and a lot of evidence that modern historians agree that there is none. I documented everything as we went.
Because you don't agree doesn't make this unobjective.

Any questionable profiles you personally want researched to decide if their sources are valid, you are welcome to put forward. We are trying to get to all of them and lock down an acadamically sound historical tree that can be considered historically reliable. It's years since any of us had personal favourites on this mind bogglingly huge part of the tree. It's all we can do to help each other to maintain parts of it.

The Medieval tree isn't a fantasy playground for users to build collaborative worlds together. It's a genealogical record for users to collaborate on finding sources that are historically accurate. Not everyone is interested in doing that, and there are other online trees that make users pass a test of historical understanding before they're trusted to work on the historical tree. It get's incredibly tiring having to explain the basics of primary sources and historical validity everytime you work on the tree. Most Curators just do it without making a public Discussion record, and these personal attacks are exactly why.

Project on Working With Sources: https://www.geni.com/projects/Working-with-sources/18201

Project on Online Medieval Resources: https://www.geni.com/projects/Medieval-Resources-Online/27118

Project on Spurious Pedigrees: https://www.geni.com/projects/Spurious-Pedigrees/10512

Debra Denman. Apparently I threw the bat in the hen house with the remark:
"Urraca d’Ivrea did not exist".

Incidentally, still support this comment.
A question: If you still want to maintain such a person, why is there no question mark after his or her name?

12/25/2019 7:24 AM. You attribute up to 2x: Alleged future husband of "Urraca". That is vague. Where can I find this text in the two books you indicated?
https://books.google.nl/books?id=GLtTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP531&dq=a...
https://books.google.nl/books?id=FmdfpKqK11wC&pg=PT530&lpg=... oX&fp== false

25/12/2019. 8:26 You write: According to this 16th-century historian, Richard de Wassebourg, who is highly regarded by the University of Lorraine,
Gothelo Sr., son of Godfrey Sr. from Ardennes (etc.) Had a woman named "Iunca", who was the daughter of Berengier, the king of Italy.
However, some leniency must be given for the text font (v is often written as u; and j is often seen as i); so her name may have been "Ivnca" or "Junca" if such names exist. Where is this in the url below.
https://crulh.univ-lorraine.fr/sites/crulh.univ-lorraine.fr/files/d...
Read nothing about Iunca here.

12/25/2019 8:57 AM. You will find Iunca or Junca quite obscure but it does exist and was probably well known at the time she was born.

25/12/2019. 9:04 You are quoting Verecundus or Junca here. Why are you doing this? Does he have anything to do with Iunca or Junca that we are talking about. Or is this to indicate that the name Junca is more common? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verecundus_of_Junca

28/12/2019. 4:11 In this url, I read that "he finds" and that is not an established fact. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k8716691b/f450.image

30/12/2019 2:05 You specify a number of records. My experience is that sources are often mentioned that have been taken from each other. Then you enter into a discussion with such a source that indicates that you have someone else's data. Or they say they are not sure.
It also happens with the regularity of the clock that subsequently that source appears to be unavailable or does not respond to a question by e-mail.

30/12/2019. 12:51 You indicate that you have thoroughly investigated the Urraca d’Ivrea or Iunca profile and provided evidence.
Find a lot of vaguenesses or am I reading wrong? My language is Dutch. Excuse me when I draw false conclusions. Am in the field of genealogy but a layman.

Find this discussion, where everyone spends a lot of time, extremely interesting and educational.

Tranlated by google.

12/25/2019 7:24 AM. You attribute up to 2x: Alleged future husband of "Urraca". That is vague. Where can I find this text in the two books you indicated?
Debra Denman, excuse me, Found the tekst.

George Louis Leonardus Maria Brouwers

¿ -_- ?

Livio Scremin
28/12/2019 om 2:58 namiddag
Rapporteer
deze passage van Debra Denman is erg interessant:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k8716691b/f450.image -
... een vrouw genaamd Iunca was de dochter van Berengier koning van Italië van wie hij
drie zonen had.

Livio Scremin. Er staat: Ik vind (denk) (Il trouve) dat een vrouw genaamd Iunca de dochter was van enz. Dit is absoluut geen zekerheid en totaal iets anders dan: Ik vind “in de tekst” dat een vrouw Iunca de dochter was van enz. Van dit laatste gaan jij en Debra uit.

Livio. It says: I think (think) (Il trouve) that a woman named Iunca was the daughter of etc. This is absolutely no certainty and totally different from: I find “in the text” that a woman Iunca was the daughter of etc.
You and Debra start from the latter.

Debra Denman PRO
12/25/2019 at 9:04 pm
Report
They lived in the time of the Holy Roman Empire.
"On December 25, 800, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verecundus_of_Junca

Debra Denman: What does this report and the 2 hyperlinks have to do witch your statement that Iunca / Junca is the daughter of Berengario and the wife of Gothelo I ?.

George Louis Leonardus Maria Brouwers the only thing you are bringing out with your copy-and-paste parrot is that you read under machine translation (Ik ben een spaghetti-eter met de basis voor alleen Engels bedacht als ik je in het Nederlands schrijf!). I'll summarize things for you without going on again:
-The Italian part was all an abandoned sketch because in fact there has never been an Italian to get his hands before me.
-The French part that has just been cut has not been controlled for years.
-In any case, this knot is subject to false historians under discussion, that should be reported to the next who will pass through here.
-I myself am the first to report that that profile did not appear in official modern historical texts, but I would have handled it differently, I learned that the best curators who cut also leave a few lines of explanation on the info, because "here is my house and here I command it only pisses people off".
-the solution to that Urraca actually offered it on a silver platter @Juan who reported links to trees online here: I searched the 3 different JPGs and they all reported in the various WIKI languages of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urraca_of_Le%C3%B3n, thus showing that around her there was too much homony forced by noobs.

>> instead the passage found by @Debra was very interesting, that deserved an explanation, it had to be preserved and brought to the attention of some true historian, to understand if it is another false historical or not and why modern historians do not cite it (not even as false: the best do it, cite the wrong "ancient" sources and explain why they cannot be corrected) <<