Martha Toms - Where is the PROOF of Martha Toms being the wife of George Hatfield??

This is what I found. I am a direct descendant of George through Jeremiah (my gg g/f). I haven’t done much in several years but want to get started back. I hope this helps.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Toms-274

According to the info on the Wiki profile for this Martha, her parentage doesn't seem to hold up for her to have been the daughter of the couple attached to her here on Geni. If that's the only source for that connection, it states:

"A previous version of this profile claimed that Martha (Marthy) is said to have been the daughter of the Mingo war chief and orator, John Logan (Tah-gah-jute) who is believed to have been born ca. 1723. If so, Martha would have had to have been born not much earlier than 1740. But her known children were born about then."

which lists her father as a Logan, same surname as the brother attached to her...but it plainly states the dates don't work.

What first caught my eye is her parents have one name, her brother is a Logan and her maiden name is shown as Toms, so it jumped out at me. that without documentation to link all those folks together, it 'seems' an error is likely. The aforementioned Wiki page also discredits the Toms connection:

"Others have suggested that she was the daughter of Foster Toms (1722-1794) but his will, dated 12 Oct 1773, refers to "my daughter Martha Toms". By this time, Martha would have been Martha Hatfield, not Toms. Foster Toms (probably Jr.) and Martha Toms are also referred to in the will of George "Goff" Hatfield dated 10 Feb 1774, as "my loving friends" and Foster Toms, Sr. is the executor of that will. Again, if Martha (daughter of Foster Toms Sr) had married George Hatfield, then she would have been Martha Hatfield by that 1774 will.

This suggests that while Foster Toms did have a daughter Martha, she could not have been the mother of Hatfield's children because that mother was married by 1740 and would not be "Martha Toms" in the 1790s."

So, unless someone has some proof of these connections, there only seems to be reasons why they're incorrect and I think it's always best to disconnect unlikely / unproven parents because otherwise we get more unreliable pathways on Geni.

If at a future time documentation is discovered, the connections can always be re-connected. But as they are right now, they seem to be merre speculation.