I have a question ... I have several individuals that have been adopted but the biological parents are known. As far as DNA, I know the biological parents should be primary for DNA line, but what about the adoptive parents? This pops up its head with Orphan Train children As far as names, I use the primary name as the name at the time of birth. Then if I know the adoption date, I record the adopted name with that date. Sample: Name: Jane Biological surname: Doe Adoptive surname: Smith Married surname: Jones Primary name: Jane Doe Adopted name: Jane Smith or Jane Doe Smith ?? Married name: Mrs. Jane (Doe-Smith) Jones ?? Another issue is more current . children born without parents being married. I take the child's name on the birth certificate as primary. Normally, it is the mother's maiden [or current] name but DNA wise, the father's surname should be noted. What I have been doing is use the child's birth name and if the father is known, I add him as the father. If the census shows the child listed with the father's surname, then I add an alternative name showing the child with both surnames . the mother's in the middle. Since I know the name is not 'legal' my question is how to record both surnames of the parents when parents are not married? Bonita \\\|/// \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) ----oOOo-(_)-oOOo---- Just Looking for clues ... Lady Bonita Nevada, USA High Desert Embroidery <http://www.highdesertemb.com> http://www.highdesertemb.com <mailto:highdesertembroidery@gmail.com> highdesertembroidery@gmail.com Wells Surname DNA Study Merge <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hillmer/DNA/index.htm> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hillmer/DNA/index.htm Hillmer Surname Database <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hillmer/index.htm> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hillmer/index.htm

I believe it is correct to use the maiden name not a former spouse's name. I add other spouse names into my note field and link her to her other husband(s) in my genealogical program. Thus if you do not know the maiden name leave blank. For anyone doing otherwise I think they should check and see what professional genealogist say is proper, otherwise all we do in confuse others further down the road. Jean Leeper grannyroots@iowatelecom.net "Watch What You Say or Do, You Might Sell Your Parrot To The Town Gossip and If You Don't Have A Parrot Someone Above May Be Watching You" http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jeanlee Cedar Creek Cemetery http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jeanlee/cedarcreekcemetery.htm Salem Friends Cemetery http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ialqm/SalemSouthCemetery.html Lewelling Quaker Museum http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ialqm/index.htm On Mar 11, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Carl Hommel wrote: > Since we are discussing not agreeing tonight, I do not agree with (1) below. > When I put a woman's last name in parenthesis, it means it was her last name > before the marriage under discussion. Say Alice Jones, d. Ken Jones, marries > Bob Smith, he dies, she marries Sam Brown. I name her Alice (Jones) (Smith) > in the Brown marriage record. If I do not know her father's name, I call her > Alice (Unknown) (Smith). This keeps the trail record so I know who I am > talking about. > I am following this guideline in my current project of digitizing the > Amherst MA VRs. > Carl Hommel > -----Original Message----- > From: Rosemarie Novak > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:11 PM > To: wells@rootsweb.com > Subject: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! > > > Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! - - > As ALL professional genealogists do, we document our sources. - - > 1.) NEVER ever put a woman's last name in parentheses meaning its her maiden > name because it may be the last name of a previous husband. - - Until you > have a BIRTH RECORD or MARRIAGE RECORD that shows the names of her father > and mother, you do NOT know that is her maiden name. > - - > 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL DEAL! > If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just a > guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. > - - > 3.) The capital letters I use are for emphasis on the words I want you to > pay attention to. - I'm NOT yelling. > > > > ****** > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I agree to disagree with that. When you add parenthesis to names, I have to go in and take them out. The software I'm using (Family Tree Maker) makes it super easy to track marriages without having to corrupt the data. As a professional programmer and database analyst, the rule is never pollute the data that is being stored, especially historical or archival data. The more important the information, the more critical it is to *preserve* it's integrity. But that's just my opinion... :) -Mike Wells On Mar 11, 2012 5:33 PM, "Carl Hommel" <chommel6@comcast.net> wrote: > Since we are discussing not agreeing tonight, I do not agree with (1) > below. > When I put a woman's last name in parenthesis, it means it was her last > name > before the marriage under discussion. Say Alice Jones, d. Ken Jones, > marries > Bob Smith, he dies, she marries Sam Brown. I name her Alice (Jones) (Smith) > in the Brown marriage record. If I do not know her father's name, I call > her > Alice (Unknown) (Smith). This keeps the trail record so I know who I am > talking about. > I am following this guideline in my current project of digitizing the > Amherst MA VRs. > Carl Hommel > -----Original Message----- > From: Rosemarie Novak > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:11 PM > To: wells@rootsweb.com > Subject: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! > > > Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! - - > As ALL professional genealogists do, we document our sources. - - > 1.) NEVER ever put a woman's last name in parentheses meaning its her > maiden > name because it may be the last name of a previous husband. - - Until you > have a BIRTH RECORD or MARRIAGE RECORD that shows the names of her father > and mother, you do NOT know that is her maiden name. > - - > 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL > DEAL! > If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just a > guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. > - - > 3.) The capital letters I use are for emphasis on the words I want you to > pay attention to. - I'm NOT yelling. > > > > ****** > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in > the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Since we are discussing not agreeing tonight, I do not agree with (1) below. When I put a woman's last name in parenthesis, it means it was her last name before the marriage under discussion. Say Alice Jones, d. Ken Jones, marries Bob Smith, he dies, she marries Sam Brown. I name her Alice (Jones) (Smith) in the Brown marriage record. If I do not know her father's name, I call her Alice (Unknown) (Smith). This keeps the trail record so I know who I am talking about. I am following this guideline in my current project of digitizing the Amherst MA VRs. Carl Hommel -----Original Message----- From: Rosemarie Novak Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:11 PM To: wells@rootsweb.com Subject: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! - - As ALL professional genealogists do, we document our sources. - - 1.) NEVER ever put a woman's last name in parentheses meaning its her maiden name because it may be the last name of a previous husband. - - Until you have a BIRTH RECORD or MARRIAGE RECORD that shows the names of her father and mother, you do NOT know that is her maiden name. - - 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL DEAL! If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just a guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. - - 3.) The capital letters I use are for emphasis on the words I want you to pay attention to. - I'm NOT yelling. ****** ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

That is what I do, Jean ... If the maiden name is unknown I fill surname with 5 'underscore' ... that way on paper it can be filled in if found. The maiden name I always put in parenthesis. I probably overdo it in the Merge as I want anyone searching to be able to find her under any of her surnames .. :o) Maiden: Jane ____ 1st marriage Mrs. Jane DOE (_____) 2nd marriage Mrs. Jane BROWN (_____) When there are step children I always add a marriage name for her previous marriage. Lady Bonita Nevada, USA High Desert Embroidery http://www.highdesertemb.com highdesertembroidery@gmail.com Wells Surname DNA Study Merge http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hillmer/DNA/index.htm Hillmer Surname Database http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hillmer/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: wells-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:wells-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jean Leeper Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:19 PM To: wells@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! I believe it is correct to use the maiden name not a former spouse's name. I add other spouse names into my note field and link her to her other husband(s) in my genealogical program. Thus if you do not know the maiden name leave blank. For anyone doing otherwise I think they should check and see what professional genealogist say is proper, otherwise all we do in confuse others further down the road. Jean Leeper grannyroots@iowatelecom.net "Watch What You Say or Do, You Might Sell Your Parrot To The Town Gossip and If You Don't Have A Parrot Someone Above May Be Watching You" http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jeanlee Cedar Creek Cemetery http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jeanlee/cedarcreekcemetery .htm Salem Friends Cemetery http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ialqm/SalemSouthCemetery.html Lewelling Quaker Museum http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ialqm/index.htm On Mar 11, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Carl Hommel wrote: > Since we are discussing not agreeing tonight, I do not agree with (1) below. > When I put a woman's last name in parenthesis, it means it was her > last name before the marriage under discussion. Say Alice Jones, d. > Ken Jones, marries Bob Smith, he dies, she marries Sam Brown. I name > her Alice (Jones) (Smith) in the Brown marriage record. If I do not > know her father's name, I call her Alice (Unknown) (Smith). This keeps > the trail record so I know who I am talking about. > I am following this guideline in my current project of digitizing the > Amherst MA VRs. > Carl Hommel > -----Original Message----- > From: Rosemarie Novak > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:11 PM > To: wells@rootsweb.com > Subject: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! > > > Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! - - As ALL > professional genealogists do, we document our sources. - - > 1.) NEVER ever put a woman's last name in parentheses meaning its her > maiden name because it may be the last name of a previous husband. - - > Until you have a BIRTH RECORD or MARRIAGE RECORD that shows the names > of her father and mother, you do NOT know that is her maiden name. > - - > 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL DEAL! > If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just > a guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. > - - > 3.) The capital letters I use are for emphasis on the words I want you > to pay attention to. - I'm NOT yelling. > > > > ****** > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Carl Hommel said: "When I put a woman's last name in parenthesis, it means it was her last name before the marriage under discussion. Say Alice Jones, d. Ken Jones, marries Bob Smith, he dies, she marries Sam Brown. I name her Alice (Jones) (Smith) in the Brown marriage record. If I do not know her father's name, I call her Alice (Unknown) (Smith)." This is exactly what I do, too, and it keeps the record straight. Elizabeth Engle

Ditto -- it is hard to get the participants to provide any data ... there are many that are 'missing'. Many came in with just names .. I do try to update based on census ... and provide both where data conflicts. Bonita -----Original Message----- From: wells-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:wells-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:50 AM To: wells@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! With regard to information in the DNA study and on the Wells site if you spot something that is amiss and have evidence to show why you believe it to be so by all means PLEASE challenge it. As indicated there is a huge amount of bad genealogy on the Internet, in books and elsewhere. We don't want to carry the bad stuff forward. As to "requiring" people to provide documented genealogies we have chosen to err in favor of accepting more or less on face value what the participants have developed in their research. That means we do end up with wrong information that has to be changed once we figure out what is incorrect. The DNA study literally blew away some folks ancestors - but I think having the facts outweighs a romantic belief in an ancestor someone conjured up to fill a hole. This happened in my family as well. Our earliest "ancestor", Nathaniel Wells, had to be trimmed off the tree because there is absolutely no evidence to prove the person alleged ever existed. The same thing happened with Hugh Welles and Frances Belcher. They simply did not exist or at least someone sort of invented them to provide parents to Thomas Wells although his parents Thomas Wells and Frances Albrigth did exist. According to Prof. Albert Welles from whose book both of these incorrect ancestors seem to have originated or at least were picked up from bad New England "histories" or genealogies, these two were supposed to have been brothers. They certainly weren't as proven by the DNA What we REALLY want to do is get to the truth. If we have wrong stuff in the Wells project, please bring it to our attention. On 3/11/2012 10:36 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: > I agree Vicki! - What I have looked at doesn't match my DOCUMENTED information! >

I agree completely. Could you "require" that the participants in the DNA study supply documentation....or at least show which ones have documentation and which ones don't? There is bad information in ALL the Genealogy sites including our own study. On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Orin Wells <orinwells@wells.org> wrote: > A further comment on this. Do not assume that "documented sources" are > fact unless you can see the original document or verify it > independently I can't tell you how many I have run to ground that > turned out to be just plain made up by someone. That includes > references to parish records that simply didn't exist. > > On 3/11/2012 9:11 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: > > 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL > DEAL! > > If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just a > guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: genquest4 Surnames: Wells, Brown Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.wells/5575/mb.ashx Message Board Post: The estate papers of both Humphrey Wells Jr. and his wife Sibylla Elbert Wells list their six living children when they died. The youngest daughter was Ann born 15 January 1745. The estate papers for her uncle George Wells show her in 1769 as "now Ann Brown." Does anyone know who Ann married or what happened to them? Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

Neither I nor Bonnie could possibly ever conduct personal research into all the families involved in the Wells DNA project. We do get sucked in from time to time to run something down, validate bits that look wrong or to help fill in gaps. We must primarily rely on the family researchers to provide the information and corrections. The particular information you refer to was provided by a Wells researcher and descendant of Peter Wells (proven connection via DNA test) of Rhode Island. The material appears to have been from a hand-written genealogy from 1942 and updated in 1966. Please feel free to challenge anything you see you feel is incorrect. If it is wrong we can and will update such pages with more recent or more correct information. It is my feeling that nothing is sacred in genealogical work. On 3/11/2012 10:40 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: > How correct is this? - Its on the Wells Association website and I'm afraid I question it. > > > Peter Wells-b. 1713 (Warwick, RI. rec.). d. Cheshire, Berkshire Cty., MA. 1st Mar: 1736 to Elizabeth Arnold: 1710-1739). 2nd Mar: 1740 to Ruth Slocum. D/of Ebenezer and Naomi Barton Slocum. > Children by Elizabeth Arnold Wells: 4.) Edward Wells b: 1736, moved to PA. 4.) Ann Wells b: 1737 4.) Arnold Wells b: 1738. Mar: Barbara Utter in1762 4.) Elizabeth Wells b: 1739. > Children by Ruth Slocum: > 4.) (x) John Wells: 1744, Kingstown, RI.-1813. Mar: Frances Brown: 1745-1842. Moved to Cheshire, MA. About 1769. Erected house there, owned farm in 1780. Five generations of Wellses lived in it, and there was always a John W… (handwritten note says Naomi 1747?) > 4.) Samuel Wells b: ? Moved to Berlin, Rensselaer Cty., NY. (1750 handwritten) > 5.) Elisha Wells: 1767-1822. Mar: Mary Wilmarth: 1769-1853. Had 11 chdn. 5.) John Brown Wells: 1769-1822. 5.) Charles Wells: 1770-1858. 5.) Johanna Wells (no rec.) > 5.) (x) Rufus Wells (no record) prob.~ 1774 or 1775. Mar: Mary Phillips of Berkshire Co., MA. Estate admin. 1816-1819, cash from Peter Wells by Samuel Weels.. Mary Phillips was a Quaker. > Children of Rufus and Mary Phillips Wells: > 6) (x); James Van Rensslaer Wells: 23 Dec. 1797-17 Marchd 1884, KS. When a small boy, moved to Erie Cty., PA., by covered wagon, and settled near Gerard and Hickory Corners. Mar: 4 July 1818 to Sybil Westcoat: 14 July 1798-1843. Confusing records: also known as Sybel Westcott, died Sept. 26, 1845. Both natives of Cheshire, MA. Prob. married near Gerard, PA. Had moved there with his widowed mother, brothers and sisters. History of Girard (sp.?) Twp., Erie Cty., PA. of about 1830 lists James Wells as one of the earliest settlers. He owned most of the land within the corporate limits. The public square was a gift of "Joseph Wells", undoubtedly meant to be James, as historians made many errors of this type, in recording names. James was one of the owners of the land on which the village was laid out. He had 8 chdn. by Sybil W., and 2 by his 2nd wife, Clarissa Vorde. > > > ****** > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

With regard to information in the DNA study and on the Wells site if you spot something that is amiss and have evidence to show why you believe it to be so by all means PLEASE challenge it. As indicated there is a huge amount of bad genealogy on the Internet, in books and elsewhere. We don't want to carry the bad stuff forward. As to "requiring" people to provide documented genealogies we have chosen to err in favor of accepting more or less on face value what the participants have developed in their research. That means we do end up with wrong information that has to be changed once we figure out what is incorrect. The DNA study literally blew away some folks ancestors - but I think having the facts outweighs a romantic belief in an ancestor someone conjured up to fill a hole. This happened in my family as well. Our earliest "ancestor", Nathaniel Wells, had to be trimmed off the tree because there is absolutely no evidence to prove the person alleged ever existed. The same thing happened with Hugh Welles and Frances Belcher. They simply did not exist or at least someone sort of invented them to provide parents to Thomas Wells although his parents Thomas Wells and Frances Albrigth did exist. According to Prof. Albert Welles from whose book both of these incorrect ancestors seem to have originated or at least were picked up from bad New England "histories" or genealogies, these two were supposed to have been brothers. They certainly weren't as proven by the DNA What we REALLY want to do is get to the truth. If we have wrong stuff in the Wells project, please bring it to our attention. On 3/11/2012 10:36 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: > I agree Vicki! - What I have looked at doesn't match my DOCUMENTED information! > > > ****** > > > > >> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:15:38 -0400 >> From: vickiwcox@gmail.com >> To: orinwells@wells.org; wells@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! >> >> I agree completely. Could you "require" that the participants in the DNA >> study supply documentation....or at least show which ones have >> documentation and which ones don't? There is bad information in ALL the >> Genealogy sites including our own study. >> >> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Orin Wells<orinwells@wells.org> wrote: >> >> >>> A further comment on this. Do not assume that "documented sources" are >>> fact unless you can see the original document or verify it >>> independently I can't tell you how many I have run to ground that >>> turned out to be just plain made up by someone. That includes >>> references to parish records that simply didn't exist. >>> >>> On 3/11/2012 9:11 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: >>> >>>> 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL >>>> >>> DEAL! >>> >>>> If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just a >>>> >>> guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. >>> >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

How correct is this? - Its on the Wells Association website and I'm afraid I question it. Peter Wells-b. 1713 (Warwick, RI. rec.). d. Cheshire, Berkshire Cty., MA. 1st Mar: 1736 to Elizabeth Arnold: 1710-1739). 2nd Mar: 1740 to Ruth Slocum. D/of Ebenezer and Naomi Barton Slocum. Children by Elizabeth Arnold Wells: 4.) Edward Wells b: 1736, moved to PA. 4.) Ann Wells b: 1737 4.) Arnold Wells b: 1738. Mar: Barbara Utter in1762 4.) Elizabeth Wells b: 1739. Children by Ruth Slocum: 4.) (x) John Wells: 1744, Kingstown, RI.-1813. Mar: Frances Brown: 1745-1842. Moved to Cheshire, MA. About 1769. Erected house there, owned farm in 1780. Five generations of Wellses lived in it, and there was always a John W… (handwritten note says Naomi 1747?) 4.) Samuel Wells b: ? Moved to Berlin, Rensselaer Cty., NY. (1750 handwritten) 5.) Elisha Wells: 1767-1822. Mar: Mary Wilmarth: 1769-1853. Had 11 chdn. 5.) John Brown Wells: 1769-1822. 5.) Charles Wells: 1770-1858. 5.) Johanna Wells (no rec.) 5.) (x) Rufus Wells (no record) prob.~ 1774 or 1775. Mar: Mary Phillips of Berkshire Co., MA. Estate admin. 1816-1819, cash from Peter Wells by Samuel Weels.. Mary Phillips was a Quaker. Children of Rufus and Mary Phillips Wells: 6) (x); James Van Rensslaer Wells: 23 Dec. 1797-17 Marchd 1884, KS. When a small boy, moved to Erie Cty., PA., by covered wagon, and settled near Gerard and Hickory Corners. Mar: 4 July 1818 to Sybil Westcoat: 14 July 1798-1843. Confusing records: also known as Sybel Westcott, died Sept. 26, 1845. Both natives of Cheshire, MA. Prob. married near Gerard, PA. Had moved there with his widowed mother, brothers and sisters. History of Girard (sp.?) Twp., Erie Cty., PA. of about 1830 lists James Wells as one of the earliest settlers. He owned most of the land within the corporate limits. The public square was a gift of "Joseph Wells", undoubtedly meant to be James, as historians made many errors of this type, in recording names. James was one of the owners of the land on which the village was laid out. He had 8 chdn. by Sybil W., and 2 by his 2nd wife, Clarissa Vorde. ******

I agree Vicki! - What I have looked at doesn't match my DOCUMENTED information! ****** > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:15:38 -0400 > From: vickiwcox@gmail.com > To: orinwells@wells.org; wells@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! > > I agree completely. Could you "require" that the participants in the DNA > study supply documentation....or at least show which ones have > documentation and which ones don't? There is bad information in ALL the > Genealogy sites including our own study. > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Orin Wells <orinwells@wells.org> wrote: > > > A further comment on this. Do not assume that "documented sources" are > > fact unless you can see the original document or verify it > > independently I can't tell you how many I have run to ground that > > turned out to be just plain made up by someone. That includes > > references to parish records that simply didn't exist. > > > > On 3/11/2012 9:11 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: > > > 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL > > DEAL! > > > If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just a > > guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I would be happy to make any changes that are not correct. Lady Bonita Nevada, USA -----Original Message----- From: wells-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:wells-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Rosemarie Novak Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:37 AM To: wells@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! I agree Vicki! - What I have looked at doesn't match my DOCUMENTED information! ****** > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:15:38 -0400 > From: vickiwcox@gmail.com > To: orinwells@wells.org; wells@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! > > I agree completely. Could you "require" that the participants in the > DNA study supply documentation....or at least show which ones have > documentation and which ones don't? There is bad information in ALL > the Genealogy sites including our own study. > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Orin Wells <orinwells@wells.org> wrote: > > > A further comment on this. Do not assume that "documented sources" > > are fact unless you can see the original document or verify it > > independently I can't tell you how many I have run to ground that > > turned out to be just plain made up by someone. That includes > > references to parish records that simply didn't exist. > > > > On 3/11/2012 9:11 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: > > > 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the > > > REAL > > DEAL! > > > If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its > > > just a > > guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! - - As ALL professional genealogists do, we document our sources. - - 1.) NEVER ever put a woman's last name in parentheses meaning its her maiden name because it may be the last name of a previous husband. - - Until you have a BIRTH RECORD or MARRIAGE RECORD that shows the names of her father and mother, you do NOT know that is her maiden name. - - 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL DEAL! If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just a guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. - - 3.) The capital letters I use are for emphasis on the words I want you to pay attention to. - I'm NOT yelling. ******

A further comment on this. Do not assume that "documented sources" are fact unless you can see the original document or verify it independently I can't tell you how many I have run to ground that turned out to be just plain made up by someone. That includes references to parish records that simply didn't exist. On 3/11/2012 9:11 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: > 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL DEAL! > If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just a guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. >

Has anyone been tested from the line of LINUS WELLS? - I am close friends with a Descendant, MALE, and could possibly t alk him into being tested if no one has been tested yet............... ******

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: tbc4e Surnames: Wells, Brown, Crumb Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.wells/5574/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I am looking for information on John Wells (b. abt 1711) and his wife Amy (Amey) Wilcox (b. 1711). I have found a few unsourced references to daughters Amey, Hannah, Dorothy and Patience. I strongly suspect that they were the parents of Anna (is Anna same as Amey) Wells who married Ebenezer Brown. Their children end up in Unadilla Forks, Otsego Co. So does Patience Wells Crumb. Furthermore, the names of Ebenezer and Anna's children are consistent w/ the names of Amey Wilcox's relatives. Any leads would be appreciated? Some have John Wells dying young and Amey remarrying. Was there a will? Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

Who were the fatthers of Caleb Van Rensselaer Wells, James Van Rensselaer Wells????? ******

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: benpeake17 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.wells/1230.2570.3/mb.ashx Message Board Post: he is my great great ( possible another great) uncle Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.