I had a previous dispute with Tobias Rachor over another profile’s birthplace. He had entered the current geographic location; I wanted it corrected to reflect the historic location. He grew angry, called my suggestion “dumb” and claimed I was somehow insulting him. He had locked the location field, so I walked away. Now he has edited another profile we co-manage -Johann Mack - changing the historic birthplace location to its current location. He then used his curator power to lock the fields and prevent their editing. Geni policy, however, supports my use of the historic location:
“Four basic rules govern the entry of place names:
. Always enter the place name as known on the day the event took place in the place name field. Never use “formerly” or “now” in a place name field“ Can someone talk to this person?
Ok. So there is no hard rule. Still, it is always better to include more information: both the historic location and the current location as I suggest. Many research bases are quite literal. For example, a portion of Alsace was part of the German Empire from 1871 - 1919. A person born in Alsace in 1820 was born in France. He dies in 1880 and his obit states he was born in Germany. If, however, you search Geneanet for example, with Germany as his birthplace, you likely will get nothing. More importantly, I have no problem with reasoned disagreement - many things are a matter of personal style - here a curator used his curatorial power to unilaterally change a profile without discussion and then lock the fields.