On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:57:39 -0500, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:46:55 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh >Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: > >>The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. > >I would have personally some problem with associating a society >and knowledge. While the society (whatever it is and whatever the >purpose is, i.e. genealogy or other topics) may have the purpose of >publishing data (review, database, books, etc.), it is usually not >a monopoly. A federation of societies is usually a better group to >define standards and in many domains, there are specific committees >to set standards and while they are usually associated to societies >or federations equivalent, they work better when they are >independent and include representants from the industry (genealogy >software authors in our case). So, even if the NGS can set some >standard, FGS can have other and different standards and LDS may >have other as well so that in genealogy, there is no universal >"authority", even at a national level. I have no problem with that. Mine was the briefest way I could think of to say that there should be some set of standards for research. I think we need to know if data we use is based on the best and most accurate available or whether based on the whim of the preparer. I don't care WHAT they do but I want to know the basis if I use their data. >>You're back to semantics. I'm looking at 3 or 4 generations. Adopted >>kids may have no medical info on ancestors and it will get worse for >>their grandchildren if they look to falsified ancestors for data. > >From genetics studies I have seen and my own feeling from what the >records show, a typical rate for babies born out of weblock in Quebec >before the 1960s would be 1 to 2%, i.e. 1 out of 10 people making >a male line 10 generations back will get the wrong male ancestor. > >The rate in New England and Virginia should be similar when records >exist, i.e. in small societies where the marriage is compulsory, there >is a small rate of biologically illegitimate babies. And in larger >societies, when people can't be checked and where there are much more >foreigners, the rate is higher. I just accepted the 30% rather than argue. >This is why genealogy is not genetics. You have to believe in the >documents. If the DNA doesn't match, then you can't know who broke >the line. That requires a lot of discussion. Suffice it to say I have found many incorrect documents. Of course it depends on the source and type. I 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 incident. >>70% is more than "possibly" and many Southern families are >>considerably more certain than that. > >Actually, it could be around 99%. But even with 99%, you must >accept that you go by the papers and not by the genes. A person looking at adoption birth certs would be certain - until he saw the genealogy that recorded the true facts. In my mind that's one fork in the road where we make the decision to become genealogists or family historians. My grandfather's death certificate listed him as Joe. He signed checks "J O". He was also called Joseph. In his first census he was Josiah T. - seems like his parents should know. So far my DNA matches no Sullivan yet tested. My MRCA is two generations before my earliest provable ancestor. I am a close match with a Vaughan, a Willard and a Woolard - no help with their genealogy. I doubt that I have the DNA of all three males so I'm guessing that a Sullivan male impregnated three women whose baseborn children later changed their names. That is reasonable since my gg grand had 5 baseborn children by three ladies before he settled down with one of them. At this point I can continue my frustrated search or I can take the easy way out and link to the line I want to link to because it goes further back. I consider one honest and the other dishonest. I choose to be honest and I do not choose for others. Good post, Denis. Hugh

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:59:18 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:57:39 -0500, Denis Beauregard ><denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote: > >>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:46:55 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh >>Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >> >>>The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. >> >>I would have personally some problem with associating a society >>and knowledge. While the society (whatever it is and whatever the >>purpose is, i.e. genealogy or other topics) may have the purpose of >>publishing data (review, database, books, etc.), it is usually not >>a monopoly. A federation of societies is usually a better group to >>define standards and in many domains, there are specific committees >>to set standards and while they are usually associated to societies >>or federations equivalent, they work better when they are >>independent and include representants from the industry (genealogy >>software authors in our case). So, even if the NGS can set some >>standard, FGS can have other and different standards and LDS may >>have other as well so that in genealogy, there is no universal >>"authority", even at a national level. > >I have no problem with that. Mine was the briefest way I could think >of to say that there should be some set of standards for research. I >think we need to know if data we use is based on the best and most >accurate available or whether based on the whim of the preparer. I >don't care WHAT they do but I want to know the basis if I use their >data. NGS and FGS are large enough. Suppose you live in a smaller country. Societies and federations usually have less competent managers and it can be a lot easier for some jerk to take the control and to corrupt some major source. Replace "smaller country" by "area" or "topic", etc., and you will find that you may have databases that are corrupted, filled of data that shouldn't be there, but kept as the source to use because someone well known took the control. So, even if you have the largest societies running with let's call it ethics, you may also have to use data from not very ethical people and you will never know that point. Someone you may think to be a good genealogist may appear to be a clown when you find out you are a better one. And the opposite is possible. Someone who published a reference book may have seen data that were lost later, so even if this source has a lot of errors, it can be the only source for some data. >>This is why genealogy is not genetics. You have to believe in the >>documents. If the DNA doesn't match, then you can't know who broke >>the line. > >That requires a lot of discussion. Suffice it to say I have found many >incorrect documents. Of course it depends on the source and type. I >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 >incident. You have no choice but to accept what is available. And to fill the blanks. >>>70% is more than "possibly" and many Southern families are >>>considerably more certain than that. >> >>Actually, it could be around 99%. But even with 99%, you must >>accept that you go by the papers and not by the genes. > >A person looking at adoption birth certs would be certain - until he >saw the genealogy that recorded the true facts. In my mind that's one >fork in the road where we make the decision to become genealogists or >family historians. I don't think so. I would say the genealogist is someone building genealogies, i.e. working on the record to build the tree, while the family historian will add leaves to the tree, or flesh to the skeleton. Obviously, the family historian should spend more times with each family, and because he would check more records, odds are better for him to find some indice proving an error for example. Then, a genealogist would work faster. Someone publishing for example a dictionnary with all people of his name in the world would do be a genealogist. Someone could take the same time to work only on his family line (i.e. 10 generations compared to 10,000 families). And then, you find that it is very unlikely that you use the work of the family historian except for the 1st generation, while the genealogist work is more usefull since it covers more persons. >My grandfather's death certificate listed him as Joe. He signed checks >"J O". He was also called Joseph. In his first census he was Josiah T. >- seems like his parents should know. > >So far my DNA matches no Sullivan yet tested. My MRCA is two >generations before my earliest provable ancestor. I am a close match >with a Vaughan, a Willard and a Woolard - no help with their >genealogy. With 30% of illegitimates, you reach quite fast the level where your genealogy isn't likely your genetics. But you can't check the DNA of all Americans to find something. >I doubt that I have the DNA of all three males so I'm guessing that a >Sullivan male impregnated three women whose baseborn children later >changed their names. But the DNA variation has something like one change for maybe 5 or 10 generations. So, it would make more sense that the 3 people you found are descendant of a common ancestor, but 10 or even 100 generations back, at a time when there were no family name. >That is reasonable since my gg grand had 5 baseborn children by three >ladies before he settled down with one of them. > >At this point I can continue my frustrated search or I can take the >easy way out and link to the line I want to link to because it goes >further back. I consider one honest and the other dishonest. I choose >to be honest and I do not choose for others. This would be a work of family historian which can be necessary when there is not enough reliable data to continue or when there is some obvious problem (DNA in your case). Among the Quebec British immigrants, there is a Sullivan that is renamed to Sylvain later (a true French name). Just to say you may find DNA where you didn't expect it ! >Good post, Denis. Thanks Denis -- 0 Denis Beauregard - /\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ |\ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ / | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1770 (Version 2008) oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1770 (2008 Release)

Denis Beauregard wrote: > you will never know that point. Someone you may think to be a good > genealogist may appear to be a clown when you find out you are a > better one. And the opposite is possible. Someone who published > a reference book may have seen data that were lost later, so even if > this source has a lot of errors, it can be the only source for some Or someone respected (P. William Filby) might allow his name to be put on crap (some parts of "Germans to America") -- Wes Groleau Change is inevitable. Liberals need to learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "good." Conservatives should learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "bad." -- WWG

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 ----------- "Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?" -- Charles Wallace (in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)