On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:56:57 AM UTC+1, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > > Further... > > I'm not clear as to who would use this database... > > ...People trying to penetrate ancestral chains through Tudor?... > > ...That is folks trying to work from commoners, through landed gentry and > then hopefully into nobility and ultimately Royalty... > > ---Genealogists working for clients to do just that -- "Penetrate Through > Tudor"? > > DSH > > Fortem Posce Animum Mortis Terrore Carentem > > Decimus Junius Juvenalis [Juvenal] (ca. 60 A.D. Aquino, Italy - ca. 127 > A.D.] Satire X > wrote in message > news:cef0171e-9beb-4013-b558-c46e13cbd838@googlegroups.com... > I think the simple answer is "people like me". I've been researching my own family and have discovered a possible link into the Bowes family of Barnes and Durham / Yorkshire more generally and whose descendants include the current royal family via the Bowes Lyons. In exploring that link I've identified that Surtees (who effectively tried to create the same sort of comprehensive list for Durham in the early 19th century) propagated some errors that are still quoted as gospel today, including by "definitive" publications such as the online history of members of parliament. At present I don't know if my researches are repeating work done many times by others or are breaking new ground, so having both a definitive source to refer to and subsequently to submit information to, would greatly reduce the waste of time and speed up the dissemination of new findings. As to where to do this, I would recommend choosing one of the free / general purpose genealogical platforms (I use Family search*) and then making full use of their functionality for posting explanations. holding discussions etc. so that casual users think twice about over-writing or amending the information. After all for most people the knowledge that their ancestry links into an "important family" that can be traced back before the start of registers brings enough of a warm glow, without then trying to muck up the work of others. *Family search seems to be cleaning up its database so that medieval individuals who had existed in multiple genealogies are rapidly being boiled down to one profile or in some cases a handful of "rivals" where frequently the issue is a lack of clarity over generations etc. As such it is crying out for people who really know the position to get involved so as to achieve the level of stability envisaged by some of the posters on this topic. With apologies for having the temerity to interrupt what seems like a discussion between old friends Regards James James Haddock

On 6/13/2016 6:23 AM, WJH via wrote: > At present I don't know if my researches are repeating work done many > times by others or are breaking new ground, so having both a > definitive source to refer to and subsequently to submit information > to, would greatly reduce the waste of time and speed up the > dissemination of new findings. Unfortunately, in any situation where the available sources are thin, there are simply going to be too many cases where being definitive is not realistic. The rigid format taken on by most databases exacerbates this problem. The "fill-in-the-blank" mentality of most genealogical databases often forces people to enter data which is either misleading or incomplete. Far too many "genealogists" want to just copy THE ANSWER without exercising their brain cells in any way, and some apparently consider "unknown" to be an unacceptable conclusion. Given a choice between a well-researched article stating that no conclusion is possible on the available evidence and an undocumented article containing obvious fantasy, some will enter the fantasy into their databases. > As to where to do this, I would recommend choosing one of the free / general purpose genealogical platforms (I use Family search*) and then making full use of their functionality for posting explanations. holding discussions etc. so that casual users think twice about over-writing or amending the information. After all for most people the knowledge that their ancestry links into an "important family" that can be traced back before the start of registers brings enough of a warm glow, without then trying to muck up the work of others. The problem, as for all such endeavors, is quality control. There has to be enough qualified individuals participating to keep the "dreamers" in check, and I have never seen any evidence that the percentage of qualified people is anywhere close to critical mass. Also, too many enthusiasts lack the critical skills to distinguish good research from bad research, even when the two are set side-by-side. > *Family search seems to be cleaning up its database so that medieval individuals who had existed in multiple genealogies are rapidly being boiled down to one profile or in some cases a handful of "rivals" where frequently the issue is a lack of clarity over generations etc. As such it is crying out for people who really know the position to get involved so as to achieve the level of stability envisaged by some of the posters on this topic. Without the necessary critical mass of qualified individuals, it is unclear that such time would be well spent, when a valid correction can be changed back to the incorrect information by someone else. To give an example, I had a couple of articles published some years back in a good journal which established that the commonly stated (but undocumented) maiden name of a certain woman was false, and gave proof of her correct maiden name and parentage. Some individuals summarized my evidence and conclusions online (with reasonable accuracy at first), but a few stages of various copy-pastes led to abbreviated versions being combined with erroneous research by others on the same family. A year or two ago, while doing an online search, I found material posted during the previous couple of years to various sites like Find-a-Grave and Family Search by an individual (whom I will call "NN" to keep the person as anonymous as possible) who was very critical of my research, stating that the maiden name and parentage given by me was false. Before composing any response, I searched the web for anything I could find written by NN on the subject, and checked over my research very carefully to make sure it was correct (which it was). In addition to some serious errors, NN accused me of certain false statements which I had in fact never made, and it became clear that NN had not even read my articles, and was looking only at one of the above outlines that also contained various errors copy-pasted from material written by others. I made long reply to the Rootsweb mailing list which I thought was most appropriate (not this one), with a couple of short postings to other appropriate lists pointing them to the long one, giving a complete outline of the evidence (including additional evidence since discovered), trying to be as gracious as possible in pointing out NN's errors. I also e-mailed a courtesy copy to NN, so that NN would have the opportunity to respond. The responses on the list (none from NN) were generally positive, and I went onto other things for a while. After a while, seeing nothing on Rootsweb, I did more searches and saw that NN (who had clearly seen my response) was still at it, making false statements about what appeared in my articles, still with no indication of having actually read them. One thing I will concede: NN clearly has much more energy and more determination about this matter than I do, and I would never be able to compete in the VOLUME of material posted on the subject, even if I thought that it was worthwhile to try. Doing so would only increase my stress levels, and possibly make me write something in the heat of the moment that I would later regret. For that reason, I believe that any project designed to assess the relative quality of different theories is doomed to fail unless the scope of the project is small enough so that those qualified to work on it are not overwhelmed, and "contributions" from those lacking the necessary skills are checked with sufficient thoroughness before being entered into the database. If a larger scope is desired, then a more realistic project, in my opinion, would be something intended more as a finding aid, like a more detailed version of Marshall's Genealogist's Guide, which indicated more clearly which families of the surname were being covered in the sources (location, time frame, etc.), without trying to evaluate the "correct" version in cases of disagreement. Such a resource might help keep genealogists from overlooking important sources. Stewart Baldwin

On 13/06/2016, WJH via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:56:57 AM UTC+1, D. Spencer Hines wrote: >> I'm not clear as to who would use this database... James Haddock wrote: > > I think the simple answer is "people like me". I've been researching my own > family and have discovered a possible link into the Bowes family of Barnes > and Durham / Yorkshire more generally and whose descendants include the > current royal family via the Bowes Lyons. In exploring that link I've > identified that Surtees (who effectively tried to create the same sort of > comprehensive list for Durham in the early 19th century) propagated some > errors that are still quoted as gospel today, including by "definitive" > publications such as the online history of members of parliament. Thank you for your supportive contribution on this topic. Richard > At present I don't know if my researches are repeating work done many times > by others or are breaking new ground, so having both a definitive source to > refer to and subsequently to submit information to, would greatly reduce the > waste of time and speed up the dissemination of new findings. Indeed > > As to where to do this, I would recommend choosing one of the free / general > purpose genealogical platforms (I use Family search*) and then making full > use of their functionality for posting explanations. holding discussions > etc. so that casual users think twice about over-writing or amending the > information. After all for most people the knowledge that their ancestry > links into an "important family" that can be traced back before the start of > registers brings enough of a warm glow, without then trying to muck up the > work of others. > > *Family search seems to be cleaning up its database so that medieval > individuals who had existed in multiple genealogies are rapidly being boiled > down to one profile or in some cases a handful of "rivals" where frequently > the issue is a lack of clarity over generations etc. As such it is crying > out for people who really know the position to get involved so as to achieve > the level of stability envisaged by some of the posters on this topic. FamilySearch might be willing to do this sort of thing, but I would not recommend getting involved with any organisation whose genealogical agenda may differ from that of the creators of such a List as I am proposing, however tempting that may be. > > With apologies for having the temerity to interrupt what seems like a > discussion between old friends > James Haddock Scarcely necessary, really, as I for one do not know all these folk and we are all members of the same List so your contributions are very welcome. Richard C-Z