At 6/16/2015 15:35, you wrote: >In short, I've elected not to enter, person by person, all the people in the >more recently discovered lineage in a parallel work-around line, despite the >interesting suggestions for ways to do that, because it would be a lot of >very tedious work devoted to info I don't really believe is worth that much >trouble. If someday I do see that the competing lineage has been proven >correct after all, I'll just sigh, delete the wrong people, and enter the >new ones. This sounds reasonable to me. Especially if your sources only date from the 1950s. I have a few of those kind of Sources and while most have been found to be 100% accurate, I have only included then to remind me where I got the information (and wasn't something I made up). Other than that, I also have an added Source that simply says this data currently has no solid contemporary evidence supporting it -- so beware. Once I do find contemporary (or solid secondary) evidence, I cite that and delete the earlier two Source (especially the warning citation). All this assumes that I have entered the data in the first place. IF the conflicting data seems to have something better than 50% chance at reliability, I look at how much work is to be done for data entry. If it is not much, I usually enter it. If there is a lot of work, I usually just summarize it using the Source citations I describe above. Either way, I prefer all data entered no matter how accurate. This way (especially after it is disproved), I know I have seen it before and don't have to re-invent the wheel. This come into play often when I show/share my data with someone and they say that it doesn't agree with something they have and I can quickly produce the reason why they data is incorrect. Lee