> When do you decide that coincidence is just coincidence and > the fact that one finds the right name in the approximate > era in the right state is just that: coincidence? > > Vs > > ooooooooh! Lookit, I found a previously unknown wife for my > guy! OK, he's in the wrong part of the state, and nothing > else matches, but the name's right, and it's within 5 years > of the known marriage ... > > ??? > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> You are too conscientious a researcher to record.unless it is at least preponderance of evidence. One swallow does not a summer make - or make one drunk. It's worth an explanatory note if you use it or a legitimate clue to note to research further. That's what you would have told me - maybe already have, mon cherie! Hugh, and my brand spankin' out of the box new defibrilator. Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> When do you decide that coincidence is just coincidence and > the fact that one finds the right name in the approximate > era in the right state is just that: coincidence? > > Vs > > ooooooooh! Lookit, I found a previously unknown wife for my > guy! OK, he's in the wrong part of the state, and nothing > else matches, but the name's right, and it's within 5 years > of the known marriage ... > > ??? > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Can you find them in the following census and are they with whom they should be ie children. AND do they disappear from where you had them confirmed. I know of one incidence in my family when a distant cousin thought she had gotten through a deadend, however the person she though was the grandfather was in the next census with a different wife. Eventually we located the proper person under an extreme spelling variant with the proper wife in a completely different area of the country. Depending out the time period, are they in any of the county histories. Otherwise I do not put the data in the database until I find other evidence Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>

> When do you decide that coincidence is just coincidence and > the fact that one finds the right name in the approximate > era in the right state is just that: coincidence? > > Vs > > ooooooooh! Lookit, I found a previously unknown wife for my > guy! OK, he's in the wrong part of the state, and nothing > else matches, but the name's right, and it's within 5 years > of the known marriage ... > > ??? > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Coincidence happens ;-) I would still be looking for confirmation... John

> When do you decide that coincidence is just coincidence and > the fact that one finds the right name in the approximate > era in the right state is just that: coincidence? > > Vs > > ooooooooh! Lookit, I found a previously unknown wife for my > guy! OK, he's in the wrong part of the state, and nothing > else matches, but the name's right, and it's within 5 years > of the known marriage ... > > ??? > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Dorothy Parker famously said, "Nothing propinqs like propinquity", but in a case like this I'd be inclined to apply the reasonable person test: seeing your data, would a reasonable person conclude this woman is your guy's wife? With no matches but the name, and a 5 year window of opportunity .. I think I'd treat this like a week-old flounder. I know the feeling, though. After more'n 10 years trying to track down my 3g grandfather Melson's ancestry, I'm close to grabbing any straw that presents itself, reasonable or not. I resist the temptation, though, by telling myself that that's how the name-collectors do "genealogy" - that's not what I want, it's not fair to the old man's memory, and it sure-as-dickens isn't genealogy. So, ask yourself the important questions: does this fit what I know, does it advance what I know, or am I trying to pound the wrong shape piece into the jigsaw puzzle? Sorry, no good answer. Suspicious Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>

> When do you decide that coincidence is just coincidence and > the fact that one finds the right name in the approximate > era in the right state is just that: coincidence? > > Vs > > ooooooooh! Lookit, I found a previously unknown wife for my > guy! OK, he's in the wrong part of the state, and nothing > else matches, but the name's right, and it's within 5 years > of the known marriage ... > > ??? > > Cheryl Singhals As you find more evidence does it fit in or does it contradict your original interpretation? -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk ------- End of Forwarded Message Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>

When do you decide that coincidence is just coincidence and the fact that one finds the right name in the approximate era in the right state is just that: coincidence? Vs ooooooooh! Lookit, I found a previously unknown wife for my guy! OK, he's in the wrong part of the state, and nothing else matches, but the name's right, and it's within 5 years of the known marriage ... ??? Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

Hi Mimosa, "Mimosa Mack" <kmmack@verizon.net> wrote : > > I know from directories that in 1892 my ancestor lived on Ewen St in > Brookly, Kings County, NY. > > I also found I can 'browse' the 1892 Census for Kings county NY > sorted by Ward and Enumeration District. > > Does anyone know where I can find out what Ward/Enumeration District > Ewen Street was on in 1892? Here is info from 1872. Perhaps that will help. http://www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/Map/Main.st.html Other maps http://www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/Map/Maps.Main.html It will help if you know approx. where to find Ewen St. -- Regards, Howard <hswain@ix.netcom.com>

> I know from directories that in 1892 my ancestor lived on Ewen St in > Brookly, Kings County, NY. > > I also found I can 'browse' the 1892 Census for Kings county NY > sorted by Ward and Enumeration District. > > Does anyone know where I can find out what Ward/Enumeration District > Ewen Street was on in 1892? > > "Mimosa Mack" <kmmack@verizon.net> Some city directories have that information in the section under government.

> I know from directories that in 1892 my ancestor lived on Ewen St in > Brookly, Kings County, NY. > > I also found I can 'browse' the 1892 Census for Kings county NY > sorted by Ward and Enumeration District. > > Does anyone know where I can find out what Ward/Enumeration District > Ewen Street was on in 1892? > > "Mimosa Mack" <kmmack@verizon.net> Try http://stevemorse.org/census/ While it doesn't have the info for the 1890 (not '92) US Census, it does have a way of finding the Enumeration District for the 1900. All bets are off, of course, if you're looking for info about a _state_ census. Surly Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>

Mimosa Mack wrote: > I know from directories that in 1892 my ancestor lived on Ewen St in > Brookly, Kings County, NY. > > I also found I can 'browse' the 1892 Census for Kings county NY > sorted by Ward and Enumeration District. > > Does anyone know where I can find out what Ward/Enumeration District > Ewen Street was on in 1892? Catherine Dente wrote to the Brooklyn list in 2004 > For 1892: > Go to Brooklyn Info Pages http://www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/ > and on the main menu click Enumerations - Wards. > Scroll down to 1889 ELECTION DISTRICTS and search for streets there. bob gillis bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net>

I know from directories that in 1892 my ancestor lived on Ewen St in Brookly, Kings County, NY. I also found I can 'browse' the 1892 Census for Kings county NY sorted by Ward and Enumeration District. Does anyone know where I can find out what Ward/Enumeration District Ewen Street was on in 1892? Thanks Mimosa "Mimosa Mack" <kmmack@verizon.net>

> I'd be interested to know if anyone has found One Note to be useful > for tracking genealogical research. If so, please describe how you > use it, what works, what doesn't, templates, etc. > > "Kathleen Craine" <kacraine@aol.com> I believe Christy Fillerup uses OneNote to track her genealogical research and likes it alot. You might try posting this question over on the Transitional Genealogists list, where Christy posts, and see if you get any responses. Carol Carol V <norfolkterrierlover@gmail.com>

The Fourth of July holiday caused me to think about the naturalization process and finding records for the early immigrants to the state. This note provides information about some sources that are NOT included in the free on-line index through the Iron Range Research Center http://www.ironrangeresearchcenter.org or through a subscription to Ancestry.com. You can find the note at http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/res_ecrt.html Other research notes re: Minnesota topics can be found at http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/research.html Enjoy! Mary Bakeman Park Genealogical Books Mary Bakeman <mbakeman@parkbooks.com>

I'd be interested to know if anyone has found One Note to be useful for tracking genealogical research. If so, please describe how you use it, what works, what doesn't, templates, etc. Kathleen Craine Chicago "Kathleen Craine" <kacraine@aol.com>

>> > I wish to be able to clearly and succinctly identify the sources, >> > and logic used to establish a parent child relationship. This is not >> > usually as simple as citing an individual source, but for me often >> > requires establishing a "network" of interlocking bits of evidence. >> > This does not seem to be supported in many Genealogy programs, and >> > I've been told that the reason for that is that the capability is >> > not built into the GedCom standards. >> > >> > If that's the case, then this would seem to be a severe problem. I >> > can't think of anything more important than establishing parent >> > child relationships. >> > >> > Can anyone confirm that this is in fact a limitation in the GedCom >> > standards? >> > >> > Quolla6@gmail.com >> >> The GEDCOM standard supports the specification of one of four types >> of relationship of child to a family (PEDI tag subordinate to FAMC >> tag). These are: birth, adopted, foster, sealing. (Sealing is an >> LDS ceremony of adopting a child into a family.) >> >> Also, there is an "ADOP" event available for each individual. This >> may contain the reference to the family which adopted the individual >> (FAMC sub-tag) and a sub-tag (ADOP) to specify which or both parents >> as HUSB, WIFE or BOTH. >> >> Thus: >> 0 INDI @I1@ >> 1 FAMC @F1@ >> 2 PEDI adopted >> 2 NOTE As and if required. >> 3 SOUR ... >> 1 ADOP >> 2 FAMC @F1@ >> 3 ADOP HUSB >> .... >> 0 FAM @F1@ >> 1 CHIL @I1@ >> .... >> >> There are a small number of programs that support these tags as >> defined. Some others define custom _MREL and _FREL tags within the >> family record to define the relationships of an individual to >> "father" and "mother" of a family. Note that custom tags may not >> transport reliably between programs. >> >> With respect to sources, the GEDCOM standard does not permit SOUR as >> a sub-tag of PEDI, but it does permit SOUR as a sub-tag of NOTE as a >> sub-tag of PEDI. >> >> Nigel >> www.tcgr.bufton.org >> "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> > > > From Nigels response to my question it appears that > a) The GedCom Standard does not directly provide a tag that allows > you to explicitly explain the basis on which a family relationship > is established. > b) To handle this you have to use the notes > > Consider a website or desktop package that allowed GedCom uploads > and downloads. Even if it provided for the capability to explicitly > explain the basis for identifying the basis for a parent child > relationship (other than through a general note), you would not be > able to re-export that information through a GedCom. > > Thanks to all who replied. I appreciate the information received > from all. > > Q <quolla6@gmail.com> I should have added that the ADOP event permits SOUR sub-tags and a custom EVEN event could be created for Fostering (or any other event), which itself may have SOUR sub-tags. Therefore, if you specify events for individuals defining the establishment of the (additional) family relationships, SOUR sub-tags may be freely used for each event. Nigel "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org>

> > I wish to be able to clearly and succinctly identify the sources, > > and logic used to establish a parent child relationship. This is not > > usually as simple as citing an individual source, but for me often > > requires establishing a "network" of interlocking bits of evidence. > > This does not seem to be supported in many Genealogy programs, and > > I've been told that the reason for that is that the capability is > > not built into the GedCom standards. > > > > If that's the case, then this would seem to be a severe problem. I > > can't think of anything more important than establishing parent > > child relationships. > > > > Can anyone confirm that this is in fact a limitation in the GedCom > > standards? > > > > Quolla6@gmail.com > > The GEDCOM standard supports the specification of one of four types > of relationship of child to a family (PEDI tag subordinate to FAMC > tag). These are: birth, adopted, foster, sealing. (Sealing is an > LDS ceremony of adopting a child into a family.) > > Also, there is an "ADOP" event available for each individual. This > may contain the reference to the family which adopted the individual > (FAMC sub-tag) and a sub-tag (ADOP) to specify which or both parents > as HUSB, WIFE or BOTH. > > Thus: > 0 INDI @I1@ > 1 FAMC @F1@ > 2 PEDI adopted > 2 NOTE As and if required. > 3 SOUR ... > 1 ADOP > 2 FAMC @F1@ > 3 ADOP HUSB > .... > 0 FAM @F1@ > 1 CHIL @I1@ > .... > > There are a small number of programs that support these tags as > defined. Some others define custom _MREL and _FREL tags within the > family record to define the relationships of an individual to > "father" and "mother" of a family. Note that custom tags may not > transport reliably between programs. > > With respect to sources, the GEDCOM standard does not permit SOUR as > a sub-tag of PEDI, but it does permit SOUR as a sub-tag of NOTE as a > sub-tag of PEDI. > > Nigel > www.tcgr.bufton.org > "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> From Nigels response to my question it appears that a) The GedCom Standard does not directly provide a tag that allows you to explicitly explain the basis on which a family relationship is established. b) To handle this you have to use the notes Consider a website or desktop package that allowed GedCom uploads and downloads. Even if it provided for the capability to explicitly explain the basis for identifying the basis for a parent child relationship (other than through a general note), you would not be able to re-export that information through a GedCom. Thanks to all who replied. I appreciate the information received from all. Q Q <quolla6@gmail.com>

> I wish to be able to clearly and succinctly identify the sources, > and logic used to establish a parent child relationship. This is not > usually as simple as citing an individual source, but for me often > requires establishing a "network" of interlocking bits of evidence. > This does not seem to be supported in many Genealogy programs, and > I've been told that the reason for that is that the capability is > not built into the GedCom standards. > > If that's the case, then this would seem to be a severe problem. I > can't think of anything more important than establishing parent > child relationships. > > Can anyone confirm that this is in fact a limitation in the GedCom > standards? > > Quolla6@gmail.com The GEDCOM standard supports the specification of one of four types of relationship of child to a family (PEDI tag subordinate to FAMC tag). These are: birth, adopted, foster, sealing. (Sealing is an LDS ceremony of adopting a child into a family.) Also, there is an "ADOP" event available for each individual. This may contain the reference to the family which adopted the individual (FAMC sub-tag) and a sub-tag (ADOP) to specify which or both parents as HUSB, WIFE or BOTH. Thus: 0 INDI @I1@ 1 FAMC @F1@ 2 PEDI adopted 2 NOTE As and if required. 3 SOUR ... 1 ADOP 2 FAMC @F1@ 3 ADOP HUSB .... 0 FAM @F1@ 1 CHIL @I1@ .... There are a small number of programs that support these tags as defined. Some others define custom _MREL and _FREL tags within the family record to define the relationships of an individual to "father" and "mother" of a family. Note that custom tags may not transport reliably between programs. With respect to sources, the GEDCOM standard does not permit SOUR as a sub-tag of PEDI, but it does permit SOUR as a sub-tag of NOTE as a sub-tag of PEDI. Nigel www.tcgr.bufton.org "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org>

> > As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys > > in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I > > identify Mary as Mary Unknown. > > > > Keith Nuttle > > If you have several Marys not traceable to family then you have > several Marys not traceable to family. There's no getting around > it. > > I think you have several separate issues. One is data & another is > presentation. > > From a data point of view good /database/ practice would be to leave > a null which is distinct from an empty string or a string filled > with spaces and simply means that the data isn't known. It's > possible your application's underlying database engine won't support > this. And probable that you won't be able to find out! > Nevertheless the closest you'll be able to get to this is to leave > the surname empty if you don't know it - with luck this will be > treated as null and is the closest you'll get if it isn't. > > The presentation issue depends on the application you're dealing > with. If display, reports etc. are configurable you might be able to > make the application default to some other name if the birth name > isn't known. There may be other options. > > Gramps, for instance, has provision for multiple names and the > ability to specify one of several types against each name and to > designate one as the preferred name which will be used in displays > and reports. Using such a scheme could initially set the preferred > name as Mary Jones and flag it as a married or unknown type, > switching the preferred name to her birth name if and when you > discover the correct surname. > > Another facility with Gramps is the provision of a field called > "Call name". You could set this up as "Mary MiL of Jim Jones" and > add the field to the display. Even if you leave the preferred name > as the baptismal name with a blank this will still allow you to see > which Mary is which. This approach would also allow you to > distinguish between people with the same name, for instance "Jim > Jones I", "Jim Jones II" etc. > > The biggest issue which another posting has touched on is the fact > that expecting a surname, especially one with a standard spelling, > is historically and culturally naive. I have several lines where > surnames are very variable in spelling even in recent times and I'm > pretty sure my own surname started with a single "d" in the middle. > In earlier times there were all sorts of patronymics and other > epithets in use. What do you do with an individual who was described > in the witness list of one deed as "Edmund the tanner" and in > another, drawn up on the same day, as "Edmund the barker"? A > capable genealogical program should be able to handle such > situations gracefully without twisting either the data or the > program out of shape. > > Ian Goddard I actually have a 3G Grandfather in St.Giles who in various documents Census, Marriage and Death was spelled variously Garling Girling and Gurling. Probably all arising from the fact that as a Costermonger he was illiterate to the transcriber would spell it partly by his own bias and partly by the accent of the Informant. Fortunately Gramps does allow for this as described But other Genealogy programs do have an 'also known as' field. Mickg Mick <mickg01@verizon.net>

> I wish to be able to clearly and succinctly identify the sources, > and logic used to establish a parent child relationship. This is not > usually as simple as citing an individual source, but for me often > requires establishing a "network" of interlocking bits of evidence. > This does not seem to be supported in many Genealogy programs, and > I've been told that the reason for that is that the capability is > not built into the GedCom standards. > > If that's the case, then this would seem to be a severe problem. I > can't think of anything more important than establishing parent > child relationships. > > Can anyone confirm that this is in fact a limitation in the GedCom > standards? > > Quolla6@gmail.com When I am citing my logic on determining that X is the son of, or wife of, etc., I cite my thinking and my sources in my notes section.

> As the database gains more families, I was trying to avoid several Marys > in the index that are not traceable to a family. Same problem if I > identify Mary as Mary Unknown. > > Keith Nuttle If you have several Marys not traceable to family then you have several Marys not traceable to family. There's no getting around it. I think you have several separate issues. One is data & another is presentation. From a data point of view good /database/ practice would be to leave a null which is distinct from an empty string or a string filled with spaces and simply means that the data isn't known. It's possible your application's underlying database engine won't support this. And probable that you won't be able to find out! Nevertheless the closest you'll be able to get to this is to leave the surname empty if you don't know it - with luck this will be treated as null and is the closest you'll get if it isn't. The presentation issue depends on the application you're dealing with. If display, reports etc. are configurable you might be able to make the application default to some other name if the birth name isn't known. There may be other options. Gramps, for instance, has provision for multiple names and the ability to specify one of several types against each name and to designate one as the preferred name which will be used in displays and reports. Using such a scheme could initially set the preferred name as Mary Jones and flag it as a married or unknown type, switching the preferred name to her birth name if and when you discover the correct surname. Another facility with Gramps is the provision of a field called "Call name". You could set this up as "Mary MiL of Jim Jones" and add the field to the display. Even if you leave the preferred name as the baptismal name with a blank this will still allow you to see which Mary is which. This approach would also allow you to distinguish between people with the same name, for instance "Jim Jones I", "Jim Jones II" etc. The biggest issue which another posting has touched on is the fact that expecting a surname, especially one with a standard spelling, is historically and culturally naive. I have several lines where surnames are very variable in spelling even in recent times and I'm pretty sure my own surname started with a single "d" in the middle. In earlier times there were all sorts of patronymics and other epithets in use. What do you do with an individual who was described in the witness list of one deed as "Edmund the tanner" and in another, drawn up on the same day, as "Edmund the barker"? A capable genealogical program should be able to handle such situations gracefully without twisting either the data or the program out of shape. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>