On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:46:25 -0000, melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) wrote: >In article <l8lcr3pt14n7spoonctqp06bhtid1j2g00@4ax.com>, > Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes: ><snip> >> For you, yes. For others, the object may be different. >> >> For me, it is a structure upon which I can build my study of history, >> whether it is of my family or some other. History is aided by facts >> when they are available, but useful history can be built based on >> analysis of subjective information as well. >> >> lojbab > >I think one of the things Hugh's been getting at is the >question of what standards one applies to the analysis of >information, not the nature of the information, per se. So >let me ask, what guidelines/criteria/rules do YOU apply in >the analysis of your subjective information? I'd ask Hugh >the same question: what standards do YOU, Hugh, apply in >examining and before accepting data? The longer I research the more suspicious I become of almost all records. Generally speaking I will usually accept any fact that can be confirmed by at least two unconnected "official" sources. Older census records are suspicious, land records are usually not. Wills are usually correct in "family" composition but may not be accurate by bloodlines. Any "tree" i see on the LDS or Ancestry site is pure crap until I can prove it but I will use it to explore further. I am deep into logical/theoretical reconstruction of early ancestral lines. I want to do what no one else has done. Then, prove me right or prove me wrong. I'll agree that some element of reason must be used. Sometimes not even the woman knows the father of her child. In most cases the only possibility is to presume morality until we know better. If I am exchanging info with someone I want to know the standards he used. Did he stick with bloodlines based on info available, or did he do some creative genealogy/family history. I don't care what he did I just want to know. We have a circular drive around our house and we had to replace the two approaches to the street. I did not print my genealogy in the concrete. Hugh

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:13:41 GMT, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> know census records are often wrong. I know where one of my families >> was from 1778-1806 (NC) yet they never appeared in a census - just one > >One of my ancestors in each U.S. census was >eight years older than the previous one. :-) > >-- >Wes Groleau Some age 15 years in one census and 8 in the next. I track as many as I can and average them out to an "about" birth date. This is probably not the fault of the census taker. Many people just never knew where or when they were born. Hugh

Chad Hanna wrote: > Not all immigrants came via Ellis island. And some who came through New York are not in Ellis Island records. Especially if they came before Ellis Island opened. -- Wes Groleau "Would the prodigal have gone home if the elder brother was running the farm?" -- James Jordan

Lesley Robertson wrote: > But that shows that the system works - they give their source, which is > readily seen to be unreliable and the info can therefore be discarded. Do they? I made the possibly unwise choice of stating things I thought likely true with the disclaimer that no source means possibly false. That hasn't stopped numerous people from copying it and making me the source--or giving no source and no disclaimer. -- Wes Groleau Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before ... He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. -- Kurt Vonnegut

Bob LeChevalier wrote: > If people have a specific day month year, I usually presume that there > was some primary source behind it at some point, though it might be > 15th level hearsay. My great-grandfather's family history gives specific birthdates for all his twelve siblings. Most of them are they day after the dates in his mother's Civil War pension file. Is that weird? In the library here, there is a publication of the local genealogical society purporting to be tombstone inscriptions of a small cemetery near me. It omits many stones, includes much info that is NOT on the stones, and gets dates wrong that are clear and easy-to-read on the stones. (And changing March to April is _not_ a typo). Another book on the same cemetery is even worse--and it claims to come from the D.A.R. -- Wes Groleau Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

In message of 16 Feb, Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote: <snip> > In the philosophy of science, all observations entail unproven > observational hypotheses (Lakatos). This is perhaps the core of your somewhat positivistic analysis. The question to ask is how could you possibly prove any observational hypothesis? I suspect your notion of proof does not allow you to establish the trust of any observational hypothesis. So all observations are rubbish! But this goes against the thoughts of the majority of mankind, if not all of such. Observations are not rubbish, they may be mistaken, they may be misremembered but they can very definitely be true, in fact the overwhelming majority of observations are true. If you start from there, you have a very different analysis of truths and far less difficulty in coping with the truths or not of written reports and inferences from facts. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Bob has touched upon some classic philosophical issues. Perhaps by exploring them a bit we can arrive at a better grasp of the significance of data and their interpretation. The first thing that needs to be done is to be clear about the difference between data and facts. Data refer to organized information, usually observational information and (necessarily) a set of associated premises (axioms). Data have nothing to do with truth, but instead are provided with justification. For example, if the birth certificate of person A indicates that the father was B, that information represents a datum. It may be that person C was actually the father, but the birth certificate statement nevertheless remains a datum. Premises are obviously not proved, but only justified, for otherwise they would not be "premises". The justification of our premises does not refer to their truth, but to the reasons why we select them. We choose premises for a variety of reasons, such as their moral implications, their aesthetic, or their utility. Our data is likewise justified by the reason why we adopt them and take them as data: what did the birth certificate actually state; how do I know that and how did I find out; are they relevant to the issue in hand? Data lacks truth value. As Bob points out, data may be erroneous for reasons that are subjective, but that is only because we manage to misread a datum. However, it remains a datum. If in the notes I took when inspecting the birth certificate I managed to misspell the father's name, that would be an error on my part, but that misinformation is still a datum. It is known to be incorrect only after I acquire some knowledge of the facts of the matter, but it does not for that reason cease being a datum, for my note remains. Only now I am aware of the fact that the inference I drew drawn from the datum is false. Despite what the certificate claims, DNA evidence might show that "in fact" person C, not person B, was the actual father. Here we employ different data that points to a fact different from our original inference drawn from the birth certificate. It is a "fact" because we have reason to believe it to be more likely true than what we inferred from reading the certificate. A "fact" is a statement about something that has "truth value". However, truth value is a relation. Truths are only true in reference to something else. In the special theory of relativity, the size and mass of something depends on its frame of reference. In quantum mechanics (Heisenberg indeterminacy), the observation of data changes the truth of what is observed. In the philosophy of science, all observations entail unproven observational hypotheses (Lakatos). Establishing the truth of the fact depends on a framework consisting of procedures for ascertaining truth and a body of knowledge that is generally presumed to be true. In serious discourse, the truth of a fact is argued in terms of a specific pedagogy, such as physical science, historiography, or genealogy. These sciences not only convey a body of facts that can be taken as true, but also a framework for establishing or testing such facts. This frame of reference in relation to which truth is established (so that hypothesis might become theory or fact) represents its environment. The environment of a system is anything with which the system has a relevant causal relation, and obviously, and not just in human sciences, an observer or student of the system must enter into a causal relation with it. Since we have a causal relation with a system under study, facts are in part socially constructed. This has led to dismay because some have taken it to imply "subjectivism" - the reduction of truth to just fashion or personal whim. This is not so, of course. To insist upon the subjective component in truth does not obviate the truth value of facts, but merely points out that no truth is absolutely self-contained and necessarily entails a greater whole of it is a part. A truth isolated from context, from the whole, is not for that reason false, but instead is what is often called "one sided". It has truth value, but a limited one. The universal laws in physics are an artifact of laboratory isolation. This does not falsify those laws, but makes them a one-sided aspect of a world that does not reduce to rigid universal laws. As often pointed out, such laws don't really explain anything, for they are only observations of general behavior. Bob notes that "History is aided by facts when they are available, but useful history can be built based on analysis of subjective information as well". Indeed, a historical theory is socially constructed from facts that the historical profession, some other authority says is valid or by virtue of some argumentation, and so are taken to be true. He hints of the distinction between a fact and a scientific theory, such as history or genealogy. Both are socially constructed, but their utility is in relation to different things. A fact has utility in relation to a theory; a theory constructed from the facts has utility in relation to society, including our understanding and activity in the world. A nice way to define the relation of data to the construction of facts and theory is to see the data as constraints on the possible facts or theories we might construct by using them. More accurately, data constrain the probability distribution of the truth value of the possible socially constructed facts and theories. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >Bob LeChevalier wrote: >> If people have a specific day month year, I usually presume that there >> was some primary source behind it at some point, though it might be >> 15th level hearsay. > >My great-grandfather's family history gives specific birthdates >for all his twelve siblings. Most of them are they day after >the dates in his mother's Civil War pension file. Is that weird? No. In French and Canadian records quite often the baptism date is recorded (and remembered by the family) as the date of birth, even though it is often the day after the actual birth. If the family you describe was Catholic, I'd suspect that is what the family remembers. (In Quebec and in pre-Revolutionary France, there were no civil records - the church baptismal and burial records were the primary vital records. In many cases they only say when the person was baptized, not when he was born, and people just take that as the effective date of birth, because it is the only date recorded. Sometimes they'll say "born yesterday", or the ambiguous "born the night before" I think could either be the immediately preceding night or the night before that, but the usage of those phrases isn't constant. A goodly number of French genealogists record the baptism date as the birth date - maybe their software lacks the dual fields - as I recall, ancestry's on-line data entry also lacks the ability to enter a date as baptism rather than birth, thus ensuring the promulgation of error.) >In the library here, there is a publication of the local genealogical >society purporting to be tombstone inscriptions of a small cemetery >near me. It omits many stones, includes much info that is NOT on the >stones, and gets dates wrong that are clear and easy-to-read on the >stones. Sounds like they may be cemetery records rather than tombstone records. The tombstone dates were of course what the stonecutter was given, which may not have been the same document that ended up in the cemetery records. >(And changing March to April is _not_ a typo). Going through French baptism records, which are written in the books sequentially, just this past night I ran across a series of dates 10 Jan, 13 Jan, 14 Nov, 20 Jan. Recording the month wrong can in fact be a typo. lojbab

Tim, At the risk of being OT, let me briefly reply to your comments. >> In the philosophy of science, all observations entail unproven >> observational hypotheses (Lakatos). > > This is perhaps the core of your somewhat positivistic analysis. I assume you refer to logical positivism here. I'm certainly not in that company, although there are elements that have been picked up and become rather universal. In particular the idea that knowledge contains non-observational facts. > The question to ask is how could you possibly prove any observational > hypothesis? You can't, and that's the point. It is an axiom, a presumption, and so truth that arises from observation depends on what is unproven. An observational hypothesis depends on our understanding of how phenomena arise and become intelligible. In broad terms, there's no fundamentalist reductionism by which we can certainly know something is true (outside religion, of course), but only true in relation to our present understanding. Since an empiricist reductionism is no longer considered valid, the question is, how to we validate our understandings? Well, not an easy question to answer, and various approaches have been suggested. > I suspect your notion of proof does not allow you to establish the > trust of any observational hypothesis. So all observations are > rubbish! No, as I tried to point out, data constrain facts. I watch the sunrise for a while and am constrained by observational data to be likely to infer that what I'm witnessing is not a sunset. The longer I watch, the less likely I am to mistake it for a sunset. There are all sorts of observational hypotheses here, but they are probably well justified. That is the basis of my trust in them, not proof. > But this goes against the thoughts of the majority of mankind, if not > all of such. Observations are not rubbish, they may be mistaken, they > may be misremembered but they can very definitely be true, in fact the > overwhelming majority of observations are true. I did not intend to imply that observations are rubbish in the sense of being untrue, but merely that observations in themselves do not have the quality of being "true". A rain drop falls from the leaf. In itself, this does not engage consciousness, for I may be oblivious of it. There all kinds of things happening in our universe that do not have the status of facts. When I witness the drop, it becomes a datum of observation, but it is still only data. My eyes perceive a plethora of colors and shapes that are not facts until they register in my brain and impinge on some level of consciousness. It becomes a fact when I make a statement that the drop fell from the leaf, and only the statement acquires the quality of being true or false. Observation is a mere sense-impression per se, and is indeed rubbish in sense of being at all meaningful. It is only when I think about it to make it a fact that it ceases being rubbish. Just in case there is any misunderstanding, there are an unlimited number of things that affect me that I do not observe. The bacteria in my gut are hard at work, but I'm happily oblivious of them. But if I were to make the effort to observe them and bring their existence to consciousness, they become a fact. The confusion may be that we sometimes use the word "fact" to mean "real". We have become more cautious about this association. We know there are real unobservables (causal potencies) and there are unreal observables (chimera), and so reality and observation need to be distinguished. > If you start from there, you have a very different analysis of truths > and far less difficulty in coping with the truths or not of written > reports and inferences from facts. I don't know if you are arguing for a radical empiricism. Being from the UK, that is entirely possible, since that is where it primarily flourished. But if so, you are surely aware that not many people still hold to that position today, and it really isn't just "common sense" as used to be assumed. To bring this back a bit more to the theme of this forum, it is not a question whether a bit of evidence, such as a document, should be taken seriously or not. Many people felt that the alpha and omega of knowledge was empirical observation because that is how we engage the world, but in fact we engage the world through action, not observation, and in nearly any action, there is contained something of ourselves as social beings. The increasingly sophisticated means at our disposal for gathering and evaluating evidence remains of utmost importance. What we do have to admit, I believe, is that truth does not simply arise from the evidence plus logic, but is constructed in terms of it. The former may have been the creed of Sherlock Holmes, but it would impoverish our lives if it were so. As Nietzsche pointed out, we would become slaves to the past; we would betray our creative power to shape our own destiny. An illustration of this might be the earlier hint that genealogy has traditionally served as part of ruling class ideology unless, of course, it is viewed as a pleasant hobby or as a tool for use in historiography. These functions do not challenge its validity, but only posits that validity in a broader context. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

rsegoly wrote: > Hello, > > I am looking for relative who immigrated from Dorohoi Romania to US > sometime between 1900-1915. He was married and his family followed him > later. > > I know his surname was Schleifer. > > I found on Ellis island only one possible candidate (Mortiz) > immigrated 1904 and his age was 24, but it say he was still single. > > I am not sure I can read the hand writing as English is not my mother > tongue, can someone have a look at the record? > > Did all immigrants come via Ellis island? > > In case he's the guy, any advice how do I find his relatives in US? > > Roni Not all immigrants came via Ellis island. Some will have arrived via other ports on the Eastern seaboard (the main alternatives being Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Orleans) and some will have travelled via Canada and crossed the Canadian border. It might be worth reading John P Colletta's book - They came in Ships Note that many European immigrants will have travelled via the UK and outgoing passenger lists can be found at http://www.ancestorsonboard.com/ As a Brit, I feel unqualified to offer advice about this, but I'd be tempted to look at the Federal Census for 1920, 1930 to try and find the family together. Chad -- Chad Hanna Systems Developer FamilyHistoryOnline www.familyhistoryonline.net FreeBSD Apache MySQL Perl mod_perl PHP

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:47b60295.32453555@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... > All that can be sourced to the Family History Library, > Ancestry.com and other sources. So much for sources without adequate > confirmation. A lot of people are just lousy genealogists - and a > bunch of them don't seem to care. > But that shows that the system works - they give their source, which is readily seen to be unreliable and the info can therefore be discarded. One of my other incarnations has been as a member of an editorial board for a scientific journal. Even when deling with professionals, with apparently fairly well-enforced professional standards, I've still been saddened by the low standards of research and historical verification by some. It's going to happen, the only thing to do is find work-arounds. "Everyone says, therefore it's true" is the fastest way to start alarm bells ringing. Lesley Robertson

Chad Hanna wrote: > rsegoly wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I am looking for relative who immigrated from Dorohoi Romania to US >> sometime between 1900-1915. He was married and his family followed him >> later. >> >> I know his surname was Schleifer. >> >> I found on Ellis island only one possible candidate (Mortiz) >> immigrated 1904 and his age was 24, but it say he was still single. >> >> I am not sure I can read the hand writing as English is not my mother >> tongue, can someone have a look at the record? >> >> Did all immigrants come via Ellis island? >> >> In case he's the guy, any advice how do I find his relatives in US? >> >> Roni > > > Not all immigrants came via Ellis island. > > Some will have arrived via other ports on the Eastern seaboard (the main > alternatives being Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Orleans) and > some will have travelled via Canada and crossed the Canadian border. It > might be worth reading John P Colletta's book - They came in Ships > > Note that many European immigrants will have travelled via the UK and > outgoing passenger lists can be found at http://www.ancestorsonboard.com/ > > As a Brit, I feel unqualified to offer advice about this, but I'd be > tempted to look at the Federal Census for 1920, 1930 to try and find the > family together. > > Chad > > Ummm ahhh... PURELY in the spirit of paying forward some of the grief given non-British asking questions on soc.gen.british ... ;) LOOK at a map! New Orleans is many things, but "Eastern Seaboard" isn't among 'em. It's one of a half-dozen or so Gulf ports. Among the Eastern Seaboard ports not mentioned would be Savannah and Miami and in some time periods, Alexandria VA. Cheryl

Wes Groleau wrote: > Another book on the same cemetery is even worse--and it claims to > come from the D.A.R. Better look at that book again. DAR (no dots/periods) does *NOT* publish books of cemetery readings. Some specific DAR Chapter may have made a courtesy copy of a DAR _report_ available in the local library, though. I realilze that's a small sort of difference, but it's important to DAR. (g) Cheryl (yes, a Daughter of the American Revolution/DAR)

Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote: >Bob has touched upon some classic philosophical issues. Perhaps by >exploring them a bit we can arrive at a better grasp of the significance >of data and their interpretation. > >The first thing that needs to be done is to be clear about the >difference between data and facts. >... I find nothing in your summary objectionable. But you omitted one concept I don't fully understand myself in its technical aspects, but still use metaphorically when thinking about data and facts. That concept is the one of "fuzzy" truth values (and thereby fuzzy logic). Very seldom can we assign perfect truth or perfect falsehood to an alleged fact, and sometimes we aren't all that sure what standard of truth we want to apply to a putative fact. Hugh has three possible ancestors to his earliest "proven" ancestor. He could, by whatever means he chose, assign a fuzzy truth value to each of them, thereby entertaining all three possibilities at once. If he ever gets further information, the truth values he assigns might change. In computer terms, since this is a computing newsgroup ... One of the problems with data display in modern genealogy programs is that there is usually no way to communicate fuzzy truth. In Legacy, I can assign a confidence level to a source for a particular datum, but unless someone digs down into the innards of my data and looks at that confidence level, they'll never see it - it doesn't figure into any of the displays or reports above the obscure footnote level that in fact probably nobody will ever read, including me. So I never bother filling it in. If I had 3 different possible ancestors, and could assign weights of probable truth to them, I'd kinda like to see some sort of probability-tree display, so that when I show the pedigree of X, I can somehow see the range of possibilities, the confidence level, and of course which choice is currently the most likely. I envision a tree display that would display the most likely choice, but perhaps if you hovered on a particular link, it might display multiple trees overlayed, with different colors or densities based on relative likelihoods. I could imagine that with proper calculation that I don't myself know how to do, that immediate ancestors that one is sure of, would show up dark and boldly colored, and as one works back up the tree towards Adam and Eve, the lower probabilities of the data being factual would show up less bold and dimmer. The lines one has more evidence for would be strong, and the lines with weaker evidence or multiple possibilities would show up weak (and expand into the multiple options being displayed in the appropriate user-interface conditions). But I haven't thought this through, much less spec'd it out enough that I could expect someone to write software for it. But in all the debates on this forum regarding data models, when we have numerous definitions of the relation "father" as well as the inherent uncertainty of the data which assigns a particular label "father" to a relation, being able to report and display multiple options graphically or hypertextually (or whatever other newfangled means someone might come up with) would seem to be an aspect of the problem worth consideration. After all, the data model should take into consideration the forms of input and output that are needed. I've probably rambled too long, on only a couple hours sleep, so I'll stop here and let you or other shoot me down. %^) lojbab

I'm fairly versed in PAF 5 but have never really understood how to find someone using the Subject technique. E.g., how do I find a female when all I have is her married name like Mrs. Barbara Jones. I know she's in my files simply can't find her by that handle. Thanks...

melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) wrote: >In article <l8lcr3pt14n7spoonctqp06bhtid1j2g00@4ax.com>, > Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes: ><snip> >> For you, yes. For others, the object may be different. >> >> For me, it is a structure upon which I can build my study of history, >> whether it is of my family or some other. History is aided by facts >> when they are available, but useful history can be built based on >> analysis of subjective information as well. >> >> lojbab > >I think one of the things Hugh's been getting at is the >question of what standards one applies to the analysis of >information, not the nature of the information, per se. So >let me ask, what guidelines/criteria/rules do YOU apply in >the analysis of your subjective information? In my case, I treat unverified data as ... unverified and presumably subjective data. In the absence of anything else, I apply a common sense check, and then use it, noting to myself that it is unverified (I mark the source, of course, and I know that the source is not a verified one). If data is heavy with violations of common sense (we all probably know of the data sets that have people who are their own great grandparents, or people who lived 200 years, or were married before they were born), then I generally ignore it entirely. If people have a specific day month year, I usually presume that there was some primary source behind it at some point, though it might be 15th level hearsay. I'm perfectly happy to include data in my tree that has a chance of being bogus, over no data at all. But I remain aware that the data may be bogus. I do tend to prioritize sources by reliability in choosing which data value to display as my preferred value. But I retain other proposed values in my notes, often with a note as to why I am choosing a different value. >All of us here, I think, like to believe we're fairly >rigorous in the conclusions we draw from the data we dig >up, tho' the truth is that some are more demanding than >others. I don't claim to be rigorous, because my concept of rigor is probably too much like Hugh's mathematically trained concept, and I don't think mathematical rigor can apply to the social sciences. I would accept scientific rigor (which is less than mathematical rigor), but in my mind, that would require DNA testing - not an option for most of my research. Rather, I just try to exercise reasonable judgement, and then provide some documentation of what I've done. On the other hand, I don't document my sources according to any academic standard. I just make sure that it is pretty obvious to me (or someone who knows my data pretty well) why I've put this particular factoid in my database. I have people that I work with, and they seem satisfied with my work quality. And since most of my work these days is with ancient French parish records and I don't know more than a few words of the language, getting compliments on the quality of my work from native French speakers tends to be self-confidence building. >And, certainly, I'd be much more inclined to trust >the research of somebody I knew dotted all the I's and crossed >all the T's, rather than merely waved his hands over the data >and pronounced it acceptable. Of course. On the other hand, I tend to appreciate someone who has done an enormous amount of work, even with a small amount of error, over someone who has invested an enormous amount of effort dotting the Is and crossing the ts. I *respect* the latter, especially when it leads to finding something that wouldn't have otherwise been found, but I wouldn't ever do that sort of thing myself, and I don't really "appreciate" it to the same degree that I would, say, a truly large collection of 95% accurate data, where the 5% is not likely to be too far wrong. But I hope that someone who is doing something that meticulous is doing it for themselves, and not for me. With a hobby the first and only one you have to please is yourself. As you might gather, I greatly appreciate ancestry.com, with its enormous quantities of data, often poorly indexed by people who don't know the language. I can live with the indexing problems, so long as the data is available. > Hugh may be the one extreme and, >for all I know, you might be the other (tho' I'm not suggesting >that, at all). > >As to standards and standard setting organizations, I have to >say it all depends. If your objective is to join the DAR/SAR, >then you'll document your claim in accordance with their rules >and standards. Obviously. But precisely because I don't respect the rules, I would never bother (even assuming I qualified). And of course if you are foolish enough to try to be a "professional genealogist" and get people to pay you for what you do, then obviously you have to keep the customer satisfied, whoever that customer might be. I for one wouldn't pay someone by the hour to meet AGS or DAR standards. Indeed, other than some weird inheritance thing that promised me big bucks for meeting some legal standard, I'm not sure I can imagine why I would ever bother to meet someone else's standards for any reason other for my own convenience. >If you're gathering information on your ancestors >in order to prepare LDS temple ordinances for them, you follow >THEIR rules. Considering the crud that has made it into the IGI database, I'm not impressed by their rules. Of course, if you are doing something according to their rules, you aren't doing it according to someone else's rules. Since the standards are not in fact "standard" what plays here might not play somewhere else. Working with French and with Canadian records and researchers, I've quickly learned just how many different standards there are, and just how incompatible they are. As a result, it is hard to take any standard seriously. >If you're a hobbyist, you have a choice and do what satisfies your own idea of thoroughness and reasonableness. Except for those who are "professionals" or wannabes, we are all hobbyists. lojbab

On Feb 16, 8:08 am, singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote: > Chad Hanna wrote: > > rsegoly wrote: > > >> Hello, > > >> I am looking for relative who immigrated from Dorohoi Romania to US > >> sometime between 1900-1915. He was married and his family followed him > >> later. > > >> I know his surname was Schleifer. > > >> I found on Ellis island only one possible candidate (Mortiz) > >> immigrated 1904 and his age was 24, but it say he was still single. > > >> I am not sure I can read the hand writing as English is not my mother > >> tongue, can someone have a look at the record? > > >> Did all immigrants come via Ellis island? > > >> In case he's the guy, any advice how do I find his relatives in US? > > >> Roni > > > Not all immigrants came via Ellis island. > > > Some will have arrived via other ports on the Eastern seaboard (the main > > alternatives being Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Orleans) and > > some will have travelled via Canada and crossed the Canadian border. It > > might be worth reading John P Colletta's book - They came in Ships > > > Note that many European immigrants will have travelled via the UK and > > outgoing passenger lists can be found athttp://www.ancestorsonboard.com/ > > > As a Brit, I feel unqualified to offer advice about this, but I'd be > > tempted to look at the Federal Census for 1920, 1930 to try and find the > > family together. > > > Chad > > Ummm ahhh... PURELY in the spirit of paying forward some of > the grief given non-British asking questions on > soc.gen.british ... ;) > > LOOK at a map!  New Orleans is many things, but "Eastern > Seaboard" isn't among 'em.  It's one of a half-dozen or so > Gulf ports. > > Among the Eastern Seaboard ports not mentioned would be > Savannah and Miami and in some time periods, Alexandria VA. > > Cheryl- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are even some rare occasions when immigrants from Europe entered the United States through a west coast port. My maternal grandfather, born in Siracusa, Sicily, joined the British Navy, sailed around the world, and arrived in the United States when his ship docked in San Francisco. Once there, he and several of his shipmates deserted and immediately joined the US navy. Robert Rizzolo researchitaly.us

In there a way to look for free at the US Census? Any link I use I am led to a paid service I have some names which I need to look in US and can place them in Pittsburgh,PA at about 1910-1930 and probably some are still there. On Feb 16, 1:52 pm, Chad Hanna <c...@chadhanna.co.uk> wrote: > rsegoly wrote: > > Hello, > > > I am looking for relative who immigrated from Dorohoi Romania to US > > sometime between 1900-1915. He was married and his family followed him > > later. > > > I know his surname was Schleifer. > > > I found on Ellis island only one possible candidate (Mortiz) > > immigrated 1904 and his age was 24, but it say he was still single. > > > I am not sure I can read the hand writing as English is not my mother > > tongue, can someone have a look at the record? > > > Did all immigrants come via Ellis island? > > > In case he's the guy, any advice how do I find his relatives in US? > > > Roni > > Not all immigrants came via Ellis island. > > Some will have arrived via other ports on the Eastern seaboard (the main > alternatives being Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Orleans) and > some will have travelled via Canada and crossed the Canadian border. It > might be worth reading John P Colletta's book - They came in Ships > > Note that many European immigrants will have travelled via the UK and > outgoing passenger lists can be found athttp://www.ancestorsonboard.com/ > > As a Brit, I feel unqualified to offer advice about this, but I'd be > tempted to look at the Federal Census for 1920, 1930 to try and find the > family together. > > Chad > > -- > Chad Hanna > Systems Developer FamilyHistoryOnlinewww.familyhistoryonline.net > FreeBSD Apache MySQL Perl mod_perl PHP

In article <l8lcr3pt14n7spoonctqp06bhtid1j2g00@4ax.com>, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes: <snip> > For you, yes. For others, the object may be different. > > For me, it is a structure upon which I can build my study of history, > whether it is of my family or some other. History is aided by facts > when they are available, but useful history can be built based on > analysis of subjective information as well. > > lojbab I think one of the things Hugh's been getting at is the question of what standards one applies to the analysis of information, not the nature of the information, per se. So let me ask, what guidelines/criteria/rules do YOU apply in the analysis of your subjective information? I'd ask Hugh the same question: what standards do YOU, Hugh, apply in examining and before accepting data? All of us here, I think, like to believe we're fairly rigorous in the conclusions we draw from the data we dig up, tho' the truth is that some are more demanding than others. And, certainly, I'd be much more inclined to trust the research of somebody I knew dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's, rather than merely waved his hands over the data and pronounced it acceptable. Hugh may be the one extreme and, for all I know, you might be the other (tho' I'm not suggesting that, at all). As to standards and standard setting organizations, I have to say it all depends. If your objective is to join the DAR/SAR, then you'll document your claim in accordance with their rules and standards. If you're gathering information on your ancestors in order to prepare LDS temple ordinances for them, you follow THEIR rules. If you're a hobbyist, you have a choice and do what satisfies your own idea of thoroughness and reasonableness. Sloppy Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > I think you miss his point. Wes I was hoping he would be more > successful in avoiding semantics than me - which was his point. Just yankin' yer chain.... -- Wes Groleau ----------- Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy: http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html (Not necessarily my opinion, but worth reading)