On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:14:59 -0700, hlmw <hlmw1@telus.net> wrote: > > >Texas Gen wrote: >> John wrote: >> >>> In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com aren't any more >>> reliable or better cited than the ones at the LDS site. >>> >> >> I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those who want to share their >> research on Ancestry, but I agree with you. When I am absolutely certain >> that the tree has an error, I write a [I hope] gracious Post-It to the >> relevant page. I thank them for sharing their research, and then mention >> the different information that I have and its source. Sometimes the author >> makes the correction, sometimes not. Sometimes the author makes the >> correction, citing me and my own source(s), which is considerate. >> >> Unfortunately we get erroneous information and pass it around so much that >> it is finally taken as gospel because it appears in so many places. >> >> Regards, >> >> Donna > > Yes, it gets passed on by people who are 'doing genealogy' and gathering >names of people who may or may not be their ancestors. I tried to help >someone to trace her lineage this past summer back to the 1700s where one >man appeared having 2 sets of parents! I spent weeks winding my way through >films of parish records ordered through LDS to try to sort out the problem. I >also looked in the Ancestral File to see what was going on only to find that 24 >people had submitted names and lineage for that particular family. I gave up >when the person I was trying to help said: (of the 24 submissions): "I guess I'll >go with this one, it looks the most likely one. I know her, she has done a lot of >work on our "family genealogy". I protested to no avail. In some way, it is >likely that all the submissions will find their way on to Ancestry also. This is an >example of the 'desire' to get one's genealogy 'done' at any cost. >> >Lorna > I haven't done a lot, yet, but I have a ton of names and data in a tentative tree. I will sometimes pass along that information, but I make it very clear that it is not sourced, and should not be taken as gospel, but as a basis for further research. Information I have obtained from Ancestry, the LDS and other researchers, unless sourced, is just that, as far as I am concerned - a basis for further research. The only thing I trust without documentation is my mother's word for things that occurred within her memory span, because you just have to take some things on faith. :-) -- Jane

<Mary_Gordon@tvo.org> wrote in message news:cef523c9-e9cc-473e-94f8-31a4cb224f7f@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com... > > I found a May 1999 rootweb posting that says Hurajt is pronounced like > "her right" > > Mary G. Thank you Mary. That means when they came to the US it was spelled phonetically when it was changed to Hurite. Bonnie

"singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message news:QLydnWBoNI-rvBXanZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@rcn.net... > > I know we've covered this (g), but be darn if I can find it > in my saved mail or on Google ... and I don't see it in my > hard-copy books soooo: > > I need the dates that it was popular to hand-color film > photographs to look like charcoal drawings. > > Thanks! > > Cheryl Wikipedia suggests hand colouring was done from the 1840s to mid 1950s but after 1920 it was less popular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-colouring

In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com aren't any more reliable or better cited than the ones at the LDS site. John "JD verizon.net>" <jd4x4@<del.this> wrote in message news:Xns9A255E1395932jd4x4verizonnet@199.45.49.11... > "Ray" <rayj.balt@DELTHISverizon.net> wrote: > >> I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/ >> web site which is maintained by the Mormon Church: >> >> -- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future >> postings. Is this correct? >> > For the latest LDS efforts, check out > http://labs.familysearch.org/ > > It's still in beta testing, but you can register for a taste of the new > LDS offerings at: > http://search.labs.familysearch.org/ > >> -- Is there any way to correct inaccuracies which I have found in my >> own family records? >> >> The site is a valuable source for confirming and enlarging information >> you already have, but it must be used with care. It is not "gospel," >> to coin a phrase. >> > I don't know about corrections, or what you want to correct.. but if you > are referring to the trees and pre-researched "pedigrees"... stay away > from ALL of them unless you just want blanks filled in for the sake of a > large tree. I've only found about 1 or 2% of any of them from ANY source > to be properly cited, thereby suspect enough that you may as well do the > research from the start yourself anyway. > > Imo, the BEST and FASTEST way to build a large tree with reasonably good > sources & cites is to pay the bucks and subscribe to Ancestry.com and use > FTM 2008 with it to help with auto-search and auto-merge. Just stay away > from the Ancestry trees as well or use them cautiously and as a last > resort when you're stuck. > > At some point, you'll eventually need to do the research manually in any > event, and the best corrections of all are contributing your own properly > documented/cited trees when you're done.

"Ray" <rayj.balt@DELTHISverizon.net> wrote: > > But I suspect as time goes on, if the palpable errors on the site > could be corrected, its usefulness will grow. > > -- Ray > I agree with that, for sure. It's been a while since I used them for tree info (basically gave up on ALL of them, like I mentioned) and the Ancestry.com/Genealogy.com/Rootsweb trees would be improved as well as useful if there were more cited sources and even better posting dates! So many seem to be built with layer upon layer of outdated & wrong previous trees. That's why I'm such a big fan of any sort of XML data standard and/or software like FTM 2008 that makes it easy for people to actually make & distribute trees with cites. At least Ancestry tree "matches" will show some of the source trees that they use when building their OneWorld tree so you can decide if it's credible info. It's all a mess, but I think it's slowly going the right direction.

singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > > I know we've covered this (g), but be darn if I can find it > in my saved mail or on Google ... and I don't see it in my > hard-copy books soooo: > > I need the dates that it was popular to hand-color film > photographs to look like charcoal drawings. > > Thanks! > > Cheryl You got me curious.. I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_print Could this be what you were referring to? If so, it looks like 1855 through about early 1900's, but scatterd use until even today! Never seen one, I'll have to keep looking!

singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > > I know we've covered this (g), but be darn if I can find it > in my saved mail or on Google ... and I don't see it in my > hard-copy books soooo: > > I need the dates that it was popular to hand-color film > photographs to look like charcoal drawings. > > Thanks! > > Cheryl I never saw the other discussions, and I've never known of the popularity of a style that imitated charcoal drawings per-se.. but Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the dates & techniques used at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-coloring Hope that helps some.

I agree with all you say. But as I said, the Mormon site can be of some value in confirming or enlarging what you have -- with great discretion. But I suspect as time goes on, if the palpable errors on the site could be corrected, its usefulness will grow. -- Ray "JD verizon.net>" <jd4x4@<del.this> wrote in message news:Xns9A255E1395932jd4x4verizonnet@199.45.49.11... > "Ray" <rayj.balt@DELTHISverizon.net> wrote: > >> I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/ >> web site which is maintained by the Mormon Church: >> >> -- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future >> postings. Is this correct? >> > For the latest LDS efforts, check out > http://labs.familysearch.org/ > > It's still in beta testing, but you can register for a taste of the new > LDS offerings at: > http://search.labs.familysearch.org/ > >> -- Is there any way to correct inaccuracies which I have found in my >> own family records? >> >> The site is a valuable source for confirming and enlarging information >> you already have, but it must be used with care. It is not "gospel," >> to coin a phrase. >> > I don't know about corrections, or what you want to correct.. but if you > are referring to the trees and pre-researched "pedigrees"... stay away > from ALL of them unless you just want blanks filled in for the sake of a > large tree. I've only found about 1 or 2% of any of them from ANY source > to be properly cited, thereby suspect enough that you may as well do the > research from the start yourself anyway. > > Imo, the BEST and FASTEST way to build a large tree with reasonably good > sources & cites is to pay the bucks and subscribe to Ancestry.com and use > FTM 2008 with it to help with auto-search and auto-merge. Just stay away > from the Ancestry trees as well or use them cautiously and as a last > resort when you're stuck. > > At some point, you'll eventually need to do the research manually in any > event, and the best corrections of all are contributing your own properly > documented/cited trees when you're done.

John wrote: > In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com aren't any more > reliable or better cited than the ones at the LDS site. I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those who want to share their research on Ancestry, but I agree with you. When I am absolutely certain that the tree has an error, I write a [I hope] gracious Post-It to the relevant page. I thank them for sharing their research, and then mention the different information that I have and its source. Sometimes the author makes the correction, sometimes not. Sometimes the author makes the correction, citing me and my own source(s), which is considerate. Unfortunately we get erroneous information and pass it around so much that it is finally taken as gospel because it appears in so many places. Regards, Donna

I found a May 1999 rootweb posting that says Hurajt is pronounced like "her right" Mary G.

Texas Gen wrote: > John wrote: > >> In my experience the trees you find at Ancestry.com aren't any more >> reliable or better cited than the ones at the LDS site. >> > > I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those who want to share their > research on Ancestry, but I agree with you. When I am absolutely certain > that the tree has an error, I write a [I hope] gracious Post-It to the > relevant page. I thank them for sharing their research, and then mention > the different information that I have and its source. Sometimes the author > makes the correction, sometimes not. Sometimes the author makes the > correction, citing me and my own source(s), which is considerate. > > Unfortunately we get erroneous information and pass it around so much that > it is finally taken as gospel because it appears in so many places. > > Regards, > > Donna > Yes, it gets passed on by people who are 'doing genealogy' and gathering names of people who may or may not be their ancestors. I tried to help someone to trace her lineage this past summer back to the 1700s where one man appeared having 2 sets of parents! I spent weeks winding my way through films of parish records ordered through LDS to try to sort out the problem. I also looked in the Ancestral File to see what was going on only to find that 24 people had submitted names and lineage for that particular family. I gave up when the person I was trying to help said: (of the 24 submissions): "I guess I'll go with this one, it looks the most likely one. I know her, she has done a lot of work on our "family genealogy". I protested to no avail. In some way, it is likely that all the submissions will find their way on to Ancestry also. This is an example of the 'desire' to get one's genealogy 'done' at any cost. > Lorna

"Ray" <rayj.balt@DELTHISverizon.net> wrote: > I have a couple of questions about the http://www.familysearch.org/ > web site which is maintained by the Mormon Church: > > -- I believe I read somewhere that the site is now closed to future > postings. Is this correct? > For the latest LDS efforts, check out http://labs.familysearch.org/ It's still in beta testing, but you can register for a taste of the new LDS offerings at: http://search.labs.familysearch.org/ > -- Is there any way to correct inaccuracies which I have found in my > own family records? > > The site is a valuable source for confirming and enlarging information > you already have, but it must be used with care. It is not "gospel," > to coin a phrase. > I don't know about corrections, or what you want to correct.. but if you are referring to the trees and pre-researched "pedigrees"... stay away from ALL of them unless you just want blanks filled in for the sake of a large tree. I've only found about 1 or 2% of any of them from ANY source to be properly cited, thereby suspect enough that you may as well do the research from the start yourself anyway. Imo, the BEST and FASTEST way to build a large tree with reasonably good sources & cites is to pay the bucks and subscribe to Ancestry.com and use FTM 2008 with it to help with auto-search and auto-merge. Just stay away from the Ancestry trees as well or use them cautiously and as a last resort when you're stuck. At some point, you'll eventually need to do the research manually in any event, and the best corrections of all are contributing your own properly documented/cited trees when you're done.

Roger Lester <fishingnut07@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Has anyone here used Master Genealogist software? > I have FTM 2008 but I don't like it. I have found myself using the 2006 > over the 2008 version. I am looking for another genealogy software > package besides FTM. > > Thanks for any suggestions, > Roger Lester I've used PAF, Legacy, TMG, and recently FTM 11 and 2008. I like all of them for different reasons (well, maybe only PAF as an absolute starter program!). It's SO subjective and really depends on personal preference and user "style", I think. TMG is VERY comprehensive, but with that comes a learning curve and a display style that I'm not ready for yet. I've been working on my tree for about 7 or so years, and so far just using online and "easy" sources before visiting the "real" sources. Having said that, I settled in on Legacy as my fav until I discovered the auto-search & entry connection between FTM 2008 and an Ancestry.com account. I LOVE it for that! Mind you, it probably is of most value for Ancestry.com subscribers and those still doing basic research on their trees back to about the early 1800's (in the US anyway). But, the functions to automatically pick up family members, source citations, and other data from census searches (with an ancestry account) is worth it's weight in platinum, imo. And the options/overrides in the merges is great. Having said that, there are better (again, personal prefs I think) programs for those that are dealing with other-than-online sources and info, and I'd guess TMG was the best in that regard. Trying before you buy is the best bet.

"Mark Roy" <xxx@comcast.net> wrote in message news:VOKdnThG1cQ5XRfanZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@comcast.com... > Michelle, Sabrina's Mom wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have a problem with a project that I started and don't know how to >> finish.. I want to do the right thing but I am not sure what the right >> thing is. The project involves a scrapbook that belonged to my mother >> from the early 60's. This scrapbook contains a lot of photos, some movie >> ticket stubs and a few newspaper clippings. Alot of the photos are >> attached to the pages with small staples, some of the photos that were >> attached at one time have fallen off as well as the movie theater tickets >> and newspaper clippings. I was wondering what is the best way to approach >> this. I already scanned each page that has pictures on it as is and saved >> the images in tif format.. But now what should I do with the loose >> pictures and other items, Should I reattach them and then scan or should >> I take all of the pictures off the pages and then reattach everything in >> a way that will preserve them safely. I was thinking acid free mylar film >> for everything but I am not sure.. I want to keep everything in the >> original scrapbook, but the staples are issue. I can see what seems to >> be rust spots forming around them. Please help. I want to finish this and >> put it away in a safe place. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Michelle > > A relevant article just posted to the Ancestry.com blog: > http://blogs.ancestry.com/circle/?p=2191 Thanks Mark, that is a fantastic article. The author describes the same type of book that I am dealing with. : ) Michelle

"singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message news:XMOdnQoy2PZSWRfanZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@rcn.net... | Sigh. Oh well, I've only been working on Mary E for 37 | years now ... | | Cheryl Cher, Only 37 years?! Well, all things cometh to him that waiteth - as long as he that waiteth worketh like hell while he waiteth. (Charlie the barber) Henri

Could SKS tell me how you would pronounce this name (spell it phonetically) for me? There are no hits on Ancestry for that spelling. I have found the family with their named spelled as Hurite in Westmoreland PA, which is where I was told they would be. :)) There are others in Ohio with the spelling of Hurajt, but I am unsure if they are related. This is the first time for me to delve into Slavic surnames and I am not familiar with how it would be pronounced. Bonnie

On Jan 8, 8:47 am, Christopher Jahn <xj...@yahoo.com> wrote: > JDLail <JDL...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:198d97ae-d859-44a5-9b85-e10ac512bb13@m77g2000hsc.googlegroup > s.com: > > > > > I have a case where one of my family (Confederate) from > > Georgia was captured in the Civil War, taken to > > Fort Columbus (NY City area), took the oath of allegiance, and > > was released in Sept 1863. He never came > > home. His four children were scattered between the paternal > > grandparents and the mother. > > > However a man with his name shows up in Northern New Jersey > > within months of his 1863 release . He > > married and remained in Morris Co. NJ until his death in 1926. > > So its reasonable to suspect that these > > are the same guy. The surname here (Lail) was exceedingly rare > > at that point in time and the given name > > (James) had never been used before in the family, > > > This James appeared in 5 New Jersey census records from > > 1870-1920. In all cases he lists his birthplace > > as Georgia. In all cases but one he lists his fathers > > birthplace as Georgia as well. The exception being > > 1920 when he gave it as North Carolina. And finally In all > > cases but one he gives a birth year ca. 1846-7. > > The exception being 1880 when he gave 1836-7 for his birth. > > > The James missing from my family was born 1834-7 in Tennessee > > but was raised in Georgia. The family > > moved there ca. 1842. His father was born in NC. So do I have > > enough proof ? Thanks. > > Census data can never be *proof*; not only do they not require > documentation, you have no way of knowing who provided the > information. Was this person REALLY James Lail, or someone > pretending to be him? The census taker wouldn't know; they may > not even have ever talked to him. Neighbors often provide the > information, and they don't always know. > > While I think this is probably your guy, you need corroborating > evidence to have "proof." What you have now is only evidence. > But knowing where he was living, you know where to concentrate > you efforts for more evidence. As to proof: The widow of the James Lail in Georgia received public assistance because her husband was reported as killed at Morris Island SC in Aug 1863. His unit on that documentation was SC 1st Reg Co. H. The James Lail who was captured was also from SC 1st Reg Co. H. and was captured at Morris Island SC in Jul 1863. So the guy who was released in Sept 1863 is the same as the guy from Georgia. The question is whether he is the same as the guy in New Jersey. So far the consensus seems to be that I need a little more proof

Its phenolas bitone - aka phenobarbitol poisoning phenobarbital (phe·no·bar·bi·tal) (fe”no-bahr´bĭ-təl) [USP] a long- acting barbiturate, used as a sedative, hypnotic, and anticonvulsant, administered orally. p. sodium [USP] the monosodium salt of phenobarbital, having the actions and uses of the base; administered orally, intravenously, intramuscularly, and subcutaneously. phenobarbitone (phe·no·bar·bi·tone) (fe”no-bahr´bĭ-tōn) phenobarbital.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:48:02 -0500, ChrisGW <newsgroups1@hotmail.com> wrote: >On the 1930 U.S. Census (Brooklyn Kings County New York)under Johanna >Wilkenshoff she is listed as being from the "Irish Free State". Is this Ireland? >Was this Ireland being free from England? > The Irish Free State / Saorstát Éireann was the political entity existing from 1922 to 1937 which is now the Republic of Ireland. It was a self-governing dominion with the UK monarch as titular head. According to the Wikipaedia article on the Irish Free State, a change in the status of the UK monarch in 1927 started the process of the development from dominion to republic which appears to have proceeded effectively unopposed.

Be nice if the INFORMANT field asked "what makes you an authority?" (g) Sometimes I can't figure out who the heck the informant is, sometimes it turns out to be the doctor and sometimes the undertaker. But, without that site, I'd never have found this record ... now, whether finding it's a GOOD thing is up for discussion ... And the version of those record books where it asks for the NATIONALITY of the deceased annoys me endlessly. Only one entry in the book I know best says anything but "American". Sigh. Oh well, I've only been working on Mary E for 37 years now ... Cheryl Huntersglenn wrote: > Yeah, I love and hate that site. Love it because my husband has West > Virginia roots. Hate it because all too often the important fields are > blank <grin>. > > Back to ancestry to see if we can scare up someone for you to check out > <vbg>! > Thanks, > Cathy > > singhals wrote: > >> The record, taken from the WV Vitals site's scan of the original >> document. Original was one of the county record books where the entry >> spans both the left & right pages. Most of the questions you've raised >> had no column in which to record the info. >> >> Name: Mary E./Sirbaugh >> Sex: Female >> Death Date: 31 Jan 1885 >> Death Place: Shepherdstown, Jefferson Co., West Virginia >> Age at Death: 43y >> CAUSE : heart disease >> Burial Place: not asked >> Burial Date: " >> Cemetery: " >> Funeral Home: " >> Birth Date: " >> Birth Place: Maryland >> Marital Status: not asked >> Spouse: Geo. W./Sirbaugh >> Occupation: not asked >> Address: " >> Residence: " >> Mother: M./Hanby >> Mother's Birth Place: " Father: Wm./Hanby >> Father's Birth Place: " >> Informant: brother: Wm Hanby >> >> Huntersglenn wrote: >> >>> I can only find the family that Bruce found - they aren't in the 1870 >>> that I can find, but the older William Haney and his wife are in >>> Monongalia County, WV in the 1880 Federal Census. No children living >>> with them, though. >>> >>> My husband has some Haneys in his line, and one thing we've found >>> over the years is that enumerators could be most creative when >>> spelling the name and indexers even more creative in spelling it when >>> the enumerator had bad or fancy handwriting. We've seen it as Haney, >>> Hainey, Hainy, Hanie, and Hany to name the most common. >>> >>> Is there a middle initial given for Mary? Where did she die? Does >>> the death record show where she's buried? What was her husband's name? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Cathy >>> >>> singhals wrote: >>> >>>> I have a marriage record for Mary HANVEY (or maybe it's HARVEY, >>>> handwriting is iffy; county clerk says it's HANEY) in 1862 in >>>> Frederick co. Virginia. The groom's father is given, not his mother, >>>> and for her parents it says Unknown. >>>> >>>> In 1885 I have a death record for her under her married name, giving >>>> her father as William HANBY, and her mother as M.; informant is her >>>> brother William. It says she was 45 and born in VA. >>>> >>>> Problem is ... Using HQ and local GenWeb resources, I can't find a >>>> William Ha* who fits the stated facts on the death certificate. >>>> I've looked at HANVEY, HARVEY, HANEY/HANY, HANVY, HANBY, and >>>> HANLEY. I've looked at all the William and Wm entries ... >>>> >>>> Could some of you have a look-see at Ancestry and see if you can >>>> spot them? They OUGHT to be in Shenandoah, Frederick or Loudoun >>>> counties VA or in Hampshire, Berkeley, or Jefferson counties WV. >>>> They COULD be anywhere in the US. >>>> >>>> Citation only, no need to send the image. >>>> >>>> Many many thanks! >>>> >>>> Cheryl >>>>