At 04:11 PM 4/17/2003 -0600, you wrote: >===================================================================== >A result of your requested PML search. To refine or cancel this >search, please visit http://pml.rootsweb.com/ >===================================================================== >Source: FUQUA-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [FUQUA] Amen Sue > > >Amen Sue, I usually quit lists because of similar controversies. Sorta takes >the fun out of genealogy, yes? >Harold Bishop Morgan ====================================================================== Controversy? Is the subject of documenting one's genealogy a controversy? I am an unabashed advocate of documenting, and will continue to advocate the practice. I am at a loss to understand what all of this hoorah is about. As far as I know, none of the original messages had anything to do with Sue. I responded to her privately in an attempt to calm the waters. Her reaction was to pick up her marbles and leave the list. Can someone please explain to me, either on the list or privately, what the issue is? If we are going to bash each other, let's at least define the debate and have one based on clear positions. Frank

Did anyone notice? This "controversy" stirred up not only feelings, but some good sharing and reporting by Patty (different Patty, by the way, we just share names and relatives, apparently <G>). I hope all of you understand that this process is much more effective when a bit of dander gets disturbed. And, I hope no individual takes what I am saying personally, because it is not meant that way. I have had my share of goofs, badly documented statements, etc. And, I've been called on them, "in the nicest way possible" - ok, well, maybe not so nice, but it made me think. So, I have been making a personal effort to learn more about this field of study. I have been reading up on the standards of research, publishing, sharing, mouthing off about, etc., genealogical research. The bottom line is, CITE YOUR SOURCES. Unless you are making something up out of whole cloth, you got the information from someone, who got it from someone . . . The point of documentation is to allow a fellow researcher (or yourself when you find alternative information) a trail to follow to get at the "most probable" scenario. Primary documents, such as was reported this week by Patty on Ralph's will, give us a great deal more information than the numerous "gleanings" someone has made over the years. And, of course, as I mentioned in another e-mail, if we had the probate, even better. I wonder if son Ralph ever got his shilling. Matter of fact, one might wonder why Ralph and the siblings listed at the bottom of the will, who didn't share as much in the largess, were they perhaps the older children and had already received their share as they married. Do we have any documentation on that? Anyway, if you choose to "adopt" a particular set of children for a person, and put it in your website, that's ok as an "working hypothesis", but you should at least have documented the source for each assumption, and the comment "unproven". Whether or not you put such documentation on the website is up to you, but if you don't, you should at least be willing to back it up via an e-mail if there is a question. AND, the danger of putting unsubstantiated relationships on a website is that other people will replicate them on other websites, on other websites, on other websites, ad-nauseum. I personally support high standards for genealogy, just as I do high standards for journalism. There are people who take both seriously and maintain high standards, and people who will do a lesser job. What we may not be wholly aware of is that putting something on the internet is "publishing" so we become journalists as well as hobbyists. "Pride of publication" should never take precedence over "pride of work". Most of us have been told of books written around the turn of the century where "facts" were at best unsupported, and at worst, fabricated to make someone a DAR, SAR, descendent of some king or other, etc. We shouldn't be doing this on the web, anymore than we would do it in a published book. Each of us has a choice here, and I will say that the Fuqua materials that I've seen that have Frank attached to them are far more professional than most of the websites I've come across. We would do well to pay attention to what he has done. Ralph isn't "my line", but every breakthrough we have as a group may lead to something for the rest of us. Please, everyone, ask questions, "listen" carefully to the questions, share your knowledge and your sources. And, don't get your feelings hurt if someone seems harsh. Remember, this is the written word we are working with here and the feelings just don't come through. What may seem abrupt may have been meant as a short, concise answer to a question. I hope none of us ever "assume" that everyone else is as good, bright, clever as we are, has been at genealogy as long as we have, "should" know something they obviously don't, or that everyone has access to the same websites and so on. And, I hope that if anyone offers us honest criticism, we take it well. Otherwise, how do we grow? So, what does anyone know about Bridget Fuqua who married John Beasley? Proof? Hee, hee, Pat (in Tucson) @ @@@ @ ^ ^ @@ @(©¿©¬)@ \_-_/