Rabbi Ephraim HaCohen Fischel, [of Lvov] ABD Lukow - New Branch Line Suggested

PS: The above book was written I believe by: Josef Margoshes and so he must be a descendant of the earlier Margoshes tree, but I do not know how since his GENI pedigree ends with him.

Thanks. Every little bit helps. Over time more of this new branch may emerge. I've also raised a question as to whether R' Ephraim Fischel's line is Cohanic: Rabbi Ephraim Fischel HaCohen, [of Lvov] ABD Lukow It seems that his grave marker in Lviv does not mention a Cohanic heritage, which seems to be strong evidence to the contrary (if it is true).

Private User

When I researched the branch of
Rabbi Ephraim Fischel HaCohen, [of Lvov] ABD Lukow

I do not remember that it was written in any source that he is from Choanim's family even in his profile picture that I attached, there is no mention at all that he was Choen...
Therefore, should correct in this whole branch and delete the word Choen

Private User

I have now gone over this branch, and in the profile of:
R' Moshe Yehuda HaCohen Ashkenazi, Chief Rabbi of Poland, ABD Brisk and Yerushalaim
It is written that he is Choen, (you can see in his profile picture), so everything should be checked again, there may be a mistake in the book, and Rabbi Moshe Yehuda HaCohen, was the father-in-law of Rabbi Ephraim Fishel of Brisk and not his father ... anything is possible, needs a re-examination

Thanks Yigal, your efforts are extraordinary. But, don't you ever have the feeling of moving deck chairs around on the Titanic when it come to GENI fixes? For example, if the branch needs to be de-Cohenized, what about the line of Rabbi Yaakov HaCohen who comes from Rabbi Ephraim Fishel Ashkenazi, of Brisk & Jerusalem [Maharshal son-in-law] and goes to Efraim Ben Yaacov Hacohen, "Shaar Efraim" And the other Cohens on the Rabbi Ephraim Fishel Ashkenazi, of Brisk & Jerusalem [Maharshal son-in-law]?through=4435440 line? And this is just one of many situations which point to a basic flaw in GENI tree-creation and tree-building systems. There is too much freedom to add new branches and merge existing branches without the consent and potential veto power of other managers and curators (who would hopefully function as dung detectors, when given that role). I am not faulting curators or managers for this existential dilemma, the cause is systemic. Not all GENI users can be trusted to stick to reality (or at least a reality supported by evidence and common sense). A large complex network tends to magnify and propagate even the smallest of errors to the point where the entire network becomes unusable. And it does not seem that the MP and locking process is taking care of the problem enough. Curators and some managers have been trying to keep order heroically, but it is too large a task to be done profile-by-profile or even branch-by-branch (these are volunteers after all). There must be systemic change. And of course, attempting to fix things piecemeal without the systemic protections in place is putting a finger in the dike. I've begun to discuss how this could be fixed systematically in another discussion elsewhere, and I believe it must be dealt with by GENI at a policy level, or I fear GENI's usefulness and popularity will not be what it could or should. As many others have before me, I am going to lessen my use of the tree-building and tree-fixing aspect of this fabulous concept (GENI) until I see that some progress is being made at the systemic level. I will continue to work with Projects until that time. I'm also not going to get into a long discussion thread about this. I've been involved in others, as have you I am sure, and enough has been said, at least by me.