Wedric 1er le Sor ou le Roux, seigneur de Leuze et de Condé - Primary Sources?

I haven't looked into this yet Sharon as he is not a direct connection to the van Gavere, but Carl just ask me to manage it, so I will get to it sometime. I have seen the confusion around the nicknames being interchanged and did enough looking to believe that le Sor belongs to Wedric I and le Barbu belongs to Wedric II. Once the nicknames are changed a Google search turns up more suggestions to follow.

And yes, much of the first three generations is a work in progress, we've been in research for most of a year and thought it time to start getting in down in Geni and raising questions... And yes again, we're dealing with some very old people here and many do not have primary document evidence, but enough other evidence to lead us to believe with complete confidence that they existed. I'll need help in telling this story so that it's acceptable to Geni.

Gavere is 600+ profiles, if I start getting too wide... and d'Avesnes is a completely separate research assignment. Avesnes-sur-Helpe is in Nord, France and while they were important in the history of Flanders they are not a family of Flanders where I'm trying to stay focused. But, because I've been asked, I will expand here a bit...

I fully expect however that this endeavor will require the attachments to other families of Flanders to be straightened out on Geni.

You've been really busy today since I've been out, thank you for taking the time to pose questions. I'm not opposed to disconnection for lack of evidence and have in fact done that, but I would rather leave a possible or probable connection and say that's it weak, which has been done also.

It's an interesting area for South African descendants. Thanks for cleaning it up, David.
If a profile is completely unsourced, as are these two - and the surrounding profiles' primary sources suggest they may not be sourceable - as in this case - I create a Discussion to anchor them and be able to come back to - then disconnect and leave it to the managers to find the sources they used, to further that Discussion.

Bitter experience shows that 95% of the time, if you don't do that, the potentially erroneous profiles are left there without comment for years, until you accidentally discover them exactly as they were 5yrs later - and leaving them there as vague possibles serves to hold up and misdirect / mislead good research and scholarship that could have been improvng that area of our tree.

If you want to stabilise a tree - as you do - you go back to what is certain, and then create Discussions for what people have conjectured. Sometimes that provides more certainty - often not.