tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post3870055154556942518..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: End of Line -- Speculation or Reality?James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-65275308885742794612016-04-17T22:09:44.496-07:002016-04-17T22:09:44.496-07:00Sourcing is extremely important. I divide sources...Sourcing is extremely important. I divide sources into categories of importance. Pension records, for example, can contain multiple names, dates, places as well as witnesses speaking about the same family, so they are very valuable. A marriage record stating that Jacob White was born in Massachussets in 1852 WITHOUT a specific location, day, month, or parents listed is a poor source because there will be many, many Jacob Whites living in Masachussets and surrounding states at that time. Family stories are sources that often have very good information that can lead to sources that prove the information, but they can only be relied on insofar as you are able to eventually prove them out. Everyone wants to be related to royalty or someone famous and all it takes is for one family member to sneak in a fantasy to start your tree headed up the wrong path. Surnames themselves can be sources by learning the history and origin of the surname. I use them as a "desperate measure" source when I've hit a brick wall. But even then, the majority of surnames are not spelled the same way throughout history so what once pointed to a Dutch origin will point to an Irish origin when sourcing shows the surname spelled differently prior to the general public becoming literate. I'm surprised at how many people are resistant to believe the spelling of their surname is anything but what they have always known. That prevents them from being accurate because they refuse to believe the spelling has changed. The biggest mistake I see is trying to add a source to someone without a single shrapnel of evidence that the person ever lived in the county or the state but because they share the same birthday and name, it must be the same person. Nope. There are some names that are far too common for you to assume it is the same birthday because they also share the same birth date. The name Hezekiah was very common in the 17 and 1800s though nowadays we would think it was unique. When you are stuck at a brick wall, the more vague sources are sometimes the only clues you have to go on, and they can lead you to more definitive sources, but one should always consider them to be theoretical before applying them to their tree and use them for detective work only. Theories can be helpful, but they need to be backed up eventually by evidence and shouldn't be applied as evidence until they are no longer theories, but proven. I'm still trying to figure out why more genealogists aren't doing their DNA. This has a wealth of information that can help with brick walls. It's not uncommon to find out that your ancestors came from places you never suspected. If you can afford the DNA, do the DNA. It's a source that is very underused.Kris in Lymeland.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05916927245597969211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-17716261706493634942016-04-17T00:30:38.109-07:002016-04-17T00:30:38.109-07:00Yes true James, some genealogist do not verify sou...Yes true James, some genealogist do not verify sources and insist on adding lines to family trees, same happened with my colleague. His family extensions were altered on a few genealogy portals, we verified them through <a href="http://www.coadb.com" rel="nofollow">Coadb.com</a> with proper citations and references of the family surname, we provided the proof to these portal owners and after some struggle they agreed to correct these faulty and false extensions. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03806102361538430662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-30954907071161179052016-04-16T18:31:23.598-07:002016-04-16T18:31:23.598-07:00All of these comments are very thought provoking a...All of these comments are very thought provoking and interesting. I certainly appreciate the time and effort taken to comment. Thanks to all.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-38744346856157049472016-04-16T13:40:13.538-07:002016-04-16T13:40:13.538-07:00"I fully realize that such a position would s..."I fully realize that such a position would severely "prune" a lot of family trees, but do we really want to continue to live in a world where there is an uncertain demarcation between reality and fantasy?"<br /><br />Evidently from the sheer numbers of mostly-spurious trees, no few persons do not care about such a demarcation. This is why the proposal that sometimes pops up in FS-FT circles, that there be ~voting~ on correctness of purported relationships, cannot be a solution to tree-wars. As you have pointed out, no few tree-creators seem not to have given any thought at all to what they assert. And others just *believe* something, whether read someplace or derived from their own imagination.<br /><br />In the future, one publicly accessible tree may stand out as having a higher degree of accuracy than others, but for now what's hosted on the web really is a collection of muddles. Those who endeavor to find the best evidence they can will continue to do so, but they are outnumbered by those who do not.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-11098208732079251712016-04-16T08:56:12.301-07:002016-04-16T08:56:12.301-07:00I appreciate your comments about some other geneal...I appreciate your comments about some other genealogists wishing to enforce a particular proof standard. I have my “standards” for what I will accept as good enough proof, for my choice to include an ancestor into my tree. Sometimes the data that I used is good enough for a rigorous lineage society rules, sometimes it is “close enough for gov’t work” and rarely does my citation meet all the rules of the various genealogy proof standards and citation requirements. <br /><br />If someone else don’t like the decisions I made to add someone to my tree, or not add someone then I really don’t care. This is my hobby, and my interest. I don’t like it when I’m now supposed to follow everyone else’s rules. It’s like quilting. Some people can’t abide polyester or nylon thread. Some people believe everything has to be hand done, others love all machine work. <br /><br />I like others, look askance at the bad / unsourced thoughtless trees that show up on Ancestry. But I also don’t want to be bullied by others insistence that their data is more correct than mine. I understand that my focus in genealogy may be different than those trying to create one big family tree, but we need to be sensitive to the fact that there are many distinct truths in history, and some truths may never be known for sure. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-68783687978171234282016-04-16T08:48:56.760-07:002016-04-16T08:48:56.760-07:00Merely adding a "citation" which quotes ...Merely adding a "citation" which quotes another family tree, especially an online family tree is pretty much worthless beyond perhaps providing some pointers to another person's line of reasoning.<br /><br />This is a very, very, very common situation at Ancestry.com and shows the lack of wisdom they have in giving "citations" of other trees on the site any weight. Far better to have the Member Connect system available which still allows the connection of trees together but makes it clear that such connections are not proper citations such as a census or probate or mortgage record would be. When considering Familysearch such "citations" are so tautological as to be comedic!<br /><br />As you address in your post above, that person was also proceeding from the wrong starting point. It is for the person making a contention to prove that it is correct, not for those disputing the contention to prove it incorrect. There are so many times when people who "debate" in a great many forums need to be told in no uncertain terms that they are talking drivel and that they should shut up. The reason for that harsh treatment being meted out is that said people are proceeding to construct an argument which starts with any of a large number of logical fallacies. Even worse such "arguments" then make huge jumps and come to conclusions with any proper supporting logic or data.<br /><br />Those who add unsupported lines to family trees and then moan when those lines are removed are guilty of starting from a logical fallacy, ie proving a negative (which cannot be done except through a proof of contradiction). There are so many places in the Familysearch tree where it is obvious that someone has not thought for a second about what they are doing. A good example of that is children supposedly "born" before their parent's birth! Logic needs to be added to the Familysearch system and other online systems which absolutely stops that sort of thing being created. I don't envy those who have the job of untangling the IOUS later this year when it is finally possible!David Newtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-45269267323730706842016-04-16T08:13:45.550-07:002016-04-16T08:13:45.550-07:00A very difficult problem. Often, the citation the ...A very difficult problem. Often, the citation the researcher adds is to another family tree, i.e. the persistence of junk genealogies by overwhelming majority. So just adding a citation is not sufficient. It must be a citation with substance. But that just transforms the problem to deciding how can we evaluate the worth of the "substance".Louis Kesslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11704667321407909489noreply@blogger.com