Jane, This now baseline W036 for Joseph Wells/Charity Carrington on the first page of the results. This is until or if we manage to find more information to help us connect them further up. Joseph Wells may well have been the father of Joseph, Jr. but we have no way at this point to provide independent verification on the DNA or genealogy. Whoever he was he certainly was not the son of Thomas Wells and Frances. http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/dnaproje/results1.html At 12:09 PM 9/16/2005, Jane Sarles wrote: >Orin and/or Bonita, > >I seem to have lost track of my family. I am of the Joseph Wells/Charity >Carrington branch of Cane Creek NC. We were found not to descend from >Thomas Wells and wife, Francis of Prince Georges Co. MD, as we had long >thought. However, I don't know if a new number (the old one was W006) has >been assigned to this branch of Joseph's descendants, or just what has >happened to us. I don't see either on the DNA results page. > >Jane Wells Sarles > > >==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Join Rootsweb > http://www.rootsweb.com > Orin R. Wells Wells Family Research Association P. O. Box 5427 Kent, Washington 98064-5427 <OrinWells@wells.org> http://www.wells.org Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb

Ruth Anna Wells Klass, 102, of Coal City, Indiana died at 5:20 a.m. Saturday, Aug.27,2005, in St. Vincent Hospital, Clay County, Indiana. She was born May 20,1903, in Owen County, Indiana to William P. Wells and Lillie D. Hauser Wells. Her husband, Estal C. Klass, whom she married March 20,1922, proceded her in death. Survivors included two daughters, Thelma Burger of Coal City, In. and Leealla Jackson and her husband Alan of Clay City, In.; one brother, Donald Wells and wife Maxine of Coal City, In.; one sister, Rosella Parks and husband Carl of Coal City, In.; three grandchildren, Trella Moser of Terre Haute, In. and fiance Jim Schepper of Coal City, In., Jay Grafe and wife Linda of Coal City, In., and Steve Grafe and Jeannie Jukes of Coal City, In.; three great-grandchildren, Joe Moser of Washington D.C., Jenny Baum and husband Brandon of Lexington, Ky. and Lauren Annabelle Grafe of Coal Clay City, In.; and one great-great-granddaughter, Emma Ruth Baum of Lexington; and many nieces and nephews. She was also preceded in death by her parents, six siblings, Roscoe Wells, Clarence Wells, Dennis Wells, Wilson Wells, Dorothy Neiheart and Elnora Duncan; and a great-grandson, Matthew Moser. She was a lifelong member of Antioch Christian Church. Servives are 11 a.m. Wednesday in Schoppenhorst Funeral Home, with Rev. Chris Gehring officiating. Burial will follow at Fiscus Cemetery. If you want the whole article, e-mail the Terre Haute Star @ www.terrehautestar.com. It has her picture in it.

Thank you Bonita for all your work. Joan Wells Richards

Dick I believe you are expressing exactly our concerns. That is to say our oldest American ancestor is well documented as are some of his descendants. Other facts are not well documented. Still other information is merely an educated guess (if logical guess). In many cases we must sadly realize that the information may never be found. And as I have mentioned before, those in family W037 are hampered by the fact that we only came to realize that we were part of this discrete family a very short while ago. Since then we have been working furiously to clean up the data and make appropriate links, but we all realize that we have a far way to go. Thank you for your input. Margaret Wells ----- Original Message ----- From: D Wells<mailto:dick_dkwnet@direcway.com> To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS Margaret I agree with you on two major issues, incorrect GEDCOM's being posted, and the ability to make corrections. This is something the Bonita, Orin, and myself discussed in the beginning. It was decided then that the database of GEDCOM's will be fluid and be able to be changed by the contributor contacting the coordinator. Also, incomplete or unproven info will be clearly noted. My GEDCOM has our oldest ancestor well defined and proven for names and some locations. Other facts such as DOB, DOD, and Marriage dates, & locations is still unproven. To complicate matters, we have a cousin in the UK that was found by DNA results. So far, a common ancestor has not been ID'ed, and neither of our proven genealogies goes back those last 50 or so years needed to find the link. Both families resided in adjacent villiages for generations. Hope this helps. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wells" <maggi59@msn.com<mailto:maggi59@msn.com>> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com>> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > Dick > When I discovered that my particular genealogy program inserted notes that I had thought were hidden, I transferred my data to another file, removed all the extraneous notes, and prepared a new GEDCOM -- so I do recognize that problem. > What concerns us is the idea that once the GEDCOM is posted there will be no ability to alter it as new or corrected information turns up. > The problem in our particular line is that there is controversy regarding which child belongs to which parent. While this exists in only a few cases, it is a real problem and one we have not had time to entirely resolve. Few of us live near each other and the resources available to us are different. > Several of us have been working almost nonstop for months now to integrate our data. Despite the fact that the Kent Co Wells have been in the US since at least 1676, the lines of descent are far from settled and it is just inappropriate to post information that cannot later be corrected. Or, that is my feeling. > Margaret Wells > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: D Wells<mailto:dick_dkwnet@direcway.com<mailto:dick_dkwnet@direcway.com>> > To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com>> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > > > Margaret > > There is a little middle ground here. As in my tree, we have Proven names, > but the facts around the births, marriages, and deaths are Unproven. In > some of these cases, unless new records are found, may never be proven. > > Since Bonita's efforts in standardizing the GEDCOM's requires some pruning > of the data, the meaning of a Proven individual is somewhat misleading. > This is a result of the variety of genealogy programs being used and how > individuals are using them. A things must be taken to a lower level of > detail to accomadate everyone. > > There is no easy answer, even if everyone used the same program, people will > do things their own way. > > > Dick > > > > > It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be > cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at all. > The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted all > over the web with the wrong information. > > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > To search Archives of list go to: > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl>> > and enter list name > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Please Support Rootsweb > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== Wells Surname List Home Page http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~daveslists/wells/windex.html<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~daveslists/wells/windex.html>

Bonita While that suggestion appears reasonable on the surface, were we to wait for marriage records alone, many lineages would never be filled in. Where there is other evidence, such as land records, estate administrations and the like, it is generally considered appropriate to include the first name and such supporting evidence as one may have. As those of us whose research is largely confined to the southern tier of states and the early NW territory have learned, marriage records -- if they ever existed -- have frequently been lost through war, fire, and other circumstances. What I have been trying awkwardly to express to you is that in some family lines we are only now beginning to get our heads together and share evidence in such a way that consensus can be reached or differences ironed out. You have wanted to finish this onerous task (and I don't blame you), but we are actually not entirely ready. Every day as those of us actively researching share information we learn new things from each other or are able to piece together new information. I realize this has placed a burden on you ... but it has also placed a burden on those of us who are struggling to fill in our own blanks. Margaret Wells ----- Original Message ----- From: Lady Bonita (USA)<mailto:ladybonita@usa.com> To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS Margaret: If there is concern over who is the mother, might I suggest that we leave the mother blank until a marriage record can be found for the three marriages. That way, there is no mistake about who is the 'real' mother. Bonita \\\|///<> \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking ... Lady Bonita Arizona, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wells" <maggi59@msn.com<mailto:maggi59@msn.com>> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com>> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > Dick > When I discovered that my particular genealogy program inserted notes that > I had thought were hidden, I transferred my data to another file, removed > all the extraneous notes, and prepared a new GEDCOM -- so I do recognize > that problem. > What concerns us is the idea that once the GEDCOM is posted there will be > no ability to alter it as new or corrected information turns up. > The problem in our particular line is that there is controversy regarding > which child belongs to which parent. While this exists in only a few > cases, it is a real problem and one we have not had time to entirely > resolve. Few of us live near each other and the resources available to us > are different. > Several of us have been working almost nonstop for months now to integrate > our data. Despite the fact that the Kent Co Wells have been in the US > since at least 1676, the lines of descent are far from settled and it is > just inappropriate to post information that cannot later be corrected. Or, > that is my feeling. > Margaret Wells > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: D Wells<mailto:dick_dkwnet@direcway.com<mailto:dick_dkwnet@direcway.com>> > To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com>> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > > > Margaret > > There is a little middle ground here. As in my tree, we have Proven > names, > but the facts around the births, marriages, and deaths are Unproven. In > some of these cases, unless new records are found, may never be proven. > > Since Bonita's efforts in standardizing the GEDCOM's requires some > pruning > of the data, the meaning of a Proven individual is somewhat misleading. > This is a result of the variety of genealogy programs being used and how > individuals are using them. A things must be taken to a lower level of > detail to accomadate everyone. > > There is no easy answer, even if everyone used the same program, people > will > do things their own way. > > > Dick > > > > > It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be > cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at > all. > The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted all > over the web with the wrong information. > > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > To search Archives of list go to: > > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl>> > and enter list name > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Please Support Rootsweb > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== To contact Listowner, Send email to: dwells@zekes.com<mailto:dwells@zekes.com>

Orin Thank you so much for your input. As usual, you have you have expressed the dilemma gracefully and reasonably. I am in total agreement with you and only wish I had been able to express myself as cogently. Margaret Wells ----- Original Message ----- From: OrinWells<mailto:orinwells@wells.org> To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS I have been occupied with other activities while this issue about the GEDCOM's has been flashing back and forth today. Let me throw my two bits worth into the fire. We all need to recognize that Bonita is making a valiant effort to make it possible for us to have the genealogies supporting the DNA testing on-line where users can view it and possibly contribute further to our combined efforts. I am personally very thankful for her efforts. I am also feeling very guilty that I have not had the time to provide her with the support she needs from me with regards to additional gedcoms, updates to the existing data on the website etc. I believe that, to Margaret's point, we must be prepared to make corrections to ANY of the genealogies (I hate to call them GEDCOMs as this is only the exchange media for the genealogies). that are posted. They must NOT be "set in stone". If we all have learned anything from the DNA it is that we can often discover that what we thought we knew may not be right. One of the worst problems with Ancestry.com, the LDS IGI and Personal Ancestral File, genealogies on-line, and many of the other Internet sources for information is that it is virtually impossible to be errors corrected. Even when the genealogies are placed on-line by an individual you often will get a very cold shoulder if you dare to suggest they have information that needs to be corrected. If we can provide a source that can be trusted, then the data will have credibility. But part of that credibility must be the method and willingness to make changes when new evidence surfaces as it does from time to time and I fully expect will happen from the DNA testing. We still have 3 or 4 new participants getting tested every month with no sign of slowing down. We have much to learn. As we learn it we will have to adjust what we are calling the "official" genealogies. Exactly how we will make the changes and the processes we will have to employ for this are yet to be determined. But we must allow for it. I fully expect we will discover new branches that we will need to add to many of the trees over the next year. If we find "children" that have been incorrectly attached to a couple, we must be prepared to correct this when it is found. Once we have the core for each family, the time to add a new branch or correct a name or remove a wrong branch should be simply to make the corrections to the base genealogy, generate the new web pages and post them to the website. At least it "should" be that simple. To accomplish this we all need to work together. Many different people have different parts of the puzzles (it isn't just one). There may be some genealogies that we have to question because connections have been suggested for which there appear to be no sources. My suggestion is that if it looks reasonable we can include it but there should be a way for us to make an indication that the entry has not been proven. If we have source documentation for a birth date, marriage date, death date, actual name, relationship, etc. that this needs to be documented with a reference. This may be going way beyond what Bonita is trying to accomplish, so we may have some trouble getting to the prefect scenario. We also need to let the family genealogists review the final product before it "goes to press" and make any corrections that can be justified and question anything that needs to be questioned. This weekend I hope to be able to spend some time on this by getting material Bonita still needs from me. I don't know exactly where she is with regard to the different families. Personally I would like to see us swing them in one at a time rather than shotgun them all in place at once. But that is just my opinion. Please be gentle with Bonita. We need her. We need what she is doing. At 04:21 PM 9/15/2005, Margaret Wells wrote: >Bonita > >With regard to the posting of GEDCOMS, may I say at the outset that I >recognize that you have taken on a huge amount of work -- probably too >much for one person. This has placed you in the awkward position of acting >as arbiter for family trees that remain unsettled. > >It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be >cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at >all. The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted >all over the web with the wrong information. > >Margaret Wells > > >==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Don't Forget > The Wells Family Research Association > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html<http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html> Orin R. Wells Wells Family Research Association P. O. Box 5427 Kent, Washington 98064-5427 <OrinWells@wells.org<mailto:OrinWells@wells.org>> http://www.wells.org<http://www.wells.org/> Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe from this list send the command "unsubscribe" to WELLS-L-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L-request@rootsweb.com> for list mode or WELLS-D-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-D-request@rootsweb.com> for digest mode

First, I want to thank all the people who have sent me wonderful notes -- on and off list ... I do appreciate them. On those nights when my mind is getting blurry from viewing the data, it reminds me why I volunteered in the first place .. to help others. Second, I would like to explain exactly what I am doing to the data provided by each person (in case you are interested). 1) even though gedcom is a standard to share information between genealogy programs, each of those programs have different features and record data differently. Some record notes information as PLAC which is used to record the country, state/province, county/district, city and detail (such as church name, cemetery, EDs for census, etc.). All of this data must be rearranged and placed so it can be viewed easily. With the exception of going through each person on the lineage (and some have thousands), it is impossible to convert them to actual notes. 2) my software allows for NOTEs to have a date and location associated with it ... so I try to extract those from the notes (or at least the first one if the NOTE has numerous events in one note) so they show a chronological sequence to the persons life. 3) standardization of the place names or locations is going to be critical as the software I use that converts the lineage to HTML so it can be viewed on a website also creates a Master Location Index which is wonderful. It sorts all the events in a specific location by country, then state/province, then county/district and then city. It allows the user to look at a specific site like Bay City, Bay Co., Michigan, USA and see all the people that had an 'event' in that city. They can click on the individual and immediately see that persons Family Group Sheet data. The majority of the gedcoms I received are missing mostly the county and sometimes the state. So, I must search within the gedcom to see if I can find other locations with complete information with the same city, cemetery, hospital, church, etc. When I can not find the data that way I needed to go outside to look up with city and find the county. Thank goodness, John Gillon, offered help and I parsed out a! ll the PLAC codes from all the gedcoms and created a list of places I needed information. He has been working on a spreadsheet version which will provide me with the complete information and proper spelling (in some cases). I will then convert the spreadsheet to gedcom so I cam import the place names. These will be compared to all the places in each DNA family places to update the data. John is still working on this so for a couple DNA Families, this is all that is missing to allow me to finish them. 4) Once I 'standardize' the information, remove anyone born after 1900, remove the non-WELLS children information, then I must estimate any birth year for WELLS people where there is no birth date. I usually use about 20-25 years from birth to marriage for men ... about 17 to 21 years for women. When it gets into multiple marriages it gets very tricky. I only estimate marriages usually where multiple marriages have multiple children. I try to base it solely on the children's birth year. This is where a lot of problems come in when different people come in with different women being married to the same man ... AND the mother of the same children. I try to see if I can find any marriage dates quickly on Ancestry.com with marriage data ... or census data. Some of the people do not know there were multiple marriages .. and the step mother usually appears as the mother. 5) After all the 'scrubbing' of the data is complete, I add the researcher information and link them to each individual in their data. I give each WELLS person a 'DNA surname which is actually their DNA Family number". Then I give the eldest WELLS individual a 'fake father' whose 'given name' is the DNA ID number. This 'fake father' provides me a place to link the DNA ID number to the genealogy data for that DNA ID --- entering at the eldest WELLS individual for that gedcom. NOTE: with the exception of about 20 gedcoms, the process to this point is complete with the exception of the place name missing information. 6) When each DNA ID information is complete, I begin combining their genealogy data together with other DNA IDs data of the same DNA Family ... creating one database with all the WELLS data ... thus all the W001 data together, all the W037 together. 7) the next step is to actually 'merge' the same individual from two different ID numbers (a common ancestor) data together. Some have estimated dates, others have exact dates and locations. As I merge them I pick the common 'event' that has the most complete information ... OR ... if the dates or locations are different, I leave BOTH entries not knowing which one is actually correct. Both researchers have reasons for the dates being slightly off ... and they can work out which is which. From some, I suspect one is an actual birth and the other is probably baptism ... or maybe just a typo. As you might expect if I get 6 different IDs with the same family that had 10 children, it takes a lot of merging of the data. Some have spouse information, some do not. As I merge them I can see where one researcher is going to be a great help to others ... or where they need to pull out their proof documents. If I see some that need to get together soon, I usually stop and se! nd a message to the two people suggesting they may want to get together. NOTE: I only have two DNA Family's that I have completed the merge process. 8) part of the merging of the DNA IDs data into DNA Families is to again give me a place to link into for the family. So, to all those 'fake fathers' I now add a 'fake grandfather' with a given name of the DNA Family name ... like W001 or W037. So if you looked at the 'descendancy chart' for a DNA Family you would see: Wells, Wxxx -- fake grandfather Wells, IDxx1 - fake father 1 Researcher for IDxx1 - name, email, linked to each person researching Wells, Joe -- eldest Wells individual for IDxx1 Wells, IDxx2 - fake father 2 Researcher for IDxx2 - name, email, linked to each person researching Wells, Joe -- eldest Wells individual for IDxx2 this would continue for all the DNA ID numbers for this family .. sometimes there is only one ... sometimes ALOT For DNA researchers who did not send me any gedcom data for their WELLS lineage, I do add them as an ID for the family, but indicate that they did not participate in the merge. This alleviates the concern that I 'forgot' to add genealogy data for an ID. NOTE: This is completed for a couple DNA Families. I go to my list to ensure I have all the DNA IDs for each family and verify the name and email address for the people who actually sent data to me. 9) the next step is to send a register with all notes and all events to each person who submitted genealogy data. This will allow them to view the data that was merged and submit any corrections to me. 10) after corrections are made and a report new report is sent, without any reported corrections, I will run the data through a program to create HTML report and upload the data. When it is tested and all looks fine on the temporary website, I will send a message that the DNA Family data is ready for viewing. This process will continue DNA Family by DNA Family until all are done. 11) the last DNA Family to be put up will be the non-DNA tested, maternal genealogy data that has been received. I will run the data through to compare with existing DNA family data to see if the maternal data belongs to a specific DNA Family (genealogical speaking). If a match in the tested data can not be found, they will remain in the W000 family and it will be uploaded as well. 12) I have not tested it as yet, but I hope to have an combined index for all DNA families as well as the maternal W000 family. The plan is to have entry into the database in two ways ... the individual index (either by DNA Family or combined Index) or from a version of the DNA Project Results spreadsheet. However, before I put it up, I have asked Orin to identify the 'baseline' DNA results for each DNA Family, so that it is identified and each ID will see how much they different from the baseline. The format will be like the sheets from WFRA site http://www.wells.org with the DNA ID number (when clicked will take you to the 'fake father' for that ID number), the DNA Family number (when clicked will take you to the 'fake grandfather' for that DNA Family number). One change is that there will be an EMAIL icon for each ID number which will allow you to send a message to the original DNA participant/researcher as it does now. The combined index will also have the list of researchers under a surname of _RESEARCHER, along with their name, DNA Family and DNA ID number. Now that I have put you all asleep ... or confused you so much you need heavy drugs or a stiff drink .. :o) ... If you have any great ideas let me know. Bonita \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking ... Lady Bonita Arizona, USA

T-H-A-N-K Y-O-U Orin and thank you Bonita. I appreciate what you are doing and the information you are helping to provide to us. ----- Original Message ----- From: "OrinWells" <orinwells@wells.org> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS >I have been occupied with other activities while this issue about the >GEDCOM's has been flashing back and forth today. Let me throw my two bits >worth into the fire. > > We all need to recognize that Bonita is making a valiant effort to make it > possible for us to have the genealogies supporting the DNA testing on-line > where users can view it and possibly contribute further to our combined > efforts. I am personally very thankful for her efforts. I am also > feeling very guilty that I have not had the time to provide her with the > support she needs from me with regards to additional gedcoms, updates to > the existing data on the website etc. > > I believe that, to Margaret's point, we must be prepared to make > corrections to ANY of the genealogies (I hate to call them GEDCOMs as this > is only the exchange media for the genealogies). that are posted. They > must NOT be "set in stone". If we all have learned anything from the DNA > it is that we can often discover that what we thought we knew may not be > right. One of the worst problems with Ancestry.com, the LDS IGI and > Personal Ancestral File, genealogies on-line, and many of the other > Internet sources for information is that it is virtually impossible to be > errors corrected. Even when the genealogies are placed on-line by an > individual you often will get a very cold shoulder if you dare to suggest > they have information that needs to be corrected. > > If we can provide a source that can be trusted, then the data will have > credibility. But part of that credibility must be the method and > willingness to make changes when new evidence surfaces as it does from > time to time and I fully expect will happen from the DNA testing. We > still have 3 or 4 new participants getting tested every month with no sign > of slowing down. We have much to learn. As we learn it we will have to > adjust what we are calling the "official" genealogies. > > Exactly how we will make the changes and the processes we will have to > employ for this are yet to be determined. But we must allow for it. I > fully expect we will discover new branches that we will need to add to > many of the trees over the next year. If we find "children" that have > been incorrectly attached to a couple, we must be prepared to correct this > when it is found. > > Once we have the core for each family, the time to add a new branch or > correct a name or remove a wrong branch should be simply to make the > corrections to the base genealogy, generate the new web pages and post > them to the website. At least it "should" be that simple. > > To accomplish this we all need to work together. Many different people > have different parts of the puzzles (it isn't just one). There may be > some genealogies that we have to question because connections have been > suggested for which there appear to be no sources. My suggestion is that > if it looks reasonable we can include it but there should be a way for us > to make an indication that the entry has not been proven. If we have > source documentation for a birth date, marriage date, death date, actual > name, relationship, etc. that this needs to be documented with a > reference. This may be going way beyond what Bonita is trying to > accomplish, so we may have some trouble getting to the prefect scenario. > > We also need to let the family genealogists review the final product > before it "goes to press" and make any corrections that can be justified > and question anything that needs to be questioned. > > This weekend I hope to be able to spend some time on this by getting > material Bonita still needs from me. > > I don't know exactly where she is with regard to the different families. > Personally I would like to see us swing them in one at a time rather than > shotgun them all in place at once. But that is just my opinion. > > Please be gentle with Bonita. We need her. We need what she is doing. > > At 04:21 PM 9/15/2005, Margaret Wells wrote: >>Bonita >> >>With regard to the posting of GEDCOMS, may I say at the outset that I >>recognize that you have taken on a huge amount of work -- probably too >>much for one person. This has placed you in the awkward position of acting >>as arbiter for family trees that remain unsettled. >> >>It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be >>cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at >>all. The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted >>all over the web with the wrong information. >> >>Margaret Wells >> >> >>==== WELLS Mailing List ==== >> Don't Forget >> The Wells Family Research Association >> http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html > > > Orin R. Wells > Wells Family Research Association > P. O. Box 5427 > Kent, Washington 98064-5427 > <OrinWells@wells.org> > http://www.wells.org > Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from this list > send the command "unsubscribe" > to WELLS-L-request@rootsweb.com for list mode > or WELLS-D-request@rootsweb.com for digest mode > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by your Internet Service Provider] > > > --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by your Internet Service Provider]

I have been occupied with other activities while this issue about the GEDCOM's has been flashing back and forth today. Let me throw my two bits worth into the fire. We all need to recognize that Bonita is making a valiant effort to make it possible for us to have the genealogies supporting the DNA testing on-line where users can view it and possibly contribute further to our combined efforts. I am personally very thankful for her efforts. I am also feeling very guilty that I have not had the time to provide her with the support she needs from me with regards to additional gedcoms, updates to the existing data on the website etc. I believe that, to Margaret's point, we must be prepared to make corrections to ANY of the genealogies (I hate to call them GEDCOMs as this is only the exchange media for the genealogies). that are posted. They must NOT be "set in stone". If we all have learned anything from the DNA it is that we can often discover that what we thought we knew may not be right. One of the worst problems with Ancestry.com, the LDS IGI and Personal Ancestral File, genealogies on-line, and many of the other Internet sources for information is that it is virtually impossible to be errors corrected. Even when the genealogies are placed on-line by an individual you often will get a very cold shoulder if you dare to suggest they have information that needs to be corrected. If we can provide a source that can be trusted, then the data will have credibility. But part of that credibility must be the method and willingness to make changes when new evidence surfaces as it does from time to time and I fully expect will happen from the DNA testing. We still have 3 or 4 new participants getting tested every month with no sign of slowing down. We have much to learn. As we learn it we will have to adjust what we are calling the "official" genealogies. Exactly how we will make the changes and the processes we will have to employ for this are yet to be determined. But we must allow for it. I fully expect we will discover new branches that we will need to add to many of the trees over the next year. If we find "children" that have been incorrectly attached to a couple, we must be prepared to correct this when it is found. Once we have the core for each family, the time to add a new branch or correct a name or remove a wrong branch should be simply to make the corrections to the base genealogy, generate the new web pages and post them to the website. At least it "should" be that simple. To accomplish this we all need to work together. Many different people have different parts of the puzzles (it isn't just one). There may be some genealogies that we have to question because connections have been suggested for which there appear to be no sources. My suggestion is that if it looks reasonable we can include it but there should be a way for us to make an indication that the entry has not been proven. If we have source documentation for a birth date, marriage date, death date, actual name, relationship, etc. that this needs to be documented with a reference. This may be going way beyond what Bonita is trying to accomplish, so we may have some trouble getting to the prefect scenario. We also need to let the family genealogists review the final product before it "goes to press" and make any corrections that can be justified and question anything that needs to be questioned. This weekend I hope to be able to spend some time on this by getting material Bonita still needs from me. I don't know exactly where she is with regard to the different families. Personally I would like to see us swing them in one at a time rather than shotgun them all in place at once. But that is just my opinion. Please be gentle with Bonita. We need her. We need what she is doing. At 04:21 PM 9/15/2005, Margaret Wells wrote: >Bonita > >With regard to the posting of GEDCOMS, may I say at the outset that I >recognize that you have taken on a huge amount of work -- probably too >much for one person. This has placed you in the awkward position of acting >as arbiter for family trees that remain unsettled. > >It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be >cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at >all. The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted >all over the web with the wrong information. > >Margaret Wells > > >==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Don't Forget > The Wells Family Research Association > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html Orin R. Wells Wells Family Research Association P. O. Box 5427 Kent, Washington 98064-5427 <OrinWells@wells.org> http://www.wells.org Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb

Margaret I agree with you on two major issues, incorrect GEDCOM's being posted, and the ability to make corrections. This is something the Bonita, Orin, and myself discussed in the beginning. It was decided then that the database of GEDCOM's will be fluid and be able to be changed by the contributor contacting the coordinator. Also, incomplete or unproven info will be clearly noted. My GEDCOM has our oldest ancestor well defined and proven for names and some locations. Other facts such as DOB, DOD, and Marriage dates, & locations is still unproven. To complicate matters, we have a cousin in the UK that was found by DNA results. So far, a common ancestor has not been ID'ed, and neither of our proven genealogies goes back those last 50 or so years needed to find the link. Both families resided in adjacent villiages for generations. Hope this helps. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wells" <maggi59@msn.com> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > Dick > When I discovered that my particular genealogy program inserted notes that I had thought were hidden, I transferred my data to another file, removed all the extraneous notes, and prepared a new GEDCOM -- so I do recognize that problem. > What concerns us is the idea that once the GEDCOM is posted there will be no ability to alter it as new or corrected information turns up. > The problem in our particular line is that there is controversy regarding which child belongs to which parent. While this exists in only a few cases, it is a real problem and one we have not had time to entirely resolve. Few of us live near each other and the resources available to us are different. > Several of us have been working almost nonstop for months now to integrate our data. Despite the fact that the Kent Co Wells have been in the US since at least 1676, the lines of descent are far from settled and it is just inappropriate to post information that cannot later be corrected. Or, that is my feeling. > Margaret Wells > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: D Wells<mailto:dick_dkwnet@direcway.com> > To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > > > Margaret > > There is a little middle ground here. As in my tree, we have Proven names, > but the facts around the births, marriages, and deaths are Unproven. In > some of these cases, unless new records are found, may never be proven. > > Since Bonita's efforts in standardizing the GEDCOM's requires some pruning > of the data, the meaning of a Proven individual is somewhat misleading. > This is a result of the variety of genealogy programs being used and how > individuals are using them. A things must be taken to a lower level of > detail to accomadate everyone. > > There is no easy answer, even if everyone used the same program, people will > do things their own way. > > > Dick > > > > > It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be > cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at all. > The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted all > over the web with the wrong information. > > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > To search Archives of list go to: > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl> > and enter list name > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Please Support Rootsweb > >

Margaret: If there is concern over who is the mother, might I suggest that we leave the mother blank until a marriage record can be found for the three marriages. That way, there is no mistake about who is the 'real' mother. Bonita \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking ... Lady Bonita Arizona, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wells" <maggi59@msn.com> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > Dick > When I discovered that my particular genealogy program inserted notes that > I had thought were hidden, I transferred my data to another file, removed > all the extraneous notes, and prepared a new GEDCOM -- so I do recognize > that problem. > What concerns us is the idea that once the GEDCOM is posted there will be > no ability to alter it as new or corrected information turns up. > The problem in our particular line is that there is controversy regarding > which child belongs to which parent. While this exists in only a few > cases, it is a real problem and one we have not had time to entirely > resolve. Few of us live near each other and the resources available to us > are different. > Several of us have been working almost nonstop for months now to integrate > our data. Despite the fact that the Kent Co Wells have been in the US > since at least 1676, the lines of descent are far from settled and it is > just inappropriate to post information that cannot later be corrected. Or, > that is my feeling. > Margaret Wells > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: D Wells<mailto:dick_dkwnet@direcway.com> > To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:35 PM > Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > > > Margaret > > There is a little middle ground here. As in my tree, we have Proven > names, > but the facts around the births, marriages, and deaths are Unproven. In > some of these cases, unless new records are found, may never be proven. > > Since Bonita's efforts in standardizing the GEDCOM's requires some > pruning > of the data, the meaning of a Proven individual is somewhat misleading. > This is a result of the variety of genealogy programs being used and how > individuals are using them. A things must be taken to a lower level of > detail to accomadate everyone. > > There is no easy answer, even if everyone used the same program, people > will > do things their own way. > > > Dick > > > > > It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be > cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at > all. > The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted all > over the web with the wrong information. > > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > To search Archives of list go to: > > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl> > and enter list name > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Please Support Rootsweb > >

Margaret: We ALL come from families who seem to have not taken proper documentation seriously ... made sure they greeted the enumerator at the door, filed all their papers or even kept a bible. I still have been unable to get past 1792 ... actually, I assume 'Scotty beamed him down'. Believe me your family is far from unique. No, you don't need to apoligize for your family ... but you do need to apologize. Sonja has the entire gedcom which I sent her about an hour ago. I asked her to touch base with the people who submitted the data that she/you feel is in error as I do not want 'their' data changed without a chance to discuss it. This would never have become an issue had you done as I suggested and merged all your own gedcoms and presented me with one. If you are still concerned about continued updates, my offer still stands. Bonita \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking ... Lady Bonita Arizona, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wells" <maggi59@msn.com> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] No value in the DNA gedcom merge? > Bonita > As I stated initially, I value the hard work you have put into this > project. It is NOT something I would have taken on and I admire your > fortitude. Nevertheless, my opinion is as I stated it to be. As we have > explained to you on numerous occasions, most of those currently working on > family W037 only recently came to know of each other and our relationship. > We have been working diligently and almost nonstop to get the best data > possible for your project ... only to be told that we are crazy (read > your first post with reference to family W037). > I suppose we should apologize for coming from a family that lacks a clear > line of descent. > Margaret Wells > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lady Bonita (USA)<mailto:ladybonita@usa.com> > To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:52 PM > Subject: [WELLS-L] No value in the DNA gedcom merge? > > > Margaret: > > I do not agree that there is no value in the gedcoms as if nothing else > it > gets people together to discuss their common interests and possible > information. > > If I had not thought there was value, I would never have volunteered for > the > project. I do find it unusual that the only people that feel they way > you > do are from the W037 family. > If you would like I could remove your gedcom. > > As far as being cast in stone, I would be more than willing provide you > with > the entire database for updates and corrections ongoing. In fact, I > would > be more than happy to pass the entire over to you if you are willing to > accept the challange. > > Bonita > > > > \\\|///<> > \\ ~ ~ // > ( @ @ ) > ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking ... > > Lady Bonita > Arizona, USA > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Margaret Wells" <maggi59@msn.com<mailto:maggi59@msn.com>> > To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com>> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:21 PM > Subject: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > > > > Bonita > > > > With regard to the posting of GEDCOMS, may I say at the outset that I > > recognize that you have taken on a huge amount of work -- probably too > > much for one person. This has placed you in the awkward position of > acting > > as arbiter for family trees that remain unsettled. > > > > It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be > > cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at > > all. The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees > posted > > all over the web with the wrong information. > > > > Margaret Wells > > > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > > Don't Forget > > The Wells Family Research Association > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html<http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html> > > > > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Please Support Rootsweb > > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Don't Forget > The Wells Family Research Association > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html > >

Dick, Margaret's reservations are well founded. It has been my good fortune to have the opportunity to work with Margaret Wells and another researcher Vonda Dihm. They are both very meticulous and scholarly in their research. We have recently made contact with two other researchers of our particular Wells family, Cathy Wells and Charlene Montgomery who share our attention to detail. I don't see where differences in genealogy programs enter into proven. To me proven means that there is documentation. There is a lot of family lore and legend out there to muddy the waters. The old stories are wonderful, but they need to be proven by records. If it is not documented, it should be noted as such. Pruning should only be done by the submitters. Sonja

Dick When I discovered that my particular genealogy program inserted notes that I had thought were hidden, I transferred my data to another file, removed all the extraneous notes, and prepared a new GEDCOM -- so I do recognize that problem. What concerns us is the idea that once the GEDCOM is posted there will be no ability to alter it as new or corrected information turns up. The problem in our particular line is that there is controversy regarding which child belongs to which parent. While this exists in only a few cases, it is a real problem and one we have not had time to entirely resolve. Few of us live near each other and the resources available to us are different. Several of us have been working almost nonstop for months now to integrate our data. Despite the fact that the Kent Co Wells have been in the US since at least 1676, the lines of descent are far from settled and it is just inappropriate to post information that cannot later be corrected. Or, that is my feeling. Margaret Wells ----- Original Message ----- From: D Wells<mailto:dick_dkwnet@direcway.com> To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS Margaret There is a little middle ground here. As in my tree, we have Proven names, but the facts around the births, marriages, and deaths are Unproven. In some of these cases, unless new records are found, may never be proven. Since Bonita's efforts in standardizing the GEDCOM's requires some pruning of the data, the meaning of a Proven individual is somewhat misleading. This is a result of the variety of genealogy programs being used and how individuals are using them. A things must be taken to a lower level of detail to accomadate everyone. There is no easy answer, even if everyone used the same program, people will do things their own way. Dick > > It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at all. The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted all over the web with the wrong information. > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== To search Archives of list go to: http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl> and enter list name

Bonita As I stated initially, I value the hard work you have put into this project. It is NOT something I would have taken on and I admire your fortitude. Nevertheless, my opinion is as I stated it to be. As we have explained to you on numerous occasions, most of those currently working on family W037 only recently came to know of each other and our relationship. We have been working diligently and almost nonstop to get the best data possible for your project ... only to be told that we are crazy (read your first post with reference to family W037). I suppose we should apologize for coming from a family that lacks a clear line of descent. Margaret Wells ----- Original Message ----- From: Lady Bonita (USA)<mailto:ladybonita@usa.com> To: WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:52 PM Subject: [WELLS-L] No value in the DNA gedcom merge? Margaret: I do not agree that there is no value in the gedcoms as if nothing else it gets people together to discuss their common interests and possible information. If I had not thought there was value, I would never have volunteered for the project. I do find it unusual that the only people that feel they way you do are from the W037 family. If you would like I could remove your gedcom. As far as being cast in stone, I would be more than willing provide you with the entire database for updates and corrections ongoing. In fact, I would be more than happy to pass the entire over to you if you are willing to accept the challange. Bonita \\\|///<> \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking ... Lady Bonita Arizona, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wells" <maggi59@msn.com<mailto:maggi59@msn.com>> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:WELLS-L@rootsweb.com>> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:21 PM Subject: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > Bonita > > With regard to the posting of GEDCOMS, may I say at the outset that I > recognize that you have taken on a huge amount of work -- probably too > much for one person. This has placed you in the awkward position of acting > as arbiter for family trees that remain unsettled. > > It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be > cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at > all. The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted > all over the web with the wrong information. > > Margaret Wells > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Don't Forget > The Wells Family Research Association > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html<http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html> > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== Please Support Rootsweb

Where can we find these gedcoms on the web? Thank you.

Hi ... the gedcoms Margaret was referring to are the ones on Rootsweb.com, Ancestry.com, etc. .... lots of places. The ones I have collected will be put on my temporary website (will be moved to Orin's WFRA website when I am finished). I will send a message as each DNA Family is completed and uploaded. Which family are you interested in? Bonita \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking ... Lady Bonita Arizona, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: <Beeskep@aol.com> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > Where can we find these gedcoms on the web? Thank you. > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Please Support Rootsweb > >

Sonja: I believe that each submitter of gedcoms feels that they have pruned their gedcom before they sent it. The information they provided is 'to the best of their knowledge' ... some with great documentation and some none ... but, who are you or I to say it is bad ... The pruning that I have done is to remove much of the notes as I believe the accuracy should be in the data and the source citiation of the data ... except W037 where I have allowed long, laborious notes. I have done this because you, Margaret and Vonda have insisted that they were necessary. I have bent over backwards to please you three ... obviously, you are unhappy with my work. As I offered to Margaret, any time you want to take over the project, I would be more than happy to give it to you ....lock, stock and barrel ... today! Bonita \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking ... Lady Bonita Arizona, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: <SMBEDWELL@aol.com> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:16 PM Subject: Re: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > Dick, > > Margaret's reservations are well founded. It has been my good fortune to > have the opportunity to work with Margaret Wells and another researcher > Vonda > Dihm. They are both very meticulous and scholarly in their research. We > have > recently made contact with two other researchers of our particular Wells > family, Cathy Wells and Charlene Montgomery who share our attention to > detail. > > I don't see where differences in genealogy programs enter into proven. To > me > proven means that there is documentation. There is a lot of family lore > and > legend out there to muddy the waters. The old stories are wonderful, but > they > need to be proven by records. If it is not documented, it should be noted > as > such. Pruning should only be done by the submitters. > > Sonja > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > To search Archives of list go to: > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl > and enter list name > >

Margaret: I do not agree that there is no value in the gedcoms as if nothing else it gets people together to discuss their common interests and possible information. If I had not thought there was value, I would never have volunteered for the project. I do find it unusual that the only people that feel they way you do are from the W037 family. If you would like I could remove your gedcom. As far as being cast in stone, I would be more than willing provide you with the entire database for updates and corrections ongoing. In fact, I would be more than happy to pass the entire over to you if you are willing to accept the challange. Bonita \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking ... Lady Bonita Arizona, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wells" <maggi59@msn.com> To: <WELLS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:21 PM Subject: [WELLS-L] GEDCOMS > Bonita > > With regard to the posting of GEDCOMS, may I say at the outset that I > recognize that you have taken on a huge amount of work -- probably too > much for one person. This has placed you in the awkward position of acting > as arbiter for family trees that remain unsettled. > > It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be > cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at > all. The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted > all over the web with the wrong information. > > Margaret Wells > > > ==== WELLS Mailing List ==== > Don't Forget > The Wells Family Research Association > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html > >

Margaret There is a little middle ground here. As in my tree, we have Proven names, but the facts around the births, marriages, and deaths are Unproven. In some of these cases, unless new records are found, may never be proven. Since Bonita's efforts in standardizing the GEDCOM's requires some pruning of the data, the meaning of a Proven individual is somewhat misleading. This is a result of the variety of genealogy programs being used and how individuals are using them. A things must be taken to a lower level of detail to accomadate everyone. There is no easy answer, even if everyone used the same program, people will do things their own way. Dick > > It is my considered opinion that if all the lines of descent are to be cast in stone in the manner you describe, they should not be posted at all. The information will be no better than any of dozens of trees posted all over the web with the wrong information. >