I need some help separating some children from the wrong mother. Joseph Leigh K2YK-XTL was married twice - Scyche Hoogland and Hannah Smith. I know he had four children with Scyche, and then a bunch with Hannah. The record has some of his children with Hannah sealed to him and Scyche, so how do I move those to the right family? Right now they show in both. The children were born after Scyche died, so I'm sure they belong to Hannah. Rachel shows as a child in the first marriage, and the first child of the second marriage is Syche, but they are born the same year, so I think they are the same person, but I'll have to research that out more! Thanks for any help or suggestions. Megan Smith

I have an aunt (by marriage) who is showing as a spouse to my uncle (correctly), my grandfather (father of my uncle) and some unknown person not related but with the same last name. My grandfather died in 1954, my uncle in 1965, and I personally know that my aunt never remarried. I am figuring I'll be on the phone with support over that one, because all the sources are listed as LDS Temple records, yet her temple work has not been done. I'm not ready to touch THAT one yet. Alice Allen Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant Vancouver WA Stake Portland OR Temple District *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/2/2009 at 8:19 AM Jenealogist66@msn.com wrote: >I had a loop like this where a grandson had the same name as his >grandfather. Someone had mistakenly typed the grandson's birth info in >instead of the grandfather's, so the record showed the grandson was >married to the grandmother. This was not just a combining error, a >sealing (a duplicate, of course,) was done. The incorrect info was shared >widely, and had been duplicated on PRF 57 times. I referred it through >feedback to the family history missionaries and programmers. Took them a >month, but they did delete the problem record and fixed it. > >Doris Bateman >

Not to mention that Samuel died in 1849--10 years before John Peter was born. If the submitter had done his homework, he'd have found out that fact. I've been researching this family for nearly 30 years and know them frontwards and backwards. I haven't had a chance to get back to it today, Family Tree was awfully poky last night when I was trying to separate them out, & I've been gone all day today. I appreciate your help, David. Reading my emails from new to old, so not sure if you had any other comments yet. Alice Allen Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant Vancouver WA Stake Portland OR Temple District *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/2/2009 at 10:12 AM dsam52@sampubco.com wrote: >I had a good look at Allen case involving John Peter Paxton. > >It turned out that one submitter to Temple Records assumed he was son of >Samuel and Amey and did the sealing to them. (consider this, he was born >in 1859 and Samuel and Amey were born 1803 and 1805 respectively) > >so there was no looping problem when these 2 records were separated from >29 other records. > >She is going to try to see if she can separate him from Samuel and Amey >in FamilyTree or not. > >David Samuelsen > > >Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

However, what you mention is a legitimate case of two sets of parents, and should not be disputed. It would be convenient to clarify the situation in notes and/or sources. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Stephen J. Kelsey" <sjkelsey@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:56 AM To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > Another thing to be considered here is that some can be the parents as > well > as the > Grandparents of an individual. A considerable number of grandparents > adopt > a > Grandchild and have the grandchild sealed to them. After these people are > dead > Someone looks at it and says they made a mistake. > > Steve Kelsey > > > -----Original Message----- > From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of DORIS > BATEMAN > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:19 AM > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > > I had a loop like this where a grandson had the same name as his > grandfather. Someone had mistakenly typed the grandson's birth info in > instead of the grandfather's, so the record showed the grandson was > married > to the grandmother. This was not just a combining error, a sealing (a > duplicate, of course,) was done. The incorrect info was shared widely, > and > had been duplicated on PRF 57 times. I referred it through feedback to > the > family history missionaries and programmers. Took them a month, but they > did delete the problem record and fixed it. > > Doris Bateman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jorge Todeschini<mailto:jorgetodeschini@hotmail.com> > To: > lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com<mailto:lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:28 AM > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > > > One reason the grandparents could be listed as parents is that > grandparents > and parents were combined together in error. > > I recently helped a patron who had his grandparents listed as... parents > of > his (the patron's) grandfather. So, Manuel was the son of Manuel and > Joana, > and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of > Manuel > and Joana, and so on. > > I went to combined records and separated Manuel married to Joana from > Manuel > the grandfather. The loop was corrected. > > Note that placing a dispute there would not solve the problem at all. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "DC & Alice Allen" > <dcaallen@pacifier.com<mailto:dcaallen@pacifier.com>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:40 PM > To: > <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com<mailto:lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com>> > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > > > Okay, maybe you can help me straighten out my great-grandfather and his > > parents. > > > > When I first was able to use nFS last June, one of the first things I > > discovered was that my great-grandfather, John Peter Paxton, was > showing > > > *his* grandparents as his parents. His real parents were showing as an > > alternate set of parents. I managed to get his real parents in place, > and > > placed a dispute on the wrong parents. So, after reading the latest > from > > this list, I went back to his combined records, and note that there are > 31 > > records for him. I did some combining last summer, but I'm reasonably > > certain that I didn't combine 31 records for him. I am hesitant to > > uncombine them at the moment, without a little feedback from someone > else. > > > > As near as I can tell, the majority of the contributors are "LDS Temple > > Records." There are two other contributors who are not LDS Temple > > Records, but neither of them seem to be registered with nFS. So in > this > > > case, was the dispute the only thing I could have done? How would I > > resolve this otherwise? The one who apparently contributed the wrong > > parent information is one of the two I mentioned above, with a > carryover > > > into the first LDS Church Temple Records. The rest of the records > either > > list the correct parents, or no parents at all. > > > > His ID# is KJJ4-PZ7, if anyone wants to take a look. > > > > Alice Allen > > Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant > > Vancouver WA Stake > > Portland OR Temple District > > > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > > > On 4/1/2009 at 9:47 AM dsam52@sampubco.com<mailto:dsam52@sampubco.com> > wrote: > > > >>Same thing happened to my great-grandmother. Somebody disputed her > >>spelling of her name. Took me several months of trying to get it > >>removed. First step I did was to separate the record to find exact > which > >>record was tagged wrong way. The exact one had correct spelling and > >>tagged as not mother of her 14 children while 52 other records had > wrong > >>spelling and were not tagged. Took me some months to contact the person > >>who did the tagging. It turned out a helper goofed so my cousin > supplied > >>me her LDS id and birth date then I removed the dispute tag then > >>proceeded to remerge the 53 records then went to the detail page, > marked > >>every other mis-spelled and mis-named ones as incorrect along with > >>inclusion of the correct name. > >> > >>Greater danger is tagging the relationships for wrong reasons. The only > >>reasons that can be used to tag relationships are two - wrong mother or > >>wrong father, or even both parents, or the child with wrong sex. That's > >>it. Dates, places, names, go to the detail page of that person instead. > >> > >>David Samuelsen > >> > > > > > > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > > > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQU > EST@ROOTSWEB.COM> > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@ > rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' > > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQU > EST@ROOTSWEB.COM> > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@ > rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject > and the body of the message > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks, Steve, for pointing out that not all sealings of children to grandparents is a mistake. In my own extended family is one uncle who was raised by his grandparents but not as their grandson. It was only after he was married and had children of his own that he learned that his much older sister was actually his birth mother. As far as he was concerned his grandparents were his parents. Even in his late 70's if asked who his parents had been, he always named his grandparents. Beverly > A considerable number of grandparents adopt > a > Grandchild and have the grandchild sealed to them. After these people are > dead > Someone looks at it and says they made a mistake. > > Steve Kelsey

I had a situation where a child had been sealed to his grandparents because the father was unknown. They were mistakenly listed as parents. Barbi in Stafford NJ Branch. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jorge Todeschini To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes One reason the grandparents could be listed as parents is that grandparents and parents were combined together in error. I recently helped a patron who had his grandparents listed as... parents of his (the patron's) grandfather. So, Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and so on. I went to combined records and separated Manuel married to Joana from Manuel the grandfather. The loop was corrected. Note that placing a dispute there would not solve the problem at all. -------------------------------------------------- From: "DC & Alice Allen" <dcaallen@pacifier.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:40 PM To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > Okay, maybe you can help me straighten out my great-grandfather and his > parents. > > When I first was able to use nFS last June, one of the first things I > discovered was that my great-grandfather, John Peter Paxton, was showing > *his* grandparents as his parents. His real parents were showing as an > alternate set of parents. I managed to get his real parents in place, and > placed a dispute on the wrong parents. So, after reading the latest from > this list, I went back to his combined records, and note that there are 31 > records for him. I did some combining last summer, but I'm reasonably > certain that I didn't combine 31 records for him. I am hesitant to > uncombine them at the moment, without a little feedback from someone else. > > As near as I can tell, the majority of the contributors are "LDS Temple > Records." There are two other contributors who are not LDS Temple > Records, but neither of them seem to be registered with nFS. So in this > case, was the dispute the only thing I could have done? How would I > resolve this otherwise? The one who apparently contributed the wrong > parent information is one of the two I mentioned above, with a carryover > into the first LDS Church Temple Records. The rest of the records either > list the correct parents, or no parents at all. > > His ID# is KJJ4-PZ7, if anyone wants to take a look. > > Alice Allen > Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant > Vancouver WA Stake > Portland OR Temple District > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 4/1/2009 at 9:47 AM dsam52@sampubco.com wrote: > >>Same thing happened to my great-grandmother. Somebody disputed her >>spelling of her name. Took me several months of trying to get it >>removed. First step I did was to separate the record to find exact which >>record was tagged wrong way. The exact one had correct spelling and >>tagged as not mother of her 14 children while 52 other records had wrong >>spelling and were not tagged. Took me some months to contact the person >>who did the tagging. It turned out a helper goofed so my cousin supplied >>me her LDS id and birth date then I removed the dispute tag then >>proceeded to remerge the 53 records then went to the detail page, marked >>every other mis-spelled and mis-named ones as incorrect along with >>inclusion of the correct name. >> >>Greater danger is tagging the relationships for wrong reasons. The only >>reasons that can be used to tag relationships are two - wrong mother or >>wrong father, or even both parents, or the child with wrong sex. That's >>it. Dates, places, names, go to the detail page of that person instead. >> >>David Samuelsen >> > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I had a good look at Allen case involving John Peter Paxton. It turned out that one submitter to Temple Records assumed he was son of Samuel and Amey and did the sealing to them. (consider this, he was born in 1859 and Samuel and Amey were born 1803 and 1805 respectively) so there was no looping problem when these 2 records were separated from 29 other records. She is going to try to see if she can separate him from Samuel and Amey in FamilyTree or not. David Samuelsen

One reason the grandparents could be listed as parents is that grandparents and parents were combined together in error. I recently helped a patron who had his grandparents listed as... parents of his (the patron's) grandfather. So, Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and so on. I went to combined records and separated Manuel married to Joana from Manuel the grandfather. The loop was corrected. Note that placing a dispute there would not solve the problem at all. -------------------------------------------------- From: "DC & Alice Allen" <dcaallen@pacifier.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:40 PM To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > Okay, maybe you can help me straighten out my great-grandfather and his > parents. > > When I first was able to use nFS last June, one of the first things I > discovered was that my great-grandfather, John Peter Paxton, was showing > *his* grandparents as his parents. His real parents were showing as an > alternate set of parents. I managed to get his real parents in place, and > placed a dispute on the wrong parents. So, after reading the latest from > this list, I went back to his combined records, and note that there are 31 > records for him. I did some combining last summer, but I'm reasonably > certain that I didn't combine 31 records for him. I am hesitant to > uncombine them at the moment, without a little feedback from someone else. > > As near as I can tell, the majority of the contributors are "LDS Temple > Records." There are two other contributors who are not LDS Temple > Records, but neither of them seem to be registered with nFS. So in this > case, was the dispute the only thing I could have done? How would I > resolve this otherwise? The one who apparently contributed the wrong > parent information is one of the two I mentioned above, with a carryover > into the first LDS Church Temple Records. The rest of the records either > list the correct parents, or no parents at all. > > His ID# is KJJ4-PZ7, if anyone wants to take a look. > > Alice Allen > Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant > Vancouver WA Stake > Portland OR Temple District > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 4/1/2009 at 9:47 AM dsam52@sampubco.com wrote: > >>Same thing happened to my great-grandmother. Somebody disputed her >>spelling of her name. Took me several months of trying to get it >>removed. First step I did was to separate the record to find exact which >>record was tagged wrong way. The exact one had correct spelling and >>tagged as not mother of her 14 children while 52 other records had wrong >>spelling and were not tagged. Took me some months to contact the person >>who did the tagging. It turned out a helper goofed so my cousin supplied >>me her LDS id and birth date then I removed the dispute tag then >>proceeded to remerge the 53 records then went to the detail page, marked >>every other mis-spelled and mis-named ones as incorrect along with >>inclusion of the correct name. >> >>Greater danger is tagging the relationships for wrong reasons. The only >>reasons that can be used to tag relationships are two - wrong mother or >>wrong father, or even both parents, or the child with wrong sex. That's >>it. Dates, places, names, go to the detail page of that person instead. >> >>David Samuelsen >> > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

That reminds of a story my uncle told me. He is not a member of the Church, but he went to Ireland to see our "home" country. His father - my grandfather - was the first generation born in the USA Anyway, when he went to Ireland, from Ohio, they said he should have just gone to Salt Lake City, because the Mormons have all their records! Megan Smith Las Vegas Temple District ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary S. Scott (Michigan)" <mscscott28@yahoo.com> To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:30 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes -- restricted microfilms and prayers When we lived in Germany about 10 years ago, it was nearly impossible for the members to see the microfilms for their towns and villages. I had German friends (members of the Church) tell me that it was cheaper for them to save their money to go to the Family History Library in SLC for a week of research than it was for them to go to the various depositories (governmental, ecclesiastical, etc.) to see the actual records. The restrictions on the genealogical records are very complex. There are layers of bureaucratic rules. These are some of the reasons why Latter-day Saints in other countries may not be as involved with family history. They may want to do the work but it might be very expensive for them to do it. (Some of you may know that it is very expensive to live in these European countries because of their high taxes and cost of living.) Perhaps this may be why the Church has been very involved with extractions in some of these countries. The information can be read easily in the USA but not in the original country. As the work was put on the IGI and now New FamilySearch, the members in the original country may be able to connect to these lineages for their ancestors. We need to teach our ward members to search records out on the "Record Search -- Pilot Site" at www.familysearch.org. There are hundreds of records being added there each year. The searches on Record Search will only get better as the indexing projects proceed. I like Karen's suggestion about the members praying for the release of these genealogical records. (Our family benefitted from the prayers for the Iron Curtain to fall as our son recently served in the Baltic Mission -- Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. He loved his mission and is now proficient in Russian. We often talk about the miracle that brought down the Iron Curtain.) We can teach our wards' members to pray earnestly that the records for our families will come forth as quickly as possible. We should pray that the hearts of the governmental leaders will be softened so that the people can know their ancestral heritage. In addition, when we (who have so much freedom) do the work for our ancestors from these restricted areas, we are actually helping other members of the Church back in the original countries. Mary Scott Northville Ward Westland Michigan Stake Detroit Michigan Temple Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Another thing to be considered here is that some can be the parents as well as the Grandparents of an individual. A considerable number of grandparents adopt a Grandchild and have the grandchild sealed to them. After these people are dead Someone looks at it and says they made a mistake. Steve Kelsey -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of DORIS BATEMAN Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:19 AM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes I had a loop like this where a grandson had the same name as his grandfather. Someone had mistakenly typed the grandson's birth info in instead of the grandfather's, so the record showed the grandson was married to the grandmother. This was not just a combining error, a sealing (a duplicate, of course,) was done. The incorrect info was shared widely, and had been duplicated on PRF 57 times. I referred it through feedback to the family history missionaries and programmers. Took them a month, but they did delete the problem record and fixed it. Doris Bateman ----- Original Message ----- From: Jorge Todeschini<mailto:jorgetodeschini@hotmail.com> To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com<mailto:lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes One reason the grandparents could be listed as parents is that grandparents and parents were combined together in error. I recently helped a patron who had his grandparents listed as... parents of his (the patron's) grandfather. So, Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and so on. I went to combined records and separated Manuel married to Joana from Manuel the grandfather. The loop was corrected. Note that placing a dispute there would not solve the problem at all. -------------------------------------------------- From: "DC & Alice Allen" <dcaallen@pacifier.com<mailto:dcaallen@pacifier.com>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:40 PM To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com<mailto:lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com>> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > Okay, maybe you can help me straighten out my great-grandfather and his > parents. > > When I first was able to use nFS last June, one of the first things I > discovered was that my great-grandfather, John Peter Paxton, was showing > *his* grandparents as his parents. His real parents were showing as an > alternate set of parents. I managed to get his real parents in place, and > placed a dispute on the wrong parents. So, after reading the latest from > this list, I went back to his combined records, and note that there are 31 > records for him. I did some combining last summer, but I'm reasonably > certain that I didn't combine 31 records for him. I am hesitant to > uncombine them at the moment, without a little feedback from someone else. > > As near as I can tell, the majority of the contributors are "LDS Temple > Records." There are two other contributors who are not LDS Temple > Records, but neither of them seem to be registered with nFS. So in this > case, was the dispute the only thing I could have done? How would I > resolve this otherwise? The one who apparently contributed the wrong > parent information is one of the two I mentioned above, with a carryover > into the first LDS Church Temple Records. The rest of the records either > list the correct parents, or no parents at all. > > His ID# is KJJ4-PZ7, if anyone wants to take a look. > > Alice Allen > Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant > Vancouver WA Stake > Portland OR Temple District > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 4/1/2009 at 9:47 AM dsam52@sampubco.com<mailto:dsam52@sampubco.com> wrote: > >>Same thing happened to my great-grandmother. Somebody disputed her >>spelling of her name. Took me several months of trying to get it >>removed. First step I did was to separate the record to find exact which >>record was tagged wrong way. The exact one had correct spelling and >>tagged as not mother of her 14 children while 52 other records had wrong >>spelling and were not tagged. Took me some months to contact the person >>who did the tagging. It turned out a helper goofed so my cousin supplied >>me her LDS id and birth date then I removed the dispute tag then >>proceeded to remerge the 53 records then went to the detail page, marked >>every other mis-spelled and mis-named ones as incorrect along with >>inclusion of the correct name. >> >>Greater danger is tagging the relationships for wrong reasons. The only >>reasons that can be used to tag relationships are two - wrong mother or >>wrong father, or even both parents, or the child with wrong sex. That's >>it. Dates, places, names, go to the detail page of that person instead. >> >>David Samuelsen >> > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQU EST@ROOTSWEB.COM> > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@ rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQU EST@ROOTSWEB.COM> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@ rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

When we lived in Germany about 10 years ago, it was nearly impossible for the members to see the microfilms for their towns and villages. I had German friends (members of the Church) tell me that it was cheaper for them to save their money to go to the Family History Library in SLC for a week of research than it was for them to go to the various depositories (governmental, ecclesiastical, etc.) to see the actual records. The restrictions on the genealogical records are very complex. There are layers of bureaucratic rules. These are some of the reasons why Latter-day Saints in other countries may not be as involved with family history. They may want to do the work but it might be very expensive for them to do it. (Some of you may know that it is very expensive to live in these European countries because of their high taxes and cost of living.) Perhaps this may be why the Church has been very involved with extractions in some of these countries. The information can be read easily in the USA but not in the original country. As the work was put on the IGI and now New FamilySearch, the members in the original country may be able to connect to these lineages for their ancestors. We need to teach our ward members to search records out on the "Record Search -- Pilot Site" at www.familysearch.org. There are hundreds of records being added there each year. The searches on Record Search will only get better as the indexing projects proceed. I like Karen's suggestion about the members praying for the release of these genealogical records. (Our family benefitted from the prayers for the Iron Curtain to fall as our son recently served in the Baltic Mission -- Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. He loved his mission and is now proficient in Russian. We often talk about the miracle that brought down the Iron Curtain.) We can teach our wards' members to pray earnestly that the records for our families will come forth as quickly as possible.  We should pray that the hearts of the governmental leaders will be softened so that the people can know their ancestral heritage. In addition, when we (who have so much freedom) do the work for our ancestors from these restricted areas, we are actually helping other members of the Church back in the original countries. Mary Scott Northville Ward Westland Michigan Stake Detroit Michigan Temple

I had a loop like this where a grandson had the same name as his grandfather. Someone had mistakenly typed the grandson's birth info in instead of the grandfather's, so the record showed the grandson was married to the grandmother. This was not just a combining error, a sealing (a duplicate, of course,) was done. The incorrect info was shared widely, and had been duplicated on PRF 57 times. I referred it through feedback to the family history missionaries and programmers. Took them a month, but they did delete the problem record and fixed it. Doris Bateman ----- Original Message ----- From: Jorge Todeschini<mailto:jorgetodeschini@hotmail.com> To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com<mailto:lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes One reason the grandparents could be listed as parents is that grandparents and parents were combined together in error. I recently helped a patron who had his grandparents listed as... parents of his (the patron's) grandfather. So, Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and so on. I went to combined records and separated Manuel married to Joana from Manuel the grandfather. The loop was corrected. Note that placing a dispute there would not solve the problem at all. -------------------------------------------------- From: "DC & Alice Allen" <dcaallen@pacifier.com<mailto:dcaallen@pacifier.com>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:40 PM To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com<mailto:lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com>> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > Okay, maybe you can help me straighten out my great-grandfather and his > parents. > > When I first was able to use nFS last June, one of the first things I > discovered was that my great-grandfather, John Peter Paxton, was showing > *his* grandparents as his parents. His real parents were showing as an > alternate set of parents. I managed to get his real parents in place, and > placed a dispute on the wrong parents. So, after reading the latest from > this list, I went back to his combined records, and note that there are 31 > records for him. I did some combining last summer, but I'm reasonably > certain that I didn't combine 31 records for him. I am hesitant to > uncombine them at the moment, without a little feedback from someone else. > > As near as I can tell, the majority of the contributors are "LDS Temple > Records." There are two other contributors who are not LDS Temple > Records, but neither of them seem to be registered with nFS. So in this > case, was the dispute the only thing I could have done? How would I > resolve this otherwise? The one who apparently contributed the wrong > parent information is one of the two I mentioned above, with a carryover > into the first LDS Church Temple Records. The rest of the records either > list the correct parents, or no parents at all. > > His ID# is KJJ4-PZ7, if anyone wants to take a look. > > Alice Allen > Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant > Vancouver WA Stake > Portland OR Temple District > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 4/1/2009 at 9:47 AM dsam52@sampubco.com<mailto:dsam52@sampubco.com> wrote: > >>Same thing happened to my great-grandmother. Somebody disputed her >>spelling of her name. Took me several months of trying to get it >>removed. First step I did was to separate the record to find exact which >>record was tagged wrong way. The exact one had correct spelling and >>tagged as not mother of her 14 children while 52 other records had wrong >>spelling and were not tagged. Took me some months to contact the person >>who did the tagging. It turned out a helper goofed so my cousin supplied >>me her LDS id and birth date then I removed the dispute tag then >>proceeded to remerge the 53 records then went to the detail page, marked >>every other mis-spelled and mis-named ones as incorrect along with >>inclusion of the correct name. >> >>Greater danger is tagging the relationships for wrong reasons. The only >>reasons that can be used to tag relationships are two - wrong mother or >>wrong father, or even both parents, or the child with wrong sex. That's >>it. Dates, places, names, go to the detail page of that person instead. >> >>David Samuelsen >> > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM> > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

If that's the case, sounds like time for an army of prayers going out that some of these other records might become available. Given the overall mission of what we're doing...proceed with faith and just as the walls of the Iron Curtain fell, these genealogical barriers will fall as well. Karen In a message dated 4/1/2009 10:06:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, hwhitcomb@gmail.com writes: Thank you all for the information on disputes.. I have learned a lot and will verify one of the things I have learned here.. A distant relative told me to fix a dispute she created on my original record.. thanks to you, I now understand I do not have to dispute her dispute. FYI At the Family History Library two weeks ago, a young Elder told me about the work on digitizing the microfilm. He probably broke a rule and showed me an internal status report on it too... They are creating gigabytes of new data daily, and despite a server at the Church Office Building catching fire a few weeks ago .. the big hang up is the lack of a viewer for all of us to look at the unindexed images. Somehow the problems on restricted microfilms has been solved (you may know in Spain, Germany and other countries .. non LDS are not allowed to look at the microfilm without owner's permission The data is now on an internal server on ldschurch.org, Oh that it could be made public! Alan W Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)

I have the same problem.. Dates in the 1700's, Jan/Feb Mar should usually be double in English speaking countries, but never in Catholic countries, French "dit" names provide alternate surnames up until modern times. The "right" one is which ever one you happen to like better. Baptism names replaced by Family names on marriage records, and sometimes, her maiden name WAS the same as her married name...Children in the same family spelling their surnames differently.. Great grandpa born Alfred, "became" Frederick, died Frederick Ellis, all with three different last names, just a matter of time till some "corrects" some or all of that..If we had sources, and required them, perhaps correct would take on a new meaning..I am though, too old to re source all 19,000 people in my file, I'll be lucky to get them all synchronized once in nFS, and then that once will have to rehappen forever to keep up with updates..Ok, I'll go back to another 3 or 4 hours of syncing, night all.. -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sahara346@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:22 PM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes I have reservations about "correct" / "incorrect" information. I know what records I have looked at, and their relative value for historic accuracy. I have seen other people's records that have different dates/places/names & additional children, but whose documentation is not as good/non-existant/or the nebulous "family records", and hence, in my mind, suspect as being incorrect. I would be very upset if someone who comes along and disputes some of my work that is verified by family Bibles, censuses, marriage records, church records, and anything else I can find that has some substance when their only source is a "family record" handed down from a great grandfather (who may have known or may have guessed.) Some people are very protective of their fairy tale genealogies and assume that theirs is right, no matter what kinds of documentary proof you provide. <snip>

Thank you all for the information on disputes.. I have learned a lot and will verify one of the things I have learned here.. A distant relative told me to fix a dispute she created on my original record.. thanks to you, I now understand I do not have to dispute her dispute. FYI At the Family History Library two weeks ago, a young Elder told me about the work on digitizing the microfilm. He probably broke a rule and showed me an internal status report on it too... They are creating gigabytes of new data daily, and despite a server at the Church Office Building catching fire a few weeks ago .. the big hang up is the lack of a viewer for all of us to look at the unindexed images. Somehow the problems on restricted microfilms has been solved (you may know in Spain, Germany and other countries .. non LDS are not allowed to look at the microfilm without owner's permission The data is now on an internal server on ldschurch.org, Oh that it could be made public! Alan W

dispute wil not work. FWIW, I separated two records of John Peter paxton from the rest. then you will need to go into FamilyTree, and do the separation of two records of him from Samuel's family, then go back to nFS to be sure he is not in Samuel's family anymore, then combine him into the right family. David Samuelsen > Okay, maybe you can help me straighten out my great-grandfather and his > parents. > > When I first was able to use nFS last June, one of the first things I > discovered was that my great-grandfather, John Peter Paxton, was showing > *his* grandparents as his parents. His real parents were showing as an > alternate set of parents. I managed to get his real parents in place, and > placed a dispute on the wrong parents. So, after reading the latest from > this list, I went back to his combined records, and note that there are 31 > records for him. I did some combining last summer, but I'm reasonably > certain that I didn't combine 31 records for him. I am hesitant to > uncombine them at the moment, without a little feedback from someone else. > > As near as I can tell, the majority of the contributors are "LDS Temple > Records." There are two other contributors who are not LDS Temple > Records, but neither of them seem to be registered with nFS. So in this > case, was the dispute the only thing I could have done? How would I > resolve this otherwise? The one who apparently contributed the wrong > parent information is one of the two I mentioned above, with a carryover > into the first LDS Church Temple Records. The rest of the records either > list the correct parents, or no parents at all. > > His ID# is KJJ4-PZ7, if anyone wants to take a look. > > Alice Allen > Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant > Vancouver WA Stake > Portland OR Temple District > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 4/1/2009 at 9:47 AM dsam52@sampubco.com wrote: > >>Same thing happened to my great-grandmother. Somebody disputed her >>spelling of her name. Took me several months of trying to get it >>removed. First step I did was to separate the record to find exact which >>record was tagged wrong way. The exact one had correct spelling and >>tagged as not mother of her 14 children while 52 other records had wrong >>spelling and were not tagged. Took me some months to contact the person >>who did the tagging. It turned out a helper goofed so my cousin supplied >>me her LDS id and birth date then I removed the dispute tag then >>proceeded to remerge the 53 records then went to the detail page, marked >>every other mis-spelled and mis-named ones as incorrect along with >>inclusion of the correct name. >> >>Greater danger is tagging the relationships for wrong reasons. The only >>reasons that can be used to tag relationships are two - wrong mother or >>wrong father, or even both parents, or the child with wrong sex. That's >>it. Dates, places, names, go to the detail page of that person instead. >> >>David Samuelsen >> > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I have reservations about "correct" / "incorrect" information. I know what records I have looked at, and their relative value for historic accuracy. I have seen other people's records that have different dates/places/names & additional children, but whose documentation is not as good/non-existant/or the nebulous "family records", and hence, in my mind, suspect as being incorrect. I would be very upset if someone who comes along and disputes some of my work that is verified by family Bibles, censuses, marriage records, church records, and anything else I can find that has some substance when their only source is a "family record" handed down from a great grandfather (who may have known or may have guessed.) Some people are very protective of their fairy tale genealogies and assume that theirs is right, no matter what kinds of documentary proof you provide. Or maybe their source is a printed family history. Unfortunately, the first one I ever saw with my family in it had the mother of the first listed generation wrong, so the entire book became suspect. And I always try to verify printed family histories as a result, though I know that some regard them with the kind of sanctity they give scriptures. Karen In a message dated 4/1/2009 4:08:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time, john@ohanasoftware.com writes: Disputes do not prevent the original submitter from correcting the data UNLESS the dispute is on a relationship. If you dispute an event such as birth or death, the original submitter can make the change. If the dispute is still showing after the change has been made, it simply means that there are more submitters who have submitted the same incorrect information. If all of the original incorrect submissions get changed, then the dispute does not show anymore. But it is still in the system. If someone subsequently comes along and adds the incorrect information again, the dispute will immediately reappear - thus letting the new submitter know that the information they just added is incorrect. Having said that, even disputes on regular events should not be the first step. I think the first step should be to try separating records. It is possible that the incorrect information is there because someone incorrectly combined records from two different people. Once you have separated any incorrectly combined records, if the error is still there the next step should be to attempt to contact the original submitter and discuss the data with them. Perhaps they have conflicting sources. Perhaps they will convince you that your data is incorrect. Perhaps both pieces of data are correct, given the source from which they came. Names are notorious for changing over time. We should not presume that because we have one "correct" spelling of our name that the same was true in the past. Historically spelling of names was not nearly as rigid as it is today. As a last resort, dispute the event. If the problem is a relationship, look again for incorrectly combined records, try to contact the submitter again, contact FamilySearch support, do anything you can to get it resolved. Finally, as a last last last resort, dispute the relationship, making sure to provide good contact information so that when someone comes forward to fix it they will be able to contact you and ask you to remove the dispute on the relationship. In my opinion, disputing relationships is a broken feature. But disputing events is well designed and very useful. Aloha, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter" <Family.History.Research@shaw.ca> To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > At 09:48 PM 31/03/2009, you wrote: >>In my NFS class tonight, I discouraged the students from using the dispute >>mechanism giving them information about other ways to resolve their >>issues. I was asked when it would be appropriate to dispute an >>entry. What do you think is an appropriate time to dispute? >>Gay Davis > > Gay, > in my opinion you should not be using disputes at all. It will lock the > disputed event and or record and will prevent the person that submitted > the > info to make the correction if he/she agrees with you. > In all cases the first plan of action is to contact the submitter and > discuss the info. You might remember one record in your Holladay line had > 11 people putting a dispute on the same record. It turned out it was a > honest mistake where the person entering the information knew what she did > wrong, but didn't know how to remove it. > It took a lot of effort to contact all 11 disputers and get them to remove > their dispute before the mistake could be fixed. > > You might have noticed Family Tree does not have this function. Hopefully > it will not come back. > > If you see wrong information contact the contributor, otherwise leave the > information alone until a better way of adding a dispute can be found. > > Groetjes > Peter > > "I'm not 50 something. I'm 49.95 plus shipping and handling."' > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)

FYI- Someone placed a dispute on some information the system said I submitted (I didn't submit it -but that's another story).  I was unable to delete the information until he deleted his dispute.

Okay, maybe you can help me straighten out my great-grandfather and his parents. When I first was able to use nFS last June, one of the first things I discovered was that my great-grandfather, John Peter Paxton, was showing *his* grandparents as his parents. His real parents were showing as an alternate set of parents. I managed to get his real parents in place, and placed a dispute on the wrong parents. So, after reading the latest from this list, I went back to his combined records, and note that there are 31 records for him. I did some combining last summer, but I'm reasonably certain that I didn't combine 31 records for him. I am hesitant to uncombine them at the moment, without a little feedback from someone else. As near as I can tell, the majority of the contributors are "LDS Temple Records." There are two other contributors who are not LDS Temple Records, but neither of them seem to be registered with nFS. So in this case, was the dispute the only thing I could have done? How would I resolve this otherwise? The one who apparently contributed the wrong parent information is one of the two I mentioned above, with a carryover into the first LDS Church Temple Records. The rest of the records either list the correct parents, or no parents at all. His ID# is KJJ4-PZ7, if anyone wants to take a look. Alice Allen Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant Vancouver WA Stake Portland OR Temple District *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/1/2009 at 9:47 AM dsam52@sampubco.com wrote: >Same thing happened to my great-grandmother. Somebody disputed her >spelling of her name. Took me several months of trying to get it >removed. First step I did was to separate the record to find exact which >record was tagged wrong way. The exact one had correct spelling and >tagged as not mother of her 14 children while 52 other records had wrong >spelling and were not tagged. Took me some months to contact the person >who did the tagging. It turned out a helper goofed so my cousin supplied >me her LDS id and birth date then I removed the dispute tag then >proceeded to remerge the 53 records then went to the detail page, marked >every other mis-spelled and mis-named ones as incorrect along with >inclusion of the correct name. > >Greater danger is tagging the relationships for wrong reasons. The only >reasons that can be used to tag relationships are two - wrong mother or >wrong father, or even both parents, or the child with wrong sex. That's >it. Dates, places, names, go to the detail page of that person instead. > >David Samuelsen >

Disputes do not prevent the original submitter from correcting the data UNLESS the dispute is on a relationship. If you dispute an event such as birth or death, the original submitter can make the change. If the dispute is still showing after the change has been made, it simply means that there are more submitters who have submitted the same incorrect information. If all of the original incorrect submissions get changed, then the dispute does not show anymore. But it is still in the system. If someone subsequently comes along and adds the incorrect information again, the dispute will immediately reappear - thus letting the new submitter know that the information they just added is incorrect. Having said that, even disputes on regular events should not be the first step. I think the first step should be to try separating records. It is possible that the incorrect information is there because someone incorrectly combined records from two different people. Once you have separated any incorrectly combined records, if the error is still there the next step should be to attempt to contact the original submitter and discuss the data with them. Perhaps they have conflicting sources. Perhaps they will convince you that your data is incorrect. Perhaps both pieces of data are correct, given the source from which they came. Names are notorious for changing over time. We should not presume that because we have one "correct" spelling of our name that the same was true in the past. Historically spelling of names was not nearly as rigid as it is today. As a last resort, dispute the event. If the problem is a relationship, look again for incorrectly combined records, try to contact the submitter again, contact FamilySearch support, do anything you can to get it resolved. Finally, as a last last last resort, dispute the relationship, making sure to provide good contact information so that when someone comes forward to fix it they will be able to contact you and ask you to remove the dispute on the relationship. In my opinion, disputing relationships is a broken feature. But disputing events is well designed and very useful. Aloha, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter" <Family.History.Research@shaw.ca> To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > At 09:48 PM 31/03/2009, you wrote: >>In my NFS class tonight, I discouraged the students from using the dispute >>mechanism giving them information about other ways to resolve their >>issues. I was asked when it would be appropriate to dispute an >>entry. What do you think is an appropriate time to dispute? >>Gay Davis > > Gay, > in my opinion you should not be using disputes at all. It will lock the > disputed event and or record and will prevent the person that submitted > the > info to make the correction if he/she agrees with you. > In all cases the first plan of action is to contact the submitter and > discuss the info. You might remember one record in your Holladay line had > 11 people putting a dispute on the same record. It turned out it was a > honest mistake where the person entering the information knew what she did > wrong, but didn't know how to remove it. > It took a lot of effort to contact all 11 disputers and get them to remove > their dispute before the mistake could be fixed. > > You might have noticed Family Tree does not have this function. Hopefully > it will not come back. > > If you see wrong information contact the contributor, otherwise leave the > information alone until a better way of adding a dispute can be found. > > Groetjes > Peter > > "I'm not 50 something. I'm 49.95 plus shipping and handling."' > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message