Hello, Kurt. This was more of a complaint that a paid researcher failed to provide in his report to a paying client sufficient identifying information for anyone to follow his trail. Perhaps he was thinking that "any idiot knows xyz is a "län", I don't need to say so"; perhaps he wasn't. Impossible to know at this point. But because he failed to SAY what level of records he was looking at, it's difficult to reproduce his results. Kind of like a astronomer failing to note which constellation he's looking at when he comments on the 2nd star in it, or an astrophysicist failing to mention whether his unit of measurement is a parsec or an A.U. In one place he said it was in "Brunnby parish." Period. In another, he says something is in "Allerum, Malmö". In yet another he specified "Ryhus, Välinge, Malmöhus". Cheryl Kurt F wrote: > Hello Cheryl > > As a Swede I am puzzled about a few words below. > > What do you mean by "parish, state" > What do you mean by "district, state" > What do you mean by "parish, district" > > In Swedish research you have to record "parish" and "län" as there are > some parishes with the same name in different län. > Is "län" the same as "district" in your notes? > What is "state"? > > A typical source notation in my research is: > "Skeda, C:4, Birth,Marriage,Death, 1792-1831, page 233" > In my database this person is noted as born 21-04-1818 in "Syrorp, > Skeda, E" as I also includes the farm name. The "E" notates > "Östergötlands län". We don´t bother to use the newly introduced > "regions" as the church books uses the old names. This source makes it > possible for me to go back and look it up again, if I so wishes. > > The birth, marriage and death records are written at the time of the > event, and must be considered as facts (unless the person who wrote the > record made an error, which is possible to overcome if you do a proper > research). > > The household examination books can be in error, as they were copied > mostly every five year. > > There is no need to have copies of the relevant pages in the church > books. It is always possible to find the right book on the internet. > (You have Genline, Arkiv Digital and SVAR to look at.) > > I don´t know what you mean by the geografic changes 1952. I must admit > this is news to me. Everyone I know uses the "old" designations. > > The censuses are harder to read and contain less indormation than the > church books. Remember that is was the State church resposibility to > keep record of every Swede. Today it is the resposibility of the IRS, so > future researchers will have more trouble to do a reliable research. > > Do you have any examples to share with us. I am always willing to help. > You can email me direct if you wish. My email address is, as always, valid. > > Kurt F > > On 2012-08-31 15:25, singhals wrote: >> A few weeks ago (or was it months?) we had another round of "the best >> way to enter place names". >> >> I came down firmly against including the parish name. This week that >> viewpoint hardened even more, thanks to a relative-by-marriage who died >> about a year ago. >> >> Aunt Ett (NOT her real name) shared data on her Swedish line with me, so >> someone else would have it. The Swedish data was found for her by a >> professional researcher who charged her dearly about 15-20 years ago. He >> did NOT provide her copies (I'm guessing microfilm copiers weren't >> prolific yet or maybe she told him she didn't need official copies and >> he didn't want to make plain ones; dunno), just the prose reports. So, >> when I entered it into a genie program for her, I typed what was there. >> What else could I do? >> >> Now that a lot of Swedish records are on-line, I've been trying to >> confirm what he gave her. First off, let me say, yeah, he earned his >> money. And, no, so far he doesn't seem to have made anything up, >> precisely. He does seem to have reported things as "fact" when I would >> have labelled them "alleged facts" if I'd been charging for 'em, but >> that could be /my/ problem rather than /a/ problem. >> >> Anyway, in confirming the material at hand, I'm discovering that in some >> instances, he reported places as Parish, State; in some it was district, >> state; in some it was parish, district. I'm sure HE knew where they >> were, but after a week of intense digging, /I'm/ still not sure. I'll >> put money on the notion that Aunt Ett didn't know either! >> >> The research isn't made easier by the local guvvmint's geographic >> changes in 1952 (about half-a-century after the last contact over there >> died), or by the lack of cross-references in catalogues to those pre- >> and post- locales. I can only be grateful I'm not looking in the early >> 1700s and dealing with that episode of Swedish independence vis-a-vis >> calendars! >> >> It wouldn't have /killed/ that researcher to have added Parish to the >> parish name. Nor so I see that it would have diminished his machismo >> any to have hand-added the flaming diacriticals! (eye-roll) >> >> Cheryl >> [Yeah, it would have helped if I'd've kept the documents Aunt Ett had, >> but like a good little thing, I returned them to her. >>